Have colleges totally lost their value as a signal?

[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. The kid who attended Yale was almost always going to be a top of the class student with essentially perfect academics. The kid who attended Denison or UMD was a nice, reasonably bright kid who basically did their homework. It’s different now in so many ways. In general the Yale kid is going to be the better student but there is also the dei/hook wrinkle, the donut hole factor, and even in general now the gap isn’t that wide. So a generation ago basically all Yale kids were a cut above Denison/UMD kids, now it’s probably just that most are (meaning some if not many are equivalent or below). Seems likely going forward there will be less reliance on where you did your undergrad as a heuristic to assess younger adults. Add to this the complication that the products of the most elite schools now may be more likely to have seriously deformed moral and political sensibilities.

Sorry disagreeing with you on Israel and Gaza =/= “deformed moral sensibility”.

Being anti-Israel is actually a pretty good marker of wokeness, which is the essence of a deformed moral sensibility.

Then send your kid to Hillsdale. The right wing cancel culture is out of control. Heaven help someone have a different point of view than you in one area. You just can’t cope.

This last one is a joke post, right?

[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.

I’m Gen X. And no. It was not more meritocratic and legacy, athletics and being able to pay still played a huge role. It was less competitive though, because the schools did very little outreach and made almost no effort to expand their applicant pool. And the Ivys were majority male, and very, very rich and white.

+1. Went to college in 90s, lots of very smart kids at state schools, tons of legacies and athletes at "elite" schools. Never a clear correlation between college and intelligence.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I’m Gen X. And no. It was not more meritocratic and legacy, athletics and being able to pay still played a huge role. It was less competitive though, because the schools did very little outreach and made almost no effort to expand their applicant pool. And the Ivys were majority male, and very, very rich and white.

+1. Went to college in 90s, lots of very smart kids at state schools, tons of legacies and athletes at "elite" schools. Never a clear correlation between college and intelligence.

This is bs. I attended HYP in 90s. Yes, athletes not always that smart. Legacy, usually pretty smart. Non-legacy, usually very smart and by no means rich, aid was generous at the time. Black kids were probably more or less same ratio as today, sometimes very smart, often not. The most brilliant people I’ve ever known I met in college. I knew who went to state u from my high school. None were brilliant. This idea that Ivies were some untalented old boy network at the time while state u had all the real brains is comical.

[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. The kid who attended Yale was almost always going to be a top of the class student with essentially perfect academics. The kid who attended Denison or UMD was a nice, reasonably bright kid who basically did their homework. It’s different now in so many ways. In general the Yale kid is going to be the better student but there is also the dei/hook wrinkle, the donut hole factor, and even in general now the gap isn’t that wide. So a generation ago basically all Yale kids were a cut above Denison/UMD kids, now it’s probably just that most are (meaning some if not many are equivalent or below). Seems likely going forward there will be less reliance on where you did your undergrad as a heuristic to assess younger adults. Add to this the complication that the products of the most elite schools now may be more likely to have seriously deformed moral and political sensibilities.

Sorry disagreeing with you on Israel and Gaza =/= “deformed moral sensibility”.

Being anti-Israel is actually a pretty good marker of wokeness, which is the essence of a deformed moral sensibility.

Then send your kid to Hillsdale. The right wing cancel culture is out of control. Heaven help someone have a different point of view than you in one area. You just can’t cope.

Because Claudine Gay isn’t allowed to plagiarize? Jews can’t be terrorized on campus?

[Anonymous]

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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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. The kid who attended Yale was almost always going to be a top of the class student with essentially perfect academics. The kid who attended Denison or UMD was a nice, reasonably bright kid who basically did their homework. It’s different now in so many ways. In general the Yale kid is going to be the better student but there is also the dei/hook wrinkle, the donut hole factor, and even in general now the gap isn’t that wide. So a generation ago basically all Yale kids were a cut above Denison/UMD kids, now it’s probably just that most are (meaning some if not many are equivalent or below). Seems likely going forward there will be less reliance on where you did your undergrad as a heuristic to assess younger adults. Add to this the complication that the products of the most elite schools now may be more likely to have seriously deformed moral and political sensibilities.

Sorry disagreeing with you on Israel and Gaza =/= “deformed moral sensibility”.

Being anti-Israel is actually a pretty good marker of wokeness, which is the essence of a deformed moral sensibility.

Then send your kid to Hillsdale. The right wing cancel culture is out of control. Heaven help someone have a different point of view than you in one area. You just can’t cope.

This last one is a joke post, right?

Why? Cannot fathom being wrong?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I’m Gen X. And no. It was not more meritocratic and legacy, athletics and being able to pay still played a huge role. It was less competitive though, because the schools did very little outreach and made almost no effort to expand their applicant pool. And the Ivys were majority male, and very, very rich and white.

That’s actually what merit looks like.

What? Only white rich males are good enough?

[Anonymous]

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

[Anonymous]

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

[Anonymous]

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.

There has never been anywhere near as much distance between the 'elite' colleges and other colleges as some graduates of those schools (and those who make their living off of ranking colleges) would like to have others believe.

[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. The kid who attended Yale was almost always going to be a top of the class student with essentially perfect academics. The kid who attended Denison or UMD was a nice, reasonably bright kid who basically did their homework. It’s different now in so many ways. In general the Yale kid is going to be the better student but there is also the dei/hook wrinkle, the donut hole factor, and even in general now the gap isn’t that wide. So a generation ago basically all Yale kids were a cut above Denison/UMD kids, now it’s probably just that most are (meaning some if not many are equivalent or below). Seems likely going forward there will be less reliance on where you did your undergrad as a heuristic to assess younger adults. Add to this the complication that the products of the most elite schools now may be more likely to have seriously deformed moral and political sensibilities.

Sorry disagreeing with you on Israel and Gaza =/= “deformed moral sensibility”.

Being anti-Israel is actually a pretty good marker of wokeness, which is the essence of a deformed moral sensibility.

+100

Putting "+100" and "laughing so hard I'm crying" emojis after your own ignorant post doesn't make it any more true. Grow up.

[Anonymous]

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. The kid who attended Yale was almost always going to be a top of the class student with essentially perfect academics. The kid who attended Denison or UMD was a nice, reasonably bright kid who basically did their homework. It’s different now in so many ways. In general the Yale kid is going to be the better student but there is also the dei/hook wrinkle, the donut hole factor, and even in general now the gap isn’t that wide. So a generation ago basically all Yale kids were a cut above Denison/UMD kids, now it’s probably just that most are (meaning some if not many are equivalent or below). Seems likely going forward there will be less reliance on where you did your undergrad as a heuristic to assess younger adults. Add to this the complication that the products of the most elite schools now may be more likely to have seriously deformed moral and political sensibilities.

No, I think this is a piss poor analysis and wishful thinking.

[Anonymous]

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.

This is an angry, racist rant There is plenty of data supporting OP's point. The game has changed and score and grades don't matter nearly as much as having a hook now, being an ahh to athlete or being an URM. The schools openly acknowledge that the bar is lowered, in some cases quite significantly, for URM. This isn't some myth, there is data behind it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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. The kid who attended Yale was almost always going to be a top of the class student with essentially perfect academics. The kid who attended Denison or UMD was a nice, reasonably bright kid who basically did their homework. It’s different now in so many ways. In general the Yale kid is going to be the better student but there is also the dei/hook wrinkle, the donut hole factor, and even in general now the gap isn’t that wide. So a generation ago basically all Yale kids were a cut above Denison/UMD kids, now it’s probably just that most are (meaning some if not many are equivalent or below). Seems likely going forward there will be less reliance on where you did your undergrad as a heuristic to assess younger adults. Add to this the complication that the products of the most elite schools now may be more likely to have seriously deformed moral and political sensibilities.

Sorry disagreeing with you on Israel and Gaza =/= “deformed moral sensibility”.

Being anti-Israel is actually a pretty good marker of wokeness, which is the essence of a deformed moral sensibility.

Then send your kid to Hillsdale. The right wing cancel culture is out of control. Heaven help someone have a different point of view than you in one area. You just can’t cope.

This last one is a joke post, right?

It might not be. Someone actually started a thread suggesting Hillsdale was the new Harvard. It was hilarious, the beat down they got. But there’s someone here who actually thinks some alt-right school in bumfuk Michigan with maybe 3,000 applicants a year is more desirable than the ivies.

[Anonymous]

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.

This is an angry, racist rant There is plenty of data supporting OP's point. The game has changed and score and grades don't matter nearly as much as having a hook now, being an ahh to athlete or being an URM. The schools openly acknowledge that the bar is lowered, in some cases quite significantly, for URM. This isn't some myth, there is data behind it.

There was nothing racist about the post.

Your post, interestingly, alleges only the bar being lowered for URMs but says nothing about the bar being lowered for the athletes you mention. Do you really believe the squash players or whatever are held to the same standards as the rest of the applicants? Or do you have selective outrage and only care if they do it for first gens and URMs?