Have colleges totally lost their value as a signal?

[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/

Exactly , the Black and Brown students today have much higher scores than the white students of yesterday but that doesn't matter to many of you because a Black person can't "possibly" be smarter than you.

They aren't taking the same test today as they did then. There is about a 150 point difference on recentering.

OP is really trying to milk that stat from the 1990s! In my mind's eye they are doing one of those dances too.

[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.

Completely agree with this assessment. Add in the known adverse affects of facing income @ $220k (see recent article in NYT I think) and most upper middle class, bright kids are going to lower ranked schools. Add in the excessive rise in college tuition and you see why so many kids who forty, thirty or even twenty years ago would have been Ivy contenders are now “chasing merit” at no name schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Have to agree. Attended elite Ivy '98-'02. It was already commonly said at the time that most legacies couldn't get in. The typical student was a hard working, bright, accomplished UMC kid from a professional UMC suburb without real hooks other than grades and scores. While there were legacies and some athletes, the overall environment was very meritocratic. Keep in mind that legacies could also come from non-wealthy families (my freshman roommate was a legacy but father was a teacher and was on substantial financial aid) and athletes could have excellent grades and scores. Student body was also heavily Jewish and it's hard to argue they were the legacies of Gentlemen's Cs! There were also the rich kid cohorts but they lived to themselves and didn't really seem to have a major presence or influence on campus.

It's probably true that in the mid to late 1990s, adcomms set aside certain percentage for legacies and URMs, which mainly meant AAs as Latinos were just an emerging presence. But it still left the clear majority of the student body for the meritocratic pool. What's changed is social engineering has substantially whittled down the meritocratic space.

"social engineering"

Have you considered that for the first 150 years, these schools socially engineered to be white, male and upper class?

+1

Most aggrieved DCUM posters "forget" about this part when invoking "URMs", "DEI" and such.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

What you seem to miss is “qualified” and “statistics” are not mutually dependent. You’re choosing what “statistics” are relevant. But those “statistics” aren’t actually criteria for “qualification.” You just want them to be. Everyone else has agreed there is a better set of criteria that is best to decide who is “qualified.”

Only you think test scores and grades are the most important. No one else shares that view —there are many other elements that are better measures of “qualification” but you for some reason are clinging to outdated measures that have been determined to be unsuitable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The disparity between black and Asian and white scores still remain significant even if it is now easier for all groups to prep for the SATs. No one really wants to talk about why black students, after all these years, still don't perform as well on the SATs as white students or Asian students or even Latino students, or white working class Asian and white kids still outperform affluent black kids, so they come up with all sorts of explanations to circumvent this topic. The SATs still remain essential for elite college admissions even if colleges theoretically make them optional, which is really a cue word saying it's ok for black applicants to leave them off so we can hide the SAT gap, but not other races, who won't be considered if they don't include their SAT scores. It's just the game as it is currently played.

Take the time to study the origins of standardized testing and the SAT. Racist from the outset. Questions where blacks scored higher than whites where thrown out, etc.

There is no "merit" in standardized testing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

What you seem to miss is “qualified” and “statistics” are not mutually dependent. You’re choosing what “statistics” are relevant. But those “statistics” aren’t actually criteria for “qualification.” You just want them to be. Everyone else has agreed there is a better set of criteria that is best to decide who is “qualified.”

Only you think test scores and grades are the most important. No one else shares that view —there are many other elements that are better measures of “qualification” but you for some reason are clinging to outdated measures that have been determined to be unsuitable.

If grades and test scores are just random stats or noise, what the heck else is there to go on?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The disparity between black and Asian and white scores still remain significant even if it is now easier for all groups to prep for the SATs. No one really wants to talk about why black students, after all these years, still don't perform as well on the SATs as white students or Asian students or even Latino students, or white working class Asian and white kids still outperform affluent black kids, so they come up with all sorts of explanations to circumvent this topic. The SATs still remain essential for elite college admissions even if colleges theoretically make them optional, which is really a cue word saying it's ok for black applicants to leave them off so we can hide the SAT gap, but not other races, who won't be considered if they don't include their SAT scores. It's just the game as it is currently played.

Take the time to study the origins of standardized testing and the SAT. Racist from the outset. Questions where blacks scored higher than whites where thrown out, etc.

There is no "merit" in standardized testing.

Must be engineered to benefit Asians then. Crazy how Asians have clearly hijacked the testing services.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Not sure what OP is talking about, the likelihood your neighborhood Harvard or Duke kid is talented is generally pretty high, of course talent comes in many forms and from many places though

+1

[Anonymous]

NP. For a long time there was a correlation between *presumption of intelligence* and college attended. Sometimes that intelligence was real, other times (I’m lookin at you, Jared Kushner) it wasn't, and also many highly intelligent people were left out of the equation entirely. But (a) fewer people questioned the correlation; (b) for a particular set of kids — those most likely to be known to DCUM — if they were very intelligent, it could be presumed that they would end up at an elite school, and (c) one could assume that a degree from an elite institution, in any major, would be sufficient to generate prosperity.

Points b and c fueled point a. The cycle went largely undisturbed for generations.

There are some underlying assumptions in OP’s post with which I don’t agree, but I do agree that things are changing. The staggering cost of college, combined with economic uncertainties post-college, is now forcing UMC families to make the same sorts of calculations about the value proposition of elite schools that MC and lower income families always had to. People who a generation ago would have assumed that highly intelligent kids can’t be found at state schools or lesser-known privates (or that they were rare) seem newly open to the idea that terrific, very smart kids can be found at a wide range of schools. My kids are 5 years apart, and I really see a difference even since my elder was going through the process — it’s like a whole subset of society started crying uncle on costs.

Thing is, there were always really intelligent kids at a range of schools. It’s just more apparent to UMC families now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The disparity between black and Asian and white scores still remain significant even if it is now easier for all groups to prep for the SATs. No one really wants to talk about why black students, after all these years, still don't perform as well on the SATs as white students or Asian students or even Latino students, or white working class Asian and white kids still outperform affluent black kids, so they come up with all sorts of explanations to circumvent this topic. The SATs still remain essential for elite college admissions even if colleges theoretically make them optional, which is really a cue word saying it's ok for black applicants to leave them off so we can hide the SAT gap, but not other races, who won't be considered if they don't include their SAT scores. It's just the game as it is currently played.

Take the time to study the origins of standardized testing and the SAT. Racist from the outset. Questions where blacks scored higher than whites where thrown out, etc.

There is no "merit" in standardized testing.

Must be engineered to benefit Asians then. Crazy how Asians have clearly hijacked the testing services.

Guess you're not familiar with Asian "cram schools." Engrained in the culture.

Doesn't negate the racist origins of standardized testing in the U.S.

[Anonymous]

Just because your kid got rejected doesn’t mean the colleges are slipping or losing value. The world doesn’t revolve around you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The disparity between black and Asian and white scores still remain significant even if it is now easier for all groups to prep for the SATs. No one really wants to talk about why black students, after all these years, still don't perform as well on the SATs as white students or Asian students or even Latino students, or white working class Asian and white kids still outperform affluent black kids, so they come up with all sorts of explanations to circumvent this topic. The SATs still remain essential for elite college admissions even if colleges theoretically make them optional, which is really a cue word saying it's ok for black applicants to leave them off so we can hide the SAT gap, but not other races, who won't be considered if they don't include their SAT scores. It's just the game as it is currently played.

Take the time to study the origins of standardized testing and the SAT. Racist from the outset. Questions where blacks scored higher than whites where thrown out, etc.

There is no "merit" in standardized testing.

Must be engineered to benefit Asians then. Crazy how Asians have clearly hijacked the testing services.

Guess you're not familiar with Asian "cram schools." Engrained in the culture.

Doesn't negate the racist origins of standardized testing in the U.S.

Yes math and English is very racist, and you shouldn't prepare and study for tests, midterms, finals, etc.

I know that the origins of Holistic BS was to suppress Jewish numbers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Just because your kid got rejected doesn’t mean the colleges are slipping or losing value. The world doesn’t revolve around you.

Way to completely miss the point of the discussion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:NP. For a long time there was a correlation between *presumption of intelligence* and college attended. Sometimes that intelligence was real, other times (I’m lookin at you, Jared Kushner) it wasn't, and also many highly intelligent people were left out of the equation entirely. But (a) fewer people questioned the correlation; (b) for a particular set of kids — those most likely to be known to DCUM — if they were very intelligent, it could be presumed that they would end up at an elite school, and (c) one could assume that a degree from an elite institution, in any major, would be sufficient to generate prosperity.

Points b and c fueled point a. The cycle went largely undisturbed for generations.

There are some underlying assumptions in OP’s post with which I don’t agree, but I do agree that things are changing. The staggering cost of college, combined with economic uncertainties post-college, is now forcing UMC families to make the same sorts of calculations about the value proposition of elite schools that MC and lower income families always had to. People who a generation ago would have assumed that highly intelligent kids can’t be found at state schools or lesser-known privates (or that they were rare) seem newly open to the idea that terrific, very smart kids can be found at a wide range of schools. My kids are 5 years apart, and I really see a difference even since my elder was going through the process — it’s like a whole subset of society started crying uncle on costs.

Thing is, there were always really intelligent kids at a range of schools. It’s just more apparent to UMC families now.

I think a lot more things are apparent to the UMC now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The disparity between black and Asian and white scores still remain significant even if it is now easier for all groups to prep for the SATs. No one really wants to talk about why black students, after all these years, still don't perform as well on the SATs as white students or Asian students or even Latino students, or white working class Asian and white kids still outperform affluent black kids, so they come up with all sorts of explanations to circumvent this topic. The SATs still remain essential for elite college admissions even if colleges theoretically make them optional, which is really a cue word saying it's ok for black applicants to leave them off so we can hide the SAT gap, but not other races, who won't be considered if they don't include their SAT scores. It's just the game as it is currently played.

Take the time to study the origins of standardized testing and the SAT. Racist from the outset. Questions where blacks scored higher than whites where thrown out, etc.

There is no "merit" in standardized testing.

Must be engineered to benefit Asians then. Crazy how Asians have clearly hijacked the testing services.

Guess you're not familiar with Asian "cram schools." Engrained in the culture.

Doesn't negate the racist origins of standardized testing in the U.S.

Caring much about education is engrained in the Asian culture.