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/r...-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.

You conveniently ignore that SAT scores today cannot be compared to 20 years ago because the SAT rescored significantly (effectively inflating the scores). Other posters have explained several times. White students and Asian students still significantly[i] outscore black students.

NP--What is your point in highlighting the difference in average scores? Unless EVERY person of one race scores higher than EVERY person of another race, which is ridiculous to even consider, then one has to treat each person as an individual. Are you talking to Mike Tyson or Neil DeGrasse Tyson? Janet Jackson or Ketanji Brown Jackson? You'll never know unless you start off with no assumptions.

[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.

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.

Do you hear yourself? Admissions was not more meritocratic as broad swaths of society were not even in the running for attending these schools for sundry reasons, including COA. My HS BF only attended an Ivy because the local alum who interviewed him was so impressed that he paid his tuition.

And LOL on the excessive rise in tuition - where were you all when Reagan gutted federal financial aid as well as aid to states, who in turn cut their support for higher ed? Bright working and lower middle class students had to leave privates and some publics because they could no longer afford it. What was meritocratic in that?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When the current generation of college student parents applied to and attended college, [i]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.

This has literally never been the case. The elite colleges have always had a big share of legacies and/or business or politically influential students. And Denison and UMD have always had a good number of students who could go to Yale, but just didn’t get in (or didn’t even apply). There used to be more barriers to entry. The common app has made it so much easier for kids to apply broadly. I grew up 60 miles from a top 20 university in the 90s. My HS was rural and in a poor community. The counselor could not even remember anyone from my HS applying there. I had to call the college and ask them to mail me an application and use a typewriter to fill it in.

Your post just feels like a thinly veiled screed against DEI. I’m not sure what to make of your last sentence. What are you even talking about?

Op here - DEI is part of it because it has undermined merit but also the fact admissions has become hypercompetitive (demographics) which means [b]the difference between tier one and tier two is almost immeasurably small now. And tuition is so ridiculous now that even upper middle class families have to pursue cheaper options. The end result is schools are no longer really sorting students as they did in the past. My last sentence is a statement suggesting I am repulsed by much of the behavior recently displayed by attendees of “elite” institutions- and I am not alone in that sentiment.

This has always been the case. You are just noticing now because it's affecting your family.

So much this.

OMG, yes. The whines of the folks I know wringing their hands b/c they can't afford the prestige ed for their kids that they had as a college student is deafening.

[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.

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

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

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

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

???

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When the current generation of college student parents applied to and attended college, [i]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.

This has literally never been the case. The elite colleges have always had a big share of legacies and/or business or politically influential students. And Denison and UMD have always had a good number of students who could go to Yale, but just didn’t get in (or didn’t even apply). There used to be more barriers to entry. The common app has made it so much easier for kids to apply broadly. I grew up 60 miles from a top 20 university in the 90s. My HS was rural and in a poor community. The counselor could not even remember anyone from my HS applying there. I had to call the college and ask them to mail me an application and use a typewriter to fill it in.

Your post just feels like a thinly veiled screed against DEI. I’m not sure what to make of your last sentence. What are you even talking about?

Op here - DEI is part of it because it has undermined merit but also the fact admissions has become hypercompetitive (demographics) which means the difference between tier one and tier two is almost immeasurably small now. [b]And tuition is so ridiculous now that even upper middle class families have to pursue cheaper options. The end result is schools are no longer really sorting students as they did in the past. My last sentence is a statement suggesting I am repulsed by much of the behavior recently displayed by attendees of “elite” institutions- and I am not alone in that sentiment.

1 - Wow, so hard for them. Maybe an orchestra of tiny violins can play a tune to provide some solace for how incredibly unfair it is for UMC to have to pursue cheaper options. The horror.

2 - grateful for any cites you have for the associations and groups organizing on this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Lately I am getting this creepy sensation there is one poster who is just using this forum to test out certain talking points. At points it seems the poster is arguing with themselves to keep up the controversy.

It is interesting when thread gets locked or deleted a new one will pop up and inevitably soon contain the exact same wording or arguments.

I may be completely off.

Interesting. There was a thread some weeks ago along a somewhat similar vein that was suddenly locked. Now realizing perhaps why that was the case.

[Anonymous]

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.

Well, you clearly don't get out much. Know many T14 law school grads who were Ivy+ undergrads and acknowledge that some of the top students in their class were from state schools. Not an insignificant number.

[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.

DH was #2 in his Midwest HS class. His GF was #1. He had ~ 3.9ish and she was 4.0 in same classes.

But h e was full pay and attended a top New England school. She was on FA and attended honors college @ in-state flagship. Where she was going was never up for discussion. Her mom couldn't afford the COA for a school out east.

It was what it was and it now is what it is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Hardly. This discussion is a coping mechanism. All those kids getting into schools are inferior to mine so those schools are slipping and the ones that admitted my kid are rising.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Data:

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

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

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

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

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

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

The only thing good test scores show is the test taking skills of the person taking the test. The SAT does not measure anything anymore.

That plus how prepared they are for college level work.

[Anonymous]

The only Yalie I knew back in the day (good old days according to OP) was a legacy kid who had lived overseas for part of high school.

He was so close to a failure to launch kid (barely able to cover 4-way shared rent in Georgetown) that I couldn't believe he was a Yalie.

Also used to say super-awkward things about me to my boyfriend (housemate). And he had no girlfriend of his own. He was the closest person I ever met to what today's youth call an incel.

Sample of one story but I'm still not believing the OP's points about how magnificent all the students were "back in the day".

[Anonymous]

OP- it’s interesting how much reading into the post and psychoanalysis has taken place. The thrust of the post is that compared with a generation ago, it’s not as reasonable to make assumptions about someone with a degree from a very top school versus another good school. There is simply more parity. I attributed it to demographics and dei policies that de-emphasize common sense markers of academic achievement/ability. The post was simply attempting to make an objective observation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The only Yalie I knew back in the day (good old days according to OP) was a legacy kid who had lived overseas for part of high school.

He was so close to a failure to launch kid (barely able to cover 4-way shared rent in Georgetown) that I couldn't believe he was a Yalie.

Also used to say super-awkward things about me to my boyfriend (housemate). And he had no girlfriend of his own. He was the closest person I ever met to what today's youth call an incel.

Sample of one story but I'm still not believing the OP's points about how magnificent all the students were "back in the day".

I know four Yalies. Two are underemployed writers. One is a university professor. (Who went to a state school for graduate school.) One is a law partner on his third wife and second set of kids.

They are not more successful than anyone else I know, or more or less happier. They were all super smart as kids... but so were we all.

I've known a few people who went to graduate school at Yale, mostly creatives. It is a way to write your own ticket if you want a job as a novelist, a screenwriter, a painter, or an actor. The people I know who've done that aren't extraordinarily gifted at those things, but Yale opens a lot of doors. That won't change. People like status just like they like lottery tickets. They may not win the lottery or get into Yale, but they still want to believe in the myth.

[Anonymous]

No. They have not completely lost their value as a signal. Thank you for coming to my TED talk.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP- it’s interesting how much reading into the post and psychoanalysis has taken place. The thrust of the post is that compared with a generation ago, it’s not as reasonable to make assumptions about someone with a degree from a very top school versus another good school. There is simply more parity. I attributed it to demographics and dei policies that de-emphasize common sense markers of academic achievement/ability. The post was simply attempting to make an objective observation.

The key word is "attempting." The post attempted to make an objective observation, but wasn't successful as there are decades and decades of examples of the Ivies not being meritocracies.

Attempted but failed.