Universities Really Are Messed Up (says Yale

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Unless Yale plans to dramatically increase in size, the only way to end the “murky admissions practices” is to be open about conducting a lottery for everyone over a certain benchmark. There is no fair way to pick a mere 2% from a pool of highly-qualified 17 year olds.

I think one of the suggestions in the report would be a small, meaningful improvement: put in testing minimums. Would reduce apps and thus increase admissions rate, but would go a long way to getting rid of the lowest performing, "murky" admits from the Legacy, Athlete, Donor, FGLI buckets

But do they actually want to get rid of the lowest-performing scions of mega-donors?

It won't be a huge reach. Legacy admits tend to have higher average stats than the rest of the class at6 Harvard and I would expect it to be the same at any Ivy. Plenty of well trained legacies to choose from.

Legacies have higher than average stats compared to other APPLICANTS, not students. The average legacy student has lower stats. At least at Harvard.

So they're prospects would improve then with 'merit' oriented changes, correct?

The data from SFFA indicates that legacy status gives a 40% boost. IOW, given two identical applicants, if the non-legacy has a 10% chance of admission, the legacy has a 14% chance.

So it's a thumb on the scale for otherwise equal applicants, it's not given one with lower stats an advantage.

At some schools, legacy preferences have an effect on admissions comparable to other programs such as athletic recruiting or affirmative action. One study of three selective private research universities in the United States showed the following effects (admissions disadvantage and advantage in terms of SAT points on the 1600-point scale):

African Americans: +230
Hispanics: +185
Asians: -50
Recruited athletes: +200
Legacies (children of alumni): +160[41]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legacy_preferences

So it's oe thing or another. If you're not in the right racial group, athletic, or a legacy, sucks to be you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the lack of transparency is huge. They really need to switch to just having some basic paramaters (SATs/ACTs above X, top X% of graduating class) and then have a lottery for spots.

That sounds like a recipe for going back to when it was designed to admit even more advantaged students then the current system allows. That's certainly not going to help the Fox News viewers that someone was posting about on here.

But a lottery for students who meet certain clear academic thresholds would get rid of the admissions advantages for expensive sports or starting your own charity (that only your parents donate to - I have a friend whose kids used this to get into an Ivy) or getting an internship at your dad's friends company. With Khan academy a smart kid anywhere can study for the SATs and be in the top of their class if they have the drive.

lottery away for your next future crop of private equity vultures and corporate lawyers. Who cares? Maybe we could take a little more time and attention to find our future nuclear physicists and biochemists, etc. not sure I want my transplant surgeon to be the lottery winner.

THose jobs are not open to only people who went to Yale (or a top college). But if Yale said, there is no meaningful difference among students with SATs above 1550 who are in the top 5% of their graduating class so we will do a lottery I would take that over the current system. if they wanted to, they could run separate lotteries by state or to ensure a class that represents the U.S. by family income. But that takes power away from the school so it will never happen.

There is no meaningful difference between a 1500 and a 1550, where do you draw the line? Private institutions get their own priorities.

There is a big difference between a 1500 and a 1550. And a bigger difference between a 1550 and a 1600. Dartmouth themselves published that if the higher your SAT bucket the better your chance of admission.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The most overrepresented student at Yale is the private school graduate. By far. That will NEVER change.

I would not be so sure.

“When selective admissions seem so inexplicable — or, worse, tilted in ways that benefit the already advantaged — it should come as no surprise that many Americans do not trust the process,” the committee wrote.

I just don’t see how you can ever have an explicable process for undergraduate admissions and an admissions rate under 5%. 17 year olds are just not that fully formed yet. And if they were, college would be pointless.

I can point to half a dozen countries where they do this every year.

But none of them achieve what you think that it does. Cram school privilege is even worse in Asia than privilege here, you are delusional if you believe otherwise. Public school kids in the UK get huge advantages over private school kids because of the former huge admissions imbalances. What you dream of doesn't exist. In some countries testing schemes exist which do not achieve what you believe that they do.

I try not to let the perfect be the enemy of the good. single test admissions is better than "holistic" admissions that allow admissions officers to limit the number of jews to admit or give some races preferences over others or give preferences to country club sports or people who claim to have a burning passion for medieval literature.

Holistic admissions is far superior because none of these schools are or ever have been optimizing for 'peak' academics. They are building a class which fits your priorities, they are not optimizing the training or another crop of engineers which is what the Asian systems you so admire are set up to do. Also, they are private entities and have every right to build a class as they see fit. Public schools admitting based on exam is something that I am perfectly fine with even if it diminishes the rigor of private schools over time. People don't want these schools because of the training, they are looking for prestige.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yale committee concludes that colleges and universities have completely lost the plot:

“High costs, murky admissions practices, uneven academic standards and fears about free speech on campuses, the committee said, are among the reasons for widening discontent over higher education’s worthiness.

The findings reflect misgivings that Americans have described across years of polling and interviews. But the report, from a 10-professor panel at one of the nation’s most renowned universities, amounts to a damning depiction of academia’s role in cultivating the political and cultural forces that are reshaping higher education’s place in American life.”


https://www.nytimes.com/2026/04/15/us/yale-report-colleges-unversities-trust.html?unlocked_article_code=1.bVA._ebw.-PVgolGZ4r5r&smid=url-share

Your landscaper could have told you this.

Any FOX viewer could have told you this.

Hopefully they’re not patting themselves on the back about these conclusions.

You don't have to be either one of those things to see the issues.

What are the solutions? Seems like the fox viewers decided that destroying funding for scientific research was the solution and instead spending it on bombing a country to result in sky high energy prices that suck lots and lots and lots of money out of all of our wallets . Great job Fox viewers.

Sometimes you have to cause a ruckus
if you want to fight injustice.

Injustice my ass. The whining just takes us down a road of more government control.

The left love government control when they control the government just as the right love government control when THEY control the government.
Let MERIT control

Merit as defined by whom? The left will define it by 'equity' while the right will define it by 'wealth and heritage'. Pick your poison.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yale committee concludes that colleges and universities have completely lost the plot:

“High costs, murky admissions practices, uneven academic standards and fears about free speech on campuses, the committee said, are among the reasons for widening discontent over higher education’s worthiness.

The findings reflect misgivings that Americans have described across years of polling and interviews. But the report, from a 10-professor panel at one of the nation’s most renowned universities, amounts to a damning depiction of academia’s role in cultivating the political and cultural forces that are reshaping higher education’s place in American life.”


https://www.nytimes.com/2026/04/15/us/yale-report-colleges-unversities-trust.html?unlocked_article_code=1.bVA._ebw.-PVgolGZ4r5r&smid=url-share

Your landscaper could have told you this.

Any FOX viewer could have told you this.

Hopefully they’re not patting themselves on the back about these conclusions.

You don't have to be either one of those things to see the issues.

What are the solutions? Seems like the fox viewers decided that destroying funding for scientific research was the solution and instead spending it on bombing a country to result in sky high energy prices that suck lots and lots and lots of money out of all of our wallets . Great job Fox viewers.

Sometimes you have to cause a ruckus
if you want to fight injustice.

A ruckus? An economy headed for a recession. A job market in the toilet for yale graduates and every other graduate. Inflation going up prospects for our kids futures going down That's not a ruckus to fight it justice that is cutting off your nose, lips, ears, eyes, cheeks and chin to spite your face

Just take yale and get the f*** if that's what it takes to get rid of you. You sound like such a genius! You'll be able Make Yale so much better.

I am willing to make those sacrifices to burn the wokeness out of colleges and universities. They brought it on themselves.

Wreak havoc on the country and the world is worth it because you don't like college admissions policies. That is just stupid.

Anyway the backlash is coming. The good for nobody GOP is losing badly in so many recent contests and rightly so. Cant happen soon enough. Reforms to college admissions can happen without burning down the place you fools

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:These are private institutions with their own priorities which they have every right to. The idea that admissions is somehow hierarchical in terms of scores and grades needs to just go away. Elite schools want an interesting mix of interests and talents. They are assembling a class. The fact that a kid might have better admissions chances from having collected rare western wildflowers and being able to have a discussion on them or played violin at an incredible level, or being a top volleyball player while keeping high grades than someone at the top of their class in high school with high test scores is fine. Actually, it is more than fine.

Maybe we need to separate the undergraduate portions of these schools from the graduate portions. The grant money is actually for the grad schools and their research anyway so why pretend. Admissions to the grad schools is pretty straightforward and subject based which makes sense for them as well. The undergraduate schools could make sure that they aren't admitting a disproportionate number of their grad students from their undergraduates and the undergraduate schools can do as they please.

But they don't have a right to tax exempt status.
They don't have a right to any federal funding.
They don't have a right to any research grants.

If their private status takes away our ability to control our dollars, we should only be funding state schools. Let the private colleges fund their own research and their own student aid and their own donation incentives.

We could do that and give up the greatest basic research apparatus in the history of mankind.

Or, you could quit conflating the graduate side of the universities with the undergraduate side.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Unless Yale plans to dramatically increase in size, the only way to end the “murky admissions practices” is to be open about conducting a lottery for everyone over a certain benchmark. There is no fair way to pick a mere 2% from a pool of highly-qualified 17 year olds.

Or the colleges could start demanding more tail end differentiation between students on the SAT.

There are a thousand perfect SAT scores every year. That number used to be in the dozens.

Tsinghua and Beijing do not have trouble selecting the top 0.05% students among 13 million kids based on the Gaokao, which has never seen a perfect score in its history.

The disdain people would have for academia if we changed our system to mirror China’s would be immense.

Pretty much every poor student that doesn’t go to a prep school would be left behind and couldn’t attend an elite college. This would be a step backwards.

How do you think the SES profile at Tsinghua or Peking compares to Stanford or Harvard?

And is HYPSM the only ladder for social mobility?
Sometimes social mobility from the bottom to the top takes more than a single generation
Go describe our college admissions process in any other country, they will think you must be mistaken.

I am pretty sure that it doesn't look as you are implying. But, there might be less representation by China's 1% because they are all trying to get their money and kids out of the country and choosing to educate their kids abroad. What does that really say about their system?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Unless Yale plans to dramatically increase in size, the only way to end the “murky admissions practices” is to be open about conducting a lottery for everyone over a certain benchmark. There is no fair way to pick a mere 2% from a pool of highly-qualified 17 year olds.

Or the colleges could start demanding more tail end differentiation between students on the SAT.

There are a thousand perfect SAT scores every year. That number used to be in the dozens.

Tsinghua and Beijing do not have trouble selecting the top 0.05% students among 13 million kids based on the Gaokao, which has never seen a perfect score in its history.

The disdain people would have for academia if we changed our system to mirror China’s would be immense.

Pretty much every poor student that doesn’t go to a prep school would be left behind and couldn’t attend an elite college. This would be a step backwards.

How do you think the SES profile at Tsinghua or Peking compares to Stanford or Harvard?

And is HYPSM the only ladder for social mobility?
Sometimes social mobility from the bottom to the top takes more than a single generation
Go describe our college admissions process in any other country, they will think you must be mistaken.

I am pretty sure that it doesn't look as you are implying. But, there might be less representation by China's 1% because they are all trying to get their money and kids out of the country and choosing to educate their kids abroad. What does that really say about their system?

It's a brutal authoritarian regime. No thanks.

[Anonymous]

Honestly thank god for holistic admissions. Definitely saved my kids from breaking their backs studying 24/7 just to have a shot. I can’t imagine what it must be like for kids in the UK who slave away aiming for all A* but still don’t get into Oxbridge/LSE/Imperial

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the lack of transparency is huge. They really need to switch to just having some basic paramaters (SATs/ACTs above X, top X% of graduating class) and then have a lottery for spots.

That sounds like a recipe for going back to when it was designed to admit even more advantaged students then the current system allows. That's certainly not going to help the Fox News viewers that someone was posting about on here.

But a lottery for students who meet certain clear academic thresholds would get rid of the admissions advantages for expensive sports or starting your own charity (that only your parents donate to - I have a friend whose kids used this to get into an Ivy) or getting an internship at your dad's friends company. With Khan academy a smart kid anywhere can study for the SATs and be in the top of their class if they have the drive.

lottery away for your next future crop of private equity vultures and corporate lawyers. Who cares? Maybe we could take a little more time and attention to find our future nuclear physicists and biochemists, etc. not sure I want my transplant surgeon to be the lottery winner.

THose jobs are not open to only people who went to Yale (or a top college). But if Yale said, there is no meaningful difference among students with SATs above 1550 who are in the top 5% of their graduating class so we will do a lottery I would take that over the current system. if they wanted to, they could run separate lotteries by state or to ensure a class that represents the U.S. by family income. But that takes power away from the school so it will never happen.

There is no meaningful difference between a 1500 and a 1550, where do you draw the line? Private institutions get their own priorities.

There is a big difference between a 1500 and a 1550. And a bigger difference between a 1550 and a 1600. Dartmouth themselves published that if the higher your SAT bucket the better your chance of admission.

The difference between a 1550 and a 1600 typically comes down to the individual exam and a careless mistake or two with zero difference in capabilities. Not sure about the digital SAT but a single careless mistake on the old one could result in a 7890 or a 800 depending on the particular exam. Two misses could be a 770 or a 790 depending on the exam. There is not difference. The GPA differences between admitted students at that level are measured in a few hundredths of a point. YOu could find more correlation in the time of day for a class or the professor than you could in an SAT score.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The most overrepresented student at Yale is the private school graduate. By far. That will NEVER change.

I would not be so sure.

“When selective admissions seem so inexplicable — or, worse, tilted in ways that benefit the already advantaged — it should come as no surprise that many Americans do not trust the process,” the committee wrote.

I just don’t see how you can ever have an explicable process for undergraduate admissions and an admissions rate under 5%. 17 year olds are just not that fully formed yet. And if they were, college would be pointless.

I can point to half a dozen countries where they do this every year.

But none of them achieve what you think that it does. Cram school privilege is even worse in Asia than privilege here, you are delusional if you believe otherwise. Public school kids in the UK get huge advantages over private school kids because of the former huge admissions imbalances. What you dream of doesn't exist. In some countries testing schemes exist which do not achieve what you believe that they do.

I try not to let the perfect be the enemy of the good. single test admissions is better than "holistic" admissions that allow admissions officers to limit the number of jews to admit or give some races preferences over others or give preferences to country club sports or people who claim to have a burning passion for medieval literature.

Holistic admissions is far superior because none of these schools are or ever have been optimizing for 'peak' academics. They are building a class which fits your priorities, they are not optimizing the training or another crop of engineers which is what the Asian systems you so admire are set up to do. Also, they are private entities and have every right to build a class as they see fit. Public schools admitting based on exam is something that I am perfectly fine with even if it diminishes the rigor of private schools over time. People don't want these schools because of the training, they are looking for prestige.

People in the west overlook all the downsides to Asia’s various education systems- which is surprising, because they’re visibly poor ideas of how to run one. Even china, which is loved on this forum for whatever reason, has such a utilitarian admission policy, because its government is run by and formed by engineers. Engineers have a certain management strategy that reflects well in the modern Chinese government; meanwhile, the US prefers (usually, not including Trump) pretty privileged, highly educated legally trained professionals in government.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The most overrepresented student at Yale is the private school graduate. By far. That will NEVER change.

I would not be so sure.

“When selective admissions seem so inexplicable — or, worse, tilted in ways that benefit the already advantaged — it should come as no surprise that many Americans do not trust the process,” the committee wrote.

I just don’t see how you can ever have an explicable process for undergraduate admissions and an admissions rate under 5%. 17 year olds are just not that fully formed yet. And if they were, college would be pointless.

I can point to half a dozen countries where they do this every year.

But none of them achieve what you think that it does. Cram school privilege is even worse in Asia than privilege here, you are delusional if you believe otherwise. Public school kids in the UK get huge advantages over private school kids because of the former huge admissions imbalances. What you dream of doesn't exist. In some countries testing schemes exist which do not achieve what you believe that they do.

I try not to let the perfect be the enemy of the good. single test admissions is better than "holistic" admissions that allow admissions officers to limit the number of jews to admit or give some races preferences over others or give preferences to country club sports or people who claim to have a burning passion for medieval literature.

Holistic admissions is far superior because none of these schools are or ever have been optimizing for 'peak' academics. They are building a class which fits your priorities, they are not optimizing the training or another crop of engineers which is what the Asian systems you so admire are set up to do. Also, they are private entities and have every right to build a class as they see fit. Public schools admitting based on exam is something that I am perfectly fine with even if it diminishes the rigor of private schools over time. People don't want these schools because of the training, they are looking for prestige.

People in the west overlook all the downsides to Asia’s various education systems- which is surprising, because they’re visibly poor ideas of how to run one. Even china, which is loved on this forum for whatever reason, has such a utilitarian admission policy, because its government is run by and formed by engineers. Engineers have a certain management strategy that reflects well in the modern Chinese government; meanwhile, the US prefers (usually, not including Trump) pretty privileged, highly educated legally trained professionals in government.

People not from the west but living in the west overlook the downsides and advocate for a system that they understand how to navigate vs one that they do not understand. There is much less angst from the native born. This isn’t unique to the top privates, it applies equally to the top UC schools given that many of these families live in CA. Our system of private universities is unique and the fact that they aren’t focused on peak academics but rather a high baseline then other factors is also pretty unique.

They want to attend these schools because if their prestige but at the same want to change them in ways that would reduce their prestige longer term.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Unless Yale plans to dramatically increase in size, the only way to end the “murky admissions practices” is to be open about conducting a lottery for everyone over a certain benchmark. There is no fair way to pick a mere 2% from a pool of highly-qualified 17 year olds.

I think one of the suggestions in the report would be a small, meaningful improvement: put in testing minimums. Would reduce apps and thus increase admissions rate, but would go a long way to getting rid of the lowest performing, "murky" admits from the Legacy, Athlete, Donor, FGLI buckets

But do they actually want to get rid of the lowest-performing scions of mega-donors?

It won't be a huge reach. Legacy admits tend to have higher average stats than the rest of the class at6 Harvard and I would expect it to be the same at any Ivy. Plenty of well trained legacies to choose from.

Legacies have higher than average stats compared to other APPLICANTS, not students. The average legacy student has lower stats. At least at Harvard.

So they're prospects would improve then with 'merit' oriented changes, correct?

The data from SFFA indicates that legacy status gives a 40% boost. IOW, given two identical applicants, if the non-legacy has a 10% chance of admission, the legacy has a 14% chance.

So it's a thumb on the scale for otherwise equal applicants, it's not given one with lower stats an advantage.

At some schools, legacy preferences have an effect on admissions comparable to other programs such as athletic recruiting or affirmative action. One study of three selective private research universities in the United States showed the following effects (admissions disadvantage and advantage in terms of SAT points on the 1600-point scale):

African Americans: +230
Hispanics: +185
Asians: -50
Recruited athletes: +200
Legacies (children of alumni): +160[41]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legacy_preferences

So it's oe thing or another. If you're not in the right racial group, athletic, or a legacy, sucks to be you.

Well, they got rid of race, and without race playing human shield for the other preferences, legacy is on the chopping block.
Am I the only one that noticed that the left suddenly decided that they had to go after legacy admissions? It was a corrupt bargain, the rich kids get legacy as long as the URM kids get affirmative action.

I don't have a kid that is a recruitable athlete but honestly I see how hard those kids work so I don't begrudge that, but legacies don't have to much to be a legacy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The most overrepresented student at Yale is the private school graduate. By far. That will NEVER change.

I would not be so sure.

“When selective admissions seem so inexplicable — or, worse, tilted in ways that benefit the already advantaged — it should come as no surprise that many Americans do not trust the process,” the committee wrote.

I just don’t see how you can ever have an explicable process for undergraduate admissions and an admissions rate under 5%. 17 year olds are just not that fully formed yet. And if they were, college would be pointless.

I can point to half a dozen countries where they do this every year.

But none of them achieve what you think that it does. Cram school privilege is even worse in Asia than privilege here, you are delusional if you believe otherwise. Public school kids in the UK get huge advantages over private school kids because of the former huge admissions imbalances. What you dream of doesn't exist. In some countries testing schemes exist which do not achieve what you believe that they do.

I try not to let the perfect be the enemy of the good. single test admissions is better than "holistic" admissions that allow admissions officers to limit the number of jews to admit or give some races preferences over others or give preferences to country club sports or people who claim to have a burning passion for medieval literature.

Holistic admissions is far superior because none of these schools are or ever have been optimizing for 'peak' academics. They are building a class which fits your priorities, they are not optimizing the training or another crop of engineers which is what the Asian systems you so admire are set up to do. Also, they are private entities and have every right to build a class as they see fit. Public schools admitting based on exam is something that I am perfectly fine with even if it diminishes the rigor of private schools over time. People don't want these schools because of the training, they are looking for prestige.

They don't have a right to any federal dollars or tax exemptions so unless these colleges start giving that up stfu about having the right to give legacy preferences.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yale committee concludes that colleges and universities have completely lost the plot:

“High costs, murky admissions practices, uneven academic standards and fears about free speech on campuses, the committee said, are among the reasons for widening discontent over higher education’s worthiness.

The findings reflect misgivings that Americans have described across years of polling and interviews. But the report, from a 10-professor panel at one of the nation’s most renowned universities, amounts to a damning depiction of academia’s role in cultivating the political and cultural forces that are reshaping higher education’s place in American life.”


https://www.nytimes.com/2026/04/15/us/yale-report-colleges-unversities-trust.html?unlocked_article_code=1.bVA._ebw.-PVgolGZ4r5r&smid=url-share

Your landscaper could have told you this.

Any FOX viewer could have told you this.

Hopefully they’re not patting themselves on the back about these conclusions.

You don't have to be either one of those things to see the issues.

What are the solutions? Seems like the fox viewers decided that destroying funding for scientific research was the solution and instead spending it on bombing a country to result in sky high energy prices that suck lots and lots and lots of money out of all of our wallets . Great job Fox viewers.

Sometimes you have to cause a ruckus
if you want to fight injustice.

Injustice my ass. The whining just takes us down a road of more government control.

The left love government control when they control the government just as the right love government control when THEY control the government.
Let MERIT control

Merit as defined by whom? The left will define it by 'equity' while the right will define it by 'wealth and heritage'. Pick your poison.

Merit as defined by the dictionary.

Traits that you are born with and require no effort on your part are not merit based.