Have colleges totally lost their value as a signal?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:White men only, being from a “good family,” being a legacy and “gentlemen’s Cs.” When exactly in the past did having an Ivy education ever signal anything other than having the right pedigree? You think the Bushes and Trumps and Jared Cushners of the world were the best minds of their generations? Seriously?

Sorry that being a rich white guy is no longer enough. And that someone besides rich white guys with connected parents gets a chance at “good schools”. Must suck to be a rich white guy expected to actually earn your spot.

Yes- there is more to Yale than being one of the smartest 2000 kids in the country. But don’t kid yourself. Being able to attend an Ivy may be about more than merit in 2023. But admission in 2023 is still more bout merit than it was in 1983 or 1963.

Unless you believe that white men from the “right families” are inherently more intelligent. In which case, go re-read youR WELL worn copy of The Bell Curve.

I was referring more to the 90s when parents of current college kids attended. Admissions was not only more meritocratic, it was generally less competitive so there was a lot more distance between schools like HYP and wash U and big state u than there is now.

As a donut hole family, I hope this is true. In the ‘90s, elite schools had lower scoring legacy and URM students but they were overall a minority of the student body.

Today, it seems like public and private elite schools are more comparable from a student achievement standpoint.

Percentage of legacy students was higher in the 90s compared to today. Also, URM students are still the minority.

Post- affirmative action will see the URM numbers return to the 90s numbers. However, the number of wealthy students will most likely increase. Legacy and athletes will most likely stay the same and the number of 1st gen/low income will increase but probably won’t significantly increase in URM numbers because there are not enough of them in the applicant pool compared the white 1st gen and URMs at elite schools are predominantly UMC/wealthy or immigrants.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Is a student who's first generation or from Oklahoma admitted to HYP with a 1500 SAT score over a student with a 1560 SAT from the DMV a "DEI" applicant in your book, ceteris paribus?

This and other responses suggest the delta between a DEI admit and a fancy pants rich kid admit is just a question or two on the SAT. The reality is the rich kid has to get 1560 and the DEI kid is TO. The libs create this false narrative of “minimum qualifications” (something just beyond literacy) so as to justify racial preferences beyond some ridiculously low standard. Then they throw this smoke bomb hypothetical example where the kid from the hood got 1510 instead of 1550 because he was dodging a stray bullet during the test (fired by one of the many MAGA supporters who are the main source of urban gun violence).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Is a student who's first generation or from Oklahoma admitted to HYP with a 1500 SAT score over a student with a 1560 SAT from the DMV a "DEI" applicant in your book, ceteris paribus?

This and other responses suggest the delta between a DEI admit and a fancy pants rich kid admit is just a question or two on the SAT. The reality is the rich kid has to get 1560 and the DEI kid is TO. The libs create this false narrative of “minimum qualifications” (something just beyond literacy) so as to justify racial preferences beyond some ridiculously low standard. Then they throw this smoke bomb hypothetical example where the kid from the hood got 1510 instead of 1550 because he was dodging a stray bullet during the test (fired by one of the many MAGA supporters who are the main source of urban gun violence).

Selingo's book, based on time spent first-hand in several admissions offices, is the alleged "false narrative." Your paranoid version is based on the feels.

I'll ask the question again, slightly different. Is a student who's first generation or from Oklahoma admitted to HYP with a 1450 SAT score over a student with a 1560 SAT from the DMV a "DEI" applicant in your book, ceteris paribus?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Data:

“ Asian Americans in the Harvard Class of 1995 have the highest average SAT scores of the groups within Harvard College, according to the report. The study also shows that Blacks in the Harvard Class of 1994 were admitted to the College at a higher rate than any other minority group.

Harvard's Black students in the class of 1995 have the lowest average SAT scores, and Asian and Native Americans in the class of 1994 were admitted at rates below the overall average, the report says.

Harvard's Asian Americans in the Class of 1995 have average SAT scores of 1450, Blacks averaged scores of 1290, whites scored 1400 and Hispanics averaged 1310, the report states.

Overall, students in the Harvard class of 1995 averaged 1390 total on the test. Dean of Admissions and Financial Aid William R. Fitzsimmons '67 said this is the first time ever that a mean SAT score for Harvard has been disclosed.

Harvard's average SAT scores for the class of 1995 rank the highest out of all polled institutions, with Yale second at 1350, and Princeton third at 1340, according to the study.”

https://www.thecrimson.com/article/1993/5/7/report-discloses-sats-admit-rate-pa/

So much has changed since 1995. Nearly 30 years the average SAT Harvard students was 1390. Now the average SAT score for Black Harvard students is higher than that. Did everyone get a lot smarter? Did everyone start prepping even harder? Online resources like Khan Academy have surely moved the needle.

Also, to be clear, I recognize that there are some Black students at Harvard with 1550 scores etc. So don't think I'm not giving them credit for their merits.

They’ve re-normed the test twice since then. A 1390 in ‘95 is equivalent to a mid 1500’s in todays scores.

While the rescoring is reasonably known, what is less discussed is that the SATs themselves have also changed to try to make it, let's put it this way, easier for certain groups to do better. But what happened is that in doing so, the SATs became much easier to prep and game for, which is why scores for other groups got much higher too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Statistically speaking, black students are less qualified because when it comes to the metrics, they score lower than any other demographics. An Asian or white student with the same metrics will almost not be admitted. A black student with similar metrics as a white or Asian student has a much higher chance of getting admitted. None of this is a secret, not of this is news. It's been the case for a long time. The schools themselves admit it.

What you are doing is coming up with excuses and justifications for the disparities in admissions and admission standards while claiming that regardless of any differences all these kids are just as "good" as each other. I'll agree "good enough" is a perfectly fine term to use given that all these kids graduate on time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Is a student who's first generation or from Oklahoma admitted to HYP with a 1500 SAT score over a student with a 1560 SAT from the DMV a "DEI" applicant in your book, ceteris paribus?

This and other responses suggest the delta between a DEI admit and a fancy pants rich kid admit is just a question or two on the SAT. The reality is the rich kid has to get 1560 and the DEI kid is TO. The libs create this false narrative of “minimum qualifications” (something just beyond literacy) so as to justify racial preferences beyond some ridiculously low standard. Then they throw this smoke bomb hypothetical example where the kid from the hood got 1510 instead of 1550 because he was dodging a stray bullet during the test (fired by one of the many MAGA supporters who are the main source of urban gun violence).

Selingo's book, based on time spent first-hand in several admissions offices, is the alleged "false narrative." Your paranoid version is based on the feels.

I'll ask the question again, slightly different. Is a student who's first generation or from Oklahoma admitted to HYP with a 1450 SAT score over a student with a 1560 SAT from the DMV a "DEI" applicant in your book, ceteris paribus?

I read the book and was struck by how far admissions officers stretched to wave in a particular type of student. Like one good grade in an AP class is all it took.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Is a student who's first generation or from Oklahoma admitted to HYP with a 1500 SAT score over a student with a 1560 SAT from the DMV a "DEI" applicant in your book, ceteris paribus?

This and other responses suggest the delta between a DEI admit and a fancy pants rich kid admit is just a question or two on the SAT. The reality is the rich kid has to get 1560 and the DEI kid is TO. The libs create this false narrative of “minimum qualifications” (something just beyond literacy) so as to justify racial preferences beyond some ridiculously low standard. Then they throw this smoke bomb hypothetical example where the kid from the hood got 1510 instead of 1550 because he was dodging a stray bullet during the test (fired by one of the many MAGA supporters who are the main source of urban gun violence).

So you actually believe elite universities are admitting "something beyond literacy" into their classrooms?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Data:

“ Asian Americans in the Harvard Class of 1995 have the highest average SAT scores of the groups within Harvard College, according to the report. The study also shows that Blacks in the Harvard Class of 1994 were admitted to the College at a higher rate than any other minority group.

Harvard's Black students in the class of 1995 have the lowest average SAT scores, and Asian and Native Americans in the class of 1994 were admitted at rates below the overall average, the report says.

Harvard's Asian Americans in the Class of 1995 have average SAT scores of 1450, Blacks averaged scores of 1290, whites scored 1400 and Hispanics averaged 1310, the report states.

Overall, students in the Harvard class of 1995 averaged 1390 total on the test. Dean of Admissions and Financial Aid William R. Fitzsimmons '67 said this is the first time ever that a mean SAT score for Harvard has been disclosed.

Harvard's average SAT scores for the class of 1995 rank the highest out of all polled institutions, with Yale second at 1350, and Princeton third at 1340, according to the study.”

https://www.thecrimson.com/article/1993/5/7/report-discloses-sats-admit-rate-pa/

So much has changed since 1995. Nearly 30 years the average SAT Harvard students was 1390. Now the average SAT score for Black Harvard students is higher than that. Did everyone get a lot smarter? Did everyone start prepping even harder? Online resources like Khan Academy have surely moved the needle.

Also, to be clear, I recognize that there are some Black students at Harvard with 1550 scores etc. So don't think I'm not giving them credit for their merits.

They’ve re-normed the test twice since then. A 1390 in ‘95 is equivalent to a mid 1500’s in todays scores.

While the rescoring is reasonably known, what is less discussed is that the SATs themselves have also changed to try to make it, let's put it this way, easier for certain groups to do better. But what happened is that in doing so, the SATs became much easier to prep and game for, which is why scores for other groups got much higher too.

Uh, it is easier for all groups. That is why it doesn't test anything other than how good people can take the test. It doesn't test knowledge, capacity to learn, capacity to be innovative, writing skills or anything else. Given the number of kids who can game the test, the schools realize there is little reason to require it anymore.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Data:

“ Asian Americans in the Harvard Class of 1995 have the highest average SAT scores of the groups within Harvard College, according to the report. The study also shows that Blacks in the Harvard Class of 1994 were admitted to the College at a higher rate than any other minority group.

Harvard's Black students in the class of 1995 have the lowest average SAT scores, and Asian and Native Americans in the class of 1994 were admitted at rates below the overall average, the report says.

Harvard's Asian Americans in the Class of 1995 have average SAT scores of 1450, Blacks averaged scores of 1290, whites scored 1400 and Hispanics averaged 1310, the report states.

Overall, students in the Harvard class of 1995 averaged 1390 total on the test. Dean of Admissions and Financial Aid William R. Fitzsimmons '67 said this is the first time ever that a mean SAT score for Harvard has been disclosed.

Harvard's average SAT scores for the class of 1995 rank the highest out of all polled institutions, with Yale second at 1350, and Princeton third at 1340, according to the study.”

https://www.thecrimson.com/article/1993/5/7/report-discloses-sats-admit-rate-pa/

So much has changed since 1995. Nearly 30 years the average SAT Harvard students was 1390. Now the average SAT score for Black Harvard students is higher than that. Did everyone get a lot smarter? Did everyone start prepping even harder? Online resources like Khan Academy have surely moved the needle.

Also, to be clear, I recognize that there are some Black students at Harvard with 1550 scores etc. So don't think I'm not giving them credit for their merits.

It’s like the pp things SAT scores should be the deciding metric when it’s just one minor data point in an application.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'll ask the question again, slightly different. Is a student who's first generation or from Oklahoma admitted to HYP with a 1450 SAT score over a student with a 1560 SAT from the DMV a "DEI" applicant in your book, ceteris paribus?

I read the book and was struck by how far admissions officers stretched to wave in a particular type of student. Like one good grade in an AP class is all it took.
That belies your contention that "minimum qualifications" is a false narrative.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Is a student who's first generation or from Oklahoma admitted to HYP with a 1500 SAT score over a student with a 1560 SAT from the DMV a "DEI" applicant in your book, ceteris paribus?

This and other responses suggest the delta between a DEI admit and a fancy pants rich kid admit is just a question or two on the SAT. The reality is the rich kid has to get 1560 and the DEI kid is TO. The libs create this false narrative of “minimum qualifications” (something just beyond literacy) so as to justify racial preferences beyond some ridiculously low standard. Then they throw this smoke bomb hypothetical example where the kid from the hood got 1510 instead of 1550 because he was dodging a stray bullet during the test (fired by one of the many MAGA supporters who are the main source of urban gun violence).

So you actually believe elite universities are admitting "something beyond literacy" into their classrooms?

The dei narrative is that there is this idea of basic qualification and beyond that the school can prioritize whatever variables it wants (including race). The claim is that somehow they are not engaging in racial discrimination as a result. Everyone is a 5 out of 5, so now it’s just a question of decorating the class. The trick here is that the standards are so much lower for certain groups that the concept of minimum qualifications is a joke. No Asian for example would ever be admitted on the basis of the minimum qualification that is claimed to exist.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: No Asian for example would ever be admitted on the basis of the minimum qualification that is claimed to exist.

This is false. At any school where an Asian is a URM they would benefit from the policy.

[Anonymous]

Why shouldn't a top college be entitled to set a 95th percentile SAT score (or thereabouts) as a minimum qualification, above which it's free to consider other institutional priorities?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP- what is not being addressed is the overflow of talent at the top. It used to be that schools like Wash U or Emory would have to compromise on academics to fill their classes. The typical emory kid had no shot at Harvard. There was more differentiation. Today the kids basically have the same academics, but the Harvard kid had some hook. DEI also consumes more seats, sending extremely qualified kids down market. The result is the very best schools aren’t that much better than the next layer and so on. We have a situation now where HYP double legacies with 1600 get rejected. That would never happen in the past. So there is just less significance to being a graduate of the schools historically considered the very best.

You could say the same for many other schools. U Chicago had a 60% acceptance rate in the 90's, Upenn's acceptance rate was around 40%. These schools are much harder to get into today then ever before.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The dei narrative is that there is this idea of basic qualification and beyond that the school can prioritize whatever variables it wants (including race). The claim is that somehow they are not engaging in racial discrimination as a result. Everyone is a 5 out of 5, so now it’s just a question of decorating the class. The trick here is that the standards are so much lower for certain groups that the concept of minimum qualifications is a joke. No Asian for example would ever be admitted on the basis of the minimum qualification that is claimed to exist.

What part of "ceteris paribus" did you not understand? In the first generation/Oklahoma example, only that and SAT scores are different. Race is assumed to be the same.