NYT: "Peak College Admissions Insanity"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I mean forget elite schools. The insanity goes beyond the Ivy League. Flagship state schools are very, very competitive.

This is what’s scary to me. When we are telling kids with basically perfect GPAs who took all the hardest classes at their school “you might not get into Maryland” there is something wrong with the system. The top state college should be able to accept and educate our state’s top students.

I just wish Maryland had decent livable laid back college towns with strong second tier schools. At least if smarter or more driven kids are going to Towson or Salisbury, those schools (and towns) will step up their game.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:For Rania the news was not so good: A full ride at Wesleyan.

Poor Rania.

Higher education is so broken in this country. The utterly ridiculous cost, shameless unethical admissions processes, the dumb idea that if a university has space for a good portion of its applicants that there is something wrong with it (Do we want our universities to educate the populace or not?), employers focusing on just a few top schools, etc.

Who is rania?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For Rania the news was not so good: A full ride at Wesleyan.

Poor Rania.

Higher education is so broken in this country. The utterly ridiculous cost, shameless unethical admissions processes, the dumb idea that if a university has space for a good portion of its applicants that there is something wrong with it (Do we want our universities to educate the populace or not?), employers focusing on just a few top schools, etc.

Who is rania?

Rania from the article in the first post.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I have not read every post on this thread. I agree with the above post. Anyone involved in the hiring process for employees? Curious to see if companies are starting to broaden their list of colleges that employees are hired from?

Companies are not charities. It costs them extra time and money to visit more schools. What's the business case?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I thought it was good and covered all bases, except one, that I continue to rant about.

Part of the reason there is so much competition for the top schools is because so-called elite employers only recruit from them. We need companies to see that there are tons of bright students everywhere. Just look at the girl profiled in the article who is clearly smart and likely has a ton of grit. She's going to Hunter College where no investment bank or MBB would ever look to hire from. Until that mindset is broken, things will not change.

Perhaps. True talent doesn’t find itself at this firms.

[Anonymous]

Did anyone catch the dig on Northeastern - I was floored that Northeastern's per pupil spending was "less per student on instruction than the Boston public schools." Now, granted, Boston spends more per student than any other district, but still - you would think a private university that charges $80K/year to educate 20K bright, motivated kids could do better than a school district that is trying to educate 54,000 kids with various levels of readiness and other issues.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What boost did she receive in being admitted to Johns Hopkins and Michigan?

Can we talk about Wisconsin being ignored despite having top departments? Very few top students there by choice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Depends on the school, but legacy is not a big hook at many of the most selective ones, notoriously Princeton and Yale. My kids got into my alma mater AND one of the other HYPS schools.

Huh? Legacy is huge at Princeton.

[Anonymous]

No, it isn’t. I know legacies at Cornell, Brown, Chicago and Yale after not getting into Princeton.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The elite schools are basically a harry potter sorting hat for IB, Big Law etc.. and what they really are doing is creating a net work among the already rich/elite kids. Middle class smart kids may get in but very few have the contacts and skills to net work themselves up that high. The richer you are the less relevant your major needs to be

I don’t agree with this. As a low income student, etc. who went to one of these schools, there have not been any barriers as far as ascending, etc. Frankly, once you’re in a company—and I’m talking about companies with established governing structures like public companies, companies that are close to IPOing, long-standing private companies, etc. your school/prior contacts are not going to tip the needle on mobility. It’s about showing impact, thinking outside of the box, being well-liked among your peers/leadership, and being able to make the case that you’re ready for the next job level.

No company is 100% a meritocracy, but a lot of companies try to get as close to this as possible. Also, in the hiring processes, especially for standard/non-exec employees (really anything below VPs) there are controls in place to stem nepotism. For example, hiring processes with an emphasis on performance rather than who you know. A VP can refer someone for a role but if the hiring manager does not think they are a fit/they don’t perform well in the interview (s), or there just happens to be a better candidate, even if by a millimeter, they’re not getting hired. Also, I generally don’t observe VPs recommending candidates, especially at lower levels (i.e., roles/levels that do not report to VPs). They may recommend a peer, another potential VP, or someone within C-Suite. The pool for this levels of jobs (i.e., executive leadership) is quite low. Most people will never make it to this level irrespective of school, wealth, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I have no issues with my kid doing a trade school. DC will own their own business, hire your kids from top colleges to work for them and make a zillion dollars. They will not be sitting in an office all day working 60 hours/wk for someone else to make money off them and living for holidays/weekends. They will think for themselves and offer tangible solutions for their clients.

That's a good plan, too but you are on a wrong forum. This is a college forum. Go to a trade school forum.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No, it isn’t. I know legacies at Cornell, Brown, Chicago and Yale after not getting into Princeton.

Princeton is in the worst possible place with legacy. The numbers are something like

1/4 legacies get in

1/40 non-legacies get in

The alumni community thinks legacy is worthless, because most of their kids get denied. Meanwhile everyone else can see that if you aren’t a legacy you’re in a much worse position.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No, it isn’t. I know legacies at Cornell, Brown, Chicago and Yale after not getting into Princeton.

Princeton is in the worst possible place with legacy. The numbers are something like

1/4 legacies get in

1/40 non-legacies get in

The alumni community thinks legacy is worthless, because most of their kids get denied. Meanwhile everyone else can see that if you aren’t a legacy you’re in a much worse position.

No Hopkins is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The elite schools are basically a harry potter sorting hat for IB, Big Law etc.. and what they really are doing is creating a net work among the already rich/elite kids. Middle class smart kids may get in but very few have the contacts and skills to net work themselves up that high. The richer you are the less relevant your major needs to be

I don’t agree with this. As a low income student, etc. who went to one of these schools, there have not been any barriers as far as ascending, etc. Frankly, once you’re in a company—and I’m talking about companies with established governing structures like public companies, companies that are close to IPOing, long-standing private companies, etc. your school/prior contacts are not going to tip the needle on mobility. It’s about showing impact, thinking outside of the box, being well-liked among your peers/leadership, and being able to make the case that you’re ready for the next job level.

No company is 100% a meritocracy, but a lot of companies try to get as close to this as possible. Also, in the hiring processes, especially for standard/non-exec employees (really anything below VPs) there are controls in place to stem nepotism. For example, hiring processes with an emphasis on performance rather than who you know. A VP can refer someone for a role but if the hiring manager does not think they are a fit/they don’t perform well in the interview (s), or there just happens to be a better candidate, even if by a millimeter, they’re not getting hired. Also, I generally don’t observe VPs recommending candidates, especially at lower levels (i.e., roles/levels that do not report to VPs). They may recommend a peer, another potential VP, or someone within C-Suite. The pool for this levels of jobs (i.e., executive leadership) is quite low. Most people will never make it to this level irrespective of school, wealth, etc.

+1 as a middle class kid who went to a top Ivy for undergrad then a top law school. I do agree that the rich elite kids did tend to stick together during college, and I was not and will never be part of whatever network they have. But I had no trouble breaking into Biglaw, which from my observation is based on merit - interviews, grades to get an offer. And quality of work to stay employed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For Rania the news was not so good: A full ride at Wesleyan.

Poor Rania.

Higher education is so broken in this country. The utterly ridiculous cost, shameless unethical admissions processes, the dumb idea that if a university has space for a good portion of its applicants that there is something wrong with it (Do we want our universities to educate the populace or not?), employers focusing on just a few top schools, etc.

Who is rania?

Rania from the article in the first post.

DP. It's not even an article. It's an opinion piece from a very slanted perspective. The writer seems ignorant of ED rules and financial aid, but seeing he is from the Ed dept under the Trump administration, I think it is duplicity rather than ignorance.