Have colleges totally lost their value as a signal?

[Anonymous]

https://features.thecrimson.com/2021/freshman-survey/makeup-narrative/

Over 75% of Harvard's Class of 2025 identified as white or Asian.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Too many anecdotal experience or observations from too long ago (1950!?!) being made while ignoring the data, which does exist for anyone who wants to spend some time going down the google rabbit hole.

In short, what has happened since the 1990s is that the elite Ivies students have both grown richer while simultaneously having more first gen/working class kids. How is this possible? A dimorphic student body that seems almost entirely wealthy students and full financial aid students. The middle cohort, the middle class kids, the UMC but not wealthy kids, have been squeezed out significantly. All this data is out there thanks to researchers and the infamous Harvard lawsuits. So it does lend credibility to the argument that meritocracy has declined.

Some of it is surely related to costs. The growing donut hole gap covers a bigger range of incomes compared to 20 years ago. Ivies seem to prioritize more first gen/URM students on massive fin aid packages instead of more middle/lower UMC kids on middling fin aid packages. Probably because the former provides the equity and diversity while the latter doesn't.

This is one of the only useful posts on this thread.

[Anonymous]

Today's students aren't even penalized in their raw score for wrong answers on the SAT!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I went to a state flagship and also to a "big 3" type school. The smartest people at my college were every bit as genius as the smartest people from my high school, many of whom went on to Ivy's/elite private colleges and universities.

I would think so, given that many state flagships have tens of thousands of students.

What percentage of a state flagship's students are genius level?

Different missions, so your question is silly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

When the current generation of college student parents applied to and attended college, there was a clear correlation between intelligence and school reputation/ranking

A faulty premise. A faulty premise just makes you, Op, sound less intelligent. There are some state university students, at all state universities, at all kinds of colleges, who could have been admitted to an ivy.

Do you know what correlation means? There are always exceptions, perhaps many, but the point is there is a strong relationship. Yale kids were on average smarter than Wash U kids who were smarter than UMD kids. That relationship still holds but is now much weaker.

I don't think it holds at all.

I went to a state flagship and also to a "big 3" type school. The smartest people at my college were every bit as genius as the smartest people from my high school, many of whom went on to Ivy's/elite private colleges and universities.

It is a stupid generalization to make about cohorts of kids at different elite schools (and yes, Wash U is an elite school too)

Are you literally arguing that the caliber of students at big 3 state u was or is the same as HYP? Obviously some or many state u students were at the HYP level, but we are saying overall.

Reading is fundamental.

The "big 3" referenced in the post was high school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yale kids were on average smarter than Wash U kids who were smarter than UMD kids. That relationship still holds but is now much weaker.

Like a PP said, it's because there are way more smart/qualified kids in the college applicant pools now than there used to be. Really that simple.

OP here: This was a core premise of the original post. The post was less about dei (which was offered as a supporting factor) and more about the declining value of elite degrees as a signal of intelligence, talent, etc.

This is so not true. Several ivys have an admit rate of less than 10%. The bar to get in for anyone is very high. In the 90s, it was much easier to get in

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The argument remains the same. There is more parity among the student bodies of the top schools. This is a function of a very large number of highly qualified students (way too many for the historically top schools to accommodate), the donut hole phenomenon (cost of attendance has outstripped wage growth for decades) and DEI related scrambling of merit criteria.

But you're writing as if each of these factors is contributing equally to the increased parity.

I listed the factors, not sure what the relative contribution is. All are probably meaningful.

As in like equally meaningful or approximately so?

I would say the explosion of high quality applicants is the most significant driver of parity but DEI raises the risk that a student graduating from a super elite school is there only because he or she met the minimum standards. So the damage to the value of the signal works in two ways. First the average student isn’t much better and second the risk that any given student is at the elite school for reasons unrelated to their individual capacities is higher.

You make this assumption that "DEI DOOM" a student of color is only there because they are a student of color.

What the universities have done is said we want to equalize a proportionate reflection of society in our schools. That doesn't mean dumb kids are being admitted. It means, when there are two equal kids and one of them has another attribute that adds to the diversity and culture of the school, the school will likely that kid.

That doesn't mean that kid is a less student. So please stop repeating that false assumption.

[Anonymous]

I think OP is flat out wrong given the obsession of people on this board to constantly write positive or negative posts about Ivys.
Clearly many people including OP are still obsessed with the Ivy brand.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I went to a state flagship and also to a "big 3" type school. The smartest people at my college were every bit as genius as the smartest people from my high school, many of whom went on to Ivy's/elite private colleges and universities.

I would think so, given that many state flagships have tens of thousands of students.

What percentage of a state flagship's students are genius level?

Different missions, so your question is silly.

You're getting closer. What are the "different" missions between these schools?

[Anonymous]

Lol, what if rich people can no longer signal they are better than other people by pointing to their brand name alma mater? What if college is just, GASP, a place where people can obtain the necessary knowledge and critical thinking skills to either pursue academic careers or enter a profession? What if the only people who care where you go to college are people who are evaluating your academic credentials for a job, fellowship, internship, or admission to a graduate program or other academic program? And what if that evaluation wasn't based on whether the name of your college evokes a certain feeling, but instead based on your actual grades and the rigor of the program in which you were enrolled?

The horrors!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
UMD CS, engineering >>> Yale english, communications, psychology, history, etc.

Not really. Cs and engineering majors are essentially grinders. Any bot willing to put in the time can major in CS or engineering. Ask me how I know.

CS major here

Employers who actually pay disagree

Employers like grinders. If you hired people you would know this.

The thing is, the attributes that make someone have exceptional grades and test scores and make one want to major in computer science don't necessarily translate into making one an interesting person with a lot to contribute to society, culture, or even computer science.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Lol, what if rich people can no longer signal they are better than other people by pointing to their brand name alma mater? What if college is just, GASP, a place where people can obtain the necessary knowledge and critical thinking skills to either pursue academic careers or enter a profession? What if the only people who care where you go to college are people who are evaluating your academic credentials for a job, fellowship, internship, or admission to a graduate program or other academic program? And what if that evaluation wasn't based on whether the name of your college evokes a certain feeling, but instead based on your actual grades and the rigor of the program in which you were enrolled?

The horrors!

This city of strivers will not stand for that! It must be prestige! I saw someone in the moco boards saying going to the right public middle school in moco will give your kid ivy connections and "like-minded" peers. As an actual Quaker, and not someone who sends their kid to Quaker school to improve their ivy odds, I find this kind of attitude the exact opposite of the environment I want my family anywhere near

[Anonymous]

Many of you seem to have no idea how people get promoted or get hired to management or C-suite level positions in the real world.

[Anonymous]

Colleges are supposed to educate young people.

Not signal status.

Twisted view of higher education, and its purpose!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Colleges are supposed to educate young people.

Not signal status.

How are these mutually exclusive?