How the Ivy League Broke America

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:FWIW, I think peak-meritocracy (in the IQy sense that Brooks is talking about) took place when Brooks was applying to college and has been declining ever since.

There's been grade inflation in terms of GPAs, SATs and AP scores, which means that it's more difficult to distinguish the super-brainy students from the merely very smart + diligent. In the 1980s I pulled a 1400 on the SAT and ended up at Middlebury, where my score was 100+ points above Midd's average. But it also was 200 points below a perfect score. So it was easy to distinguish me from the rocket scientist at MIT. Today. that 1400 would be maybe a 1520, so there's just less to distingish one student from another. The fact that applicants now emphasize "passion projects" and "research" is because, from a conventional academic standpoint, many are almost indistinguisably perfect. The signal-to-noise ratio in academic records is just lower today than it was, say, 25 years ago.

Second, Brookis is right that there is a feeling of elitisim on college campuses. But, from pretty extensive experience on elite campuses, the super brainiacs are in general not like that. Most are immersed in their subjects, sitting in the physics lab or whatever. And many are quite humble in their opinions. In other words, pretty much what you'd hope for. The social activists are disproportionatley in social activist academic fields. And, ON AVERAGE, those students wouldn't win out in the IQocracy that Brooks thinks elite colleges today are. (Yes, there are exceptions, but on average I'd bet a lot of $ on it.) Short story, the really smart ones aren't the elitists and the elitsts aren't the really smart ones. (And by "really smart" I don't mean you got a 4.0 HS GPA in today's environment; I mean you'd have gotten a 4.0 back in Brooks' high school days and a near-perfect SAT score pre-grade inflation.)

Maybe today's way of doing it is better than in the past. Raw mental horsepower isn't everything. But, basically, I think Brooks just got the description of things wrong.

Raw mental horsepower wasn't really measured in Brookes's day. So many were excluded from the process, and more emphasis was on a narrow definition of intelligence, which was easily surpassed by connections and legacy. Today's admissions are far more meritocratic.

Eh. I think the 90s were the golden age for "meritocratic" admissions to elite schools. Now it's all about the hooks. At least for Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Duke, and Stanford. The other T20 schools will be more amenable to real talent.

To an extent.

Gaming the system wasn’t as widespread 30+ years ago. That is, grade inflation wasn’t rife, extensive ACT / SAT prep wasn’t common, and extra curriculars generally weren’t something kids did to build a resume.

So schools knew that any applicant with a perfect GPA, high test scores, and strong extra curriculars really was something special. That is less the case now because everyone is gaming the system.

But those that were gaming the system then - the elite prep schools etc. - had a massive leg up back then. There were a large number of people from those schools getting into elite colleges 30+ years ago that had no business being there. I’d posit there are less of those people at elite colleges today.

But the other thing that has changed is that everyone and their dog is applying to elite colleges. 30+ years ago, many legit HS stars - perfect GPA, high scores, good activities - were content going to their state school. These people are more likely to apply and get in to elite colleges than before.

All correct!
The competition is much higher. The urm /fgli/recruited athlete hooks are lame though. As a first gen with no boost in 1991 still went to ivy the huge boost for fgli now is over the top. So are the other demographic hooks.
But with SAT skewed plus superscores plus grade inflation how can colleges figure it out? Mine is at an ivy unhooked, and thriving. The hooked kids in general are at a disadvantage academically at least for curve-centered premed and econ. They are not on the same level.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:FWIW, I think peak-meritocracy (in the IQy sense that Brooks is talking about) took place when Brooks was applying to college and has been declining ever since.

There's been grade inflation in terms of GPAs, SATs and AP scores, which means that it's more difficult to distinguish the super-brainy students from the merely very smart + diligent. In the 1980s I pulled a 1400 on the SAT and ended up at Middlebury, where my score was 100+ points above Midd's average. But it also was 200 points below a perfect score. So it was easy to distinguish me from the rocket scientist at MIT. Today. that 1400 would be maybe a 1520, so there's just less to distingish one student from another. The fact that applicants now emphasize "passion projects" and "research" is because, from a conventional academic standpoint, many are almost indistinguisably perfect. The signal-to-noise ratio in academic records is just lower today than it was, say, 25 years ago.

Second, Brookis is right that there is a feeling of elitisim on college campuses. But, from pretty extensive experience on elite campuses, the super brainiacs are in general not like that. Most are immersed in their subjects, sitting in the physics lab or whatever. And many are quite humble in their opinions. In other words, pretty much what you'd hope for. The social activists are disproportionatley in social activist academic fields. And, ON AVERAGE, those students wouldn't win out in the IQocracy that Brooks thinks elite colleges today are. (Yes, there are exceptions, but on average I'd bet a lot of $ on it.) Short story, the really smart ones aren't the elitists and the elitsts aren't the really smart ones. (And by "really smart" I don't mean you got a 4.0 HS GPA in today's environment; I mean you'd have gotten a 4.0 back in Brooks' high school days and a near-perfect SAT score pre-grade inflation.)

Maybe today's way of doing it is better than in the past. Raw mental horsepower isn't everything. But, basically, I think Brooks just got the description of things wrong.

Raw mental horsepower wasn't really measured in Brookes's day. So many were excluded from the process, and more emphasis was on a narrow definition of intelligence, which was easily surpassed by connections and legacy. Today's admissions are far more meritocratic.

Eh. I think the 90s were the golden age for "meritocratic" admissions to elite schools. Now it's all about the hooks. At least for Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Duke, and Stanford. The other T20 schools will be more amenable to real talent.

To an extent.

Gaming the system wasn’t as widespread 30+ years ago. That is, grade inflation wasn’t rife, extensive ACT / SAT prep wasn’t common, and extra curriculars generally weren’t something kids did to build a resume.

So schools knew that any applicant with a perfect GPA, high test scores, and strong extra curriculars really was something special. That is less the case now because everyone is gaming the system.

But those that were gaming the system then - the elite prep schools etc. - had a massive leg up back then. There were a large number of people from those schools getting into elite colleges 30+ years ago that had no business being there. I’d posit there are less of those people at elite colleges today.

But the other thing that has changed is that everyone and their dog is applying to elite colleges. 30+ years ago, many legit HS stars - perfect GPA, high scores, good activities - were content going to their state school. These people are more likely to apply and get in to elite colleges than before.

All correct!
The competition is much higher. The urm /fgli/recruited athlete hooks are lame though. As a first gen with no boost in 1991 still went to ivy the huge boost for fgli now is over the top. So are the other demographic hooks.
But with SAT skewed plus superscores plus grade inflation how can colleges figure it out? Mine is at an ivy unhooked, and thriving. The hooked kids in general are at a disadvantage academically at least for curve-centered premed and econ. They are not on the same level.

Interestingly, I’m having a hard time finding evidence that kids are scoring better on the SAT now than they were 30 or 40 years ago. See here:

https://www.erikthered.com/tutor/historical-average-SAT-scores.pdf

The mean hasn’t changed much at least.

Of course, it’s feasible that the distribution changed and that there is much bunching toward the top of the distribution. I can’t find data on that though.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:FWIW, I think peak-meritocracy (in the IQy sense that Brooks is talking about) took place when Brooks was applying to college and has been declining ever since.

There's been grade inflation in terms of GPAs, SATs and AP scores, which means that it's more difficult to distinguish the super-brainy students from the merely very smart + diligent. In the 1980s I pulled a 1400 on the SAT and ended up at Middlebury, where my score was 100+ points above Midd's average. But it also was 200 points below a perfect score. So it was easy to distinguish me from the rocket scientist at MIT. Today. that 1400 would be maybe a 1520, so there's just less to distingish one student from another. The fact that applicants now emphasize "passion projects" and "research" is because, from a conventional academic standpoint, many are almost indistinguisably perfect. The signal-to-noise ratio in academic records is just lower today than it was, say, 25 years ago.

Second, Brookis is right that there is a feeling of elitisim on college campuses. But, from pretty extensive experience on elite campuses, the super brainiacs are in general not like that. Most are immersed in their subjects, sitting in the physics lab or whatever. And many are quite humble in their opinions. In other words, pretty much what you'd hope for. The social activists are disproportionatley in social activist academic fields. And, ON AVERAGE, those students wouldn't win out in the IQocracy that Brooks thinks elite colleges today are. (Yes, there are exceptions, but on average I'd bet a lot of $ on it.) Short story, the really smart ones aren't the elitists and the elitsts aren't the really smart ones. (And by "really smart" I don't mean you got a 4.0 HS GPA in today's environment; I mean you'd have gotten a 4.0 back in Brooks' high school days and a near-perfect SAT score pre-grade inflation.)

Maybe today's way of doing it is better than in the past. Raw mental horsepower isn't everything. But, basically, I think Brooks just got the description of things wrong.

Raw mental horsepower wasn't really measured in Brookes's day. So many were excluded from the process, and more emphasis was on a narrow definition of intelligence, which was easily surpassed by connections and legacy. Today's admissions are far more meritocratic.

Eh. I think the 90s were the golden age for "meritocratic" admissions to elite schools. Now it's all about the hooks. At least for Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Duke, and Stanford. The other T20 schools will be more amenable to real talent.

To an extent.

Gaming the system wasn’t as widespread 30+ years ago. That is, grade inflation wasn’t rife, extensive ACT / SAT prep wasn’t common, and extra curriculars generally weren’t something kids did to build a resume.

So schools knew that any applicant with a perfect GPA, high test scores, and strong extra curriculars really was something special. That is less the case now because everyone is gaming the system.

But those that were gaming the system then - the elite prep schools etc. - had a massive leg up back then. There were a large number of people from those schools getting into elite colleges 30+ years ago that had no business being there. I’d posit there are less of those people at elite colleges today.

But the other thing that has changed is that everyone and their dog is applying to elite colleges. 30+ years ago, many legit HS stars - perfect GPA, high scores, good activities - were content going to their state school. These people are more likely to apply and get in to elite colleges than before.

All correct!
The competition is much higher. The urm /fgli/recruited athlete hooks are lame though. As a first gen with no boost in 1991 still went to ivy the huge boost for fgli now is over the top. So are the other demographic hooks.
But with SAT skewed plus superscores plus grade inflation how can colleges figure it out? Mine is at an ivy unhooked, and thriving. The hooked kids in general are at a disadvantage academically at least for curve-centered premed and econ. They are not on the same level.

How do know this? Is your kid telling you this? So weird.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Perhaps the below take by David Brooks will make some of you rethink your Ivy obsession, especially after the election outcome we witnessed:

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2024/12/meritocracy-college-admissions-social-economic-segregation/680392/

He is dilussional about the power of Ivy in an anti-intellectual America. It is Reagan and his trickle down economy that broke the country. Now we are not just an oligarchy, but an authoritarian oligarchy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Perhaps the below take by David Brooks will make some of you rethink your Ivy obsession, especially after the election outcome we witnessed:

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2024/12/meritocracy-college-admissions-social-economic-segregation/680392/

He is dilussional about the power of Ivy in an anti-intellectual America. It is Reagan and his trickle down economy that broke the country. Now we are not just an oligarchy, but an authoritarian oligarchy.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:FWIW, I think peak-meritocracy (in the IQy sense that Brooks is talking about) took place when Brooks was applying to college and has been declining ever since.

There's been grade inflation in terms of GPAs, SATs and AP scores, which means that it's more difficult to distinguish the super-brainy students from the merely very smart + diligent. In the 1980s I pulled a 1400 on the SAT and ended up at Middlebury, where my score was 100+ points above Midd's average. But it also was 200 points below a perfect score. So it was easy to distinguish me from the rocket scientist at MIT. Today. that 1400 would be maybe a 1520, so there's just less to distingish one student from another. The fact that applicants now emphasize "passion projects" and "research" is because, from a conventional academic standpoint, many are almost indistinguisably perfect. The signal-to-noise ratio in academic records is just lower today than it was, say, 25 years ago.

Second, Brookis is right that there is a feeling of elitisim on college campuses. But, from pretty extensive experience on elite campuses, the super brainiacs are in general not like that. Most are immersed in their subjects, sitting in the physics lab or whatever. And many are quite humble in their opinions. In other words, pretty much what you'd hope for. The social activists are disproportionatley in social activist academic fields. And, ON AVERAGE, those students wouldn't win out in the IQocracy that Brooks thinks elite colleges today are. (Yes, there are exceptions, but on average I'd bet a lot of $ on it.) Short story, the really smart ones aren't the elitists and the elitsts aren't the really smart ones. (And by "really smart" I don't mean you got a 4.0 HS GPA in today's environment; I mean you'd have gotten a 4.0 back in Brooks' high school days and a near-perfect SAT score pre-grade inflation.)

Maybe today's way of doing it is better than in the past. Raw mental horsepower isn't everything. But, basically, I think Brooks just got the description of things wrong.

Raw mental horsepower wasn't really measured in Brookes's day. So many were excluded from the process, and more emphasis was on a narrow definition of intelligence, which was easily surpassed by connections and legacy. Today's admissions are far more meritocratic.

Eh. I think the 90s were the golden age for "meritocratic" admissions to elite schools. Now it's all about the hooks. At least for Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Duke, and Stanford. The other T20 schools will be more amenable to real talent.

To an extent.

Gaming the system wasn’t as widespread 30+ years ago. That is, grade inflation wasn’t rife, extensive ACT / SAT prep wasn’t common, and extra curriculars generally weren’t something kids did to build a resume.

So schools knew that any applicant with a perfect GPA, high test scores, and strong extra curriculars really was something special. That is less the case now because everyone is gaming the system.

But those that were gaming the system then - the elite prep schools etc. - had a massive leg up back then. There were a large number of people from those schools getting into elite colleges 30+ years ago that had no business being there. I’d posit there are less of those people at elite colleges today.

But the other thing that has changed is that everyone and their dog is applying to elite colleges. 30+ years ago, many legit HS stars - perfect GPA, high scores, good activities - were content going to their state school. These people are more likely to apply and get in to elite colleges than before.

All correct!
The competition is much higher. The urm /fgli/recruited athlete hooks are lame though. As a first gen with no boost in 1991 still went to ivy the huge boost for fgli now is over the top. So are the other demographic hooks.
But with SAT skewed plus superscores plus grade inflation how can colleges figure it out? Mine is at an ivy unhooked, and thriving. The hooked kids in general are at a disadvantage academically at least for curve-centered premed and econ. They are not on the same level.

Interestingly, I’m having a hard time finding evidence that kids are scoring better on the SAT now than they were 30 or 40 years ago. See here:

https://www.erikthered.com/tutor/historical-average-SAT-scores.pdf

The mean hasn’t changed much at least.

Of course, it’s feasible that the distribution changed and that there is much bunching toward the top of the distribution. I can’t find data on that though.

DP
There is tons and tons of data on SAT now va 30 yrsago.
There are conversion charts. A 1450 back then was 99 %ile. Now it is 97

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Perhaps the below take by David Brooks will make some of you rethink your Ivy obsession, especially after the election outcome we witnessed:

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2024/12/meritocracy-college-admissions-social-economic-segregation/680392/

He is dilussional about the power of Ivy in an anti-intellectual America. It is Reagan and his trickle down economy that broke the country. Now we are not just an oligarchy, but an authoritarian oligarchy.

The word is delusional. You clearly did not attend an elite school

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I liked this article (even though I'm not a conservative like David Brooks). He makes several insightful points.

In addition, this paragraph should resonate with DCUM community:

-------
Family life changed as parents tried to produce the sort of children who could get into selective colleges. Over time, America developed two entirely different approaches to parenting. Working-class parents still practice what the sociologist Annette Lareau, in her book Unequal Childhoods, called “natural growth” parenting. They let kids be kids, allowing them to wander and explore. College-educated parents, in contrast, practice “concerted cultivation,” ferrying their kids from one supervised skill-building, résumé-enhancing activity to another. It turns out that if you put parents in a highly competitive status race, they will go completely bonkers trying to hone their kids into little avatars of success.

eh, kids at Ivies today were parented during covid. Get real, David Brooks.

not true, they've been cultivated towards a competitive status race of activities and talents since kindergarten. some parents are still helping them behind the scenes post-college at their first jobs. it's wild. we've raised a generation of specialized robots who need a mom or dad "concierge" to help them get through all stages of life. they are cultivated to be productive crops, but not independent.

As opposed to a great number of people in America hooked on drugs?

[Anonymous]

This entire article is just a political ploy to attack the left by saying there is something wrong with colleges specifically liberal famous colleges. It's a deflection from the real issues in America. Elite colleges are not the problem. It's that not enough people in America want to work the jobs we have. It's addiction. It's laziness.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Perhaps the below take by David Brooks will make some of you rethink your Ivy obsession, especially after the election outcome we witnessed:

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2024/12/meritocracy-college-admissions-social-economic-segregation/680392/

He is dilussional about the power of Ivy in an anti-intellectual America. It is Reagan and his trickle down economy that broke the country. Now we are not just an oligarchy, but an authoritarian oligarchy.

+1

+2 and in general, pretty much all that is wrong with this country now is thanks to the Reagan administration.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:FWIW, I think peak-meritocracy (in the IQy sense that Brooks is talking about) took place when Brooks was applying to college and has been declining ever since.

There's been grade inflation in terms of GPAs, SATs and AP scores, which means that it's more difficult to distinguish the super-brainy students from the merely very smart + diligent. In the 1980s I pulled a 1400 on the SAT and ended up at Middlebury, where my score was 100+ points above Midd's average. But it also was 200 points below a perfect score. So it was easy to distinguish me from the rocket scientist at MIT. Today. that 1400 would be maybe a 1520, so there's just less to distingish one student from another. The fact that applicants now emphasize "passion projects" and "research" is because, from a conventional academic standpoint, many are almost indistinguisably perfect. The signal-to-noise ratio in academic records is just lower today than it was, say, 25 years ago.

Second, Brookis is right that there is a feeling of elitisim on college campuses. But, from pretty extensive experience on elite campuses, the super brainiacs are in general not like that. Most are immersed in their subjects, sitting in the physics lab or whatever. And many are quite humble in their opinions. In other words, pretty much what you'd hope for. The social activists are disproportionatley in social activist academic fields. And, ON AVERAGE, those students wouldn't win out in the IQocracy that Brooks thinks elite colleges today are. (Yes, there are exceptions, but on average I'd bet a lot of $ on it.) Short story, the really smart ones aren't the elitists and the elitsts aren't the really smart ones. (And by "really smart" I don't mean you got a 4.0 HS GPA in today's environment; I mean you'd have gotten a 4.0 back in Brooks' high school days and a near-perfect SAT score pre-grade inflation.)

Maybe today's way of doing it is better than in the past. Raw mental horsepower isn't everything. But, basically, I think Brooks just got the description of things wrong.

Raw mental horsepower wasn't really measured in Brookes's day. So many were excluded from the process, and more emphasis was on a narrow definition of intelligence, which was easily surpassed by connections and legacy. Today's admissions are far more meritocratic.

Eh. I think the 90s were the golden age for "meritocratic" admissions to elite schools. Now it's all about the hooks. At least for Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Duke, and Stanford. The other T20 schools will be more amenable to real talent.

To an extent.

Gaming the system wasn’t as widespread 30+ years ago. That is, grade inflation wasn’t rife, extensive ACT / SAT prep wasn’t common, and extra curriculars generally weren’t something kids did to build a resume.

So schools knew that any applicant with a perfect GPA, high test scores, and strong extra curriculars really was something special. That is less the case now because everyone is gaming the system.

But those that were gaming the system then - the elite prep schools etc. - had a massive leg up back then. There were a large number of people from those schools getting into elite colleges 30+ years ago that had no business being there. I’d posit there are less of those people at elite colleges today.

But the other thing that has changed is that everyone and their dog is applying to elite colleges. 30+ years ago, many legit HS stars - perfect GPA, high scores, good activities - were content going to their state school. These people are more likely to apply and get in to elite colleges than before.

All correct!
The competition is much higher. The urm /fgli/recruited athlete hooks are lame though. As a first gen with no boost in 1991 still went to ivy the huge boost for fgli now is over the top. So are the other demographic hooks.
But with SAT skewed plus superscores plus grade inflation how can colleges figure it out? Mine is at an ivy unhooked, and thriving. The hooked kids in general are at a disadvantage academically at least for curve-centered premed and econ. They are not on the same level.

Interestingly, I’m having a hard time finding evidence that kids are scoring better on the SAT now than they were 30 or 40 years ago. See here:

https://www.erikthered.com/tutor/historical-average-SAT-scores.pdf

The mean hasn’t changed much at least.

Of course, it’s feasible that the distribution changed and that there is much bunching toward the top of the distribution. I can’t find data on that though.

DP
There is tons and tons of data on SAT now va 30 yrsago.
There are conversion charts. A 1450 back then was 99 %ile. Now it is 97

I haven’t been able to find that data but this article tells a similar story:

https://www.educationnext.org/yes-it-really-is-harder-to-get-into-highly-selective-colleges-today-comparison-sat-scores-over-time/

https://www.educationnext.org/sat-scores-comparison-over-time-1985-2016/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Perhaps the below take by David Brooks will make some of you rethink your Ivy obsession, especially after the election outcome we witnessed:

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2024/12/meritocracy-college-admissions-social-economic-segregation/680392/

He is dilussional about the power of Ivy in an anti-intellectual America. It is Reagan and his trickle down economy that broke the country. Now we are not just an oligarchy, but an authoritarian oligarchy.

Yes, exactly. This perspective is a distraction from the real problem in this society: wealth hoarding among the 1%. I work in philanthropy and the amount of money I see on 990s just sitting in investment accounts is staggering. (Yes, I understand this is not immediately liquid.) It’s tens and hundreds of millions of dollars. Occasionally, I see $1B+. Conservatives are just pissed off that they are not relevant on most undergrad campuses today.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The critique is fine; the proposed solution is insipid. Brooks is pretty good when it comes to summarizing things that other people have been thinking and writing about for years. He isn’t much of an original thinker.

Yes. He’s proposing to rearrange the deck chairs. The fundamental problem is that the Ivies are too small for the social role they are trying to fill, and they refuse to grow. It doesn’t really matter how they fill their classes: their role as gatekeepers, and the ever-growing number of people locked out, will continue to fuel an ever-expanding populist backlash.

The populist backlash isn’t really about limited access to Ivies. The Ivy hatred is just one manifestation of the grievances of LC/LMC people (mostly but not exclusively White) display because they feel left behind. Their bigger beef is with globalization. You could get rid of tho Ivies tomorrow and some average Joe in Ohio would still be getting hooked on opiates and supporting Trump because the Chinese and Indians are working harder and outperforming them.

It's sad/funny, but good old JD Vance actually described the problems in Hillbilly Elegy...but now he is completely distancing himself from himself because it doesn't fit a successful political career.

You could debate any Trump supporter simply responding with quotes from JD's book.

And as someone else pointed out in the Politics forum, the roots of the problem were sewn in the 90s with NAFTA and many other popular policies.

Agree. Bill was a disaster for regular Americans.

[Anonymous]

The vast majority of Americans never saw privileged WASPs as an image of what a superior person looks like, or as a social ideal.