Have colleges totally lost their value as a signal?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Again, Id like to point out that rigid expectations for admissions that involve near perfect test scores and top grades does not make a class of creative innovators. It makes a class of brown-nosing drones.

I had a friend who taught at Yale recently say (we were talking about grade inflation), that the kids are all super smart, but it's boardroom smart. Salesman smart. They know how to convince you to buy a thing, but that doesn't mean they've picked up a lot of curiosity about how it was made, or why, or why making something else might make more sense. They're not risk takers, he said. Or if they are, they're too smart to show it in the classroom.

Some of you probably think that's great. I don't.

This is pure cope from people who aren’t very smart but love to imagine this doesn’t matter “because smart people are really dull and I’m much more interesting and creative”. Nope. You’re not smart and you’re not really interesting and creative either, sorry.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Again, Id like to point out that rigid expectations for admissions that involve near perfect test scores and top grades does not make a class of creative innovators. It makes a class of brown-nosing drones.

I had a friend who taught at Yale recently say (we were talking about grade inflation), that the kids are all super smart, but it's boardroom smart. Salesman smart. They know how to convince you to buy a thing, but that doesn't mean they've picked up a lot of curiosity about how it was made, or why, or why making something else might make more sense. They're not risk takers, he said. Or if they are, they're too smart to show it in the classroom.

Some of you probably think that's great. I don't.

It depends on the school. I'm pretty sure the students at MIT, Rice, and Stanford would want to know how the thing was made. A student at Chicago would want to know what is the purpose of this thing that was made. A student at Northwestern would want to know what else can we do with this thing that was made.

But to your friend's larger point, yes, a lot of Ivy students are not risk takers. Smart, sure. But they are checking boxes. Even the act of going to an ivy is the safe, risk-free thing to do.

You’d sell your soul to get your kid into one of those havens of box-checking risk-avoiders.

But if that doesn’t happen (and it probably won’t) you can console yourself with the thought that those Ivy kids really aren’t all that great anyway. 🙄

[Anonymous]

Universities are in the process of destroying themselves in the name of wokeness and DEI.

Here is their latest self-destructive gambit:

https://www.tearthepaperceiling.org/?utm_source=doubleverify.com&utm_medium=display&utm_campaign=AC_THDS&utm_content=BRND_CORE_PRCG_EN_300x250

[Anonymous]

Most of my peers and family members who went to Ivies and elite schools wouldn’t get in today. In the 80s, the straight A honor student who was president of the student council with a perfect SAT had their pick. At our local HS, those kids stand almost no chance of admission based on that alone. My own sibs attended highly ranked schools, yet their stats in the late 80s and 90s were lower than my kids at UMD today. Lots of smart kids attend their state schools or lower-ranked privates with generous merit aid because that’s what they can afford. Look at where many of the very gifted kids in the Blair magnet end up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Most of my peers and family members who went to Ivies and elite schools wouldn’t get in today. In the 80s, the straight A honor student who was president of the student council with a perfect SAT had their pick. At our local HS, those kids stand almost no chance of admission based on that alone. My own sibs attended highly ranked schools, yet their stats in the late 80s and 90s were lower than my kids at UMD today. Lots of smart kids attend their state schools or lower-ranked privates with generous merit aid because that’s what they can afford. Look at where many of the very gifted kids in the Blair magnet end up.

Op here- this is basically the point of the thread. In the 90s, a handful of schools absorbed the very best students if they could afford it or got sufficient aid. The remainder went to state u. Now there are so many “very best students” and umc affordability has been destroyed. So the very best students are all over the place. And dei, largely an indulgence of the schools with the largest endowments, raises questions as to the overall quality of their student bodies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Most of my peers and family members who went to Ivies and elite schools wouldn’t get in today. In the 80s, the straight A honor student who was president of the student council with a perfect SAT had their pick. At our local HS, those kids stand almost no chance of admission based on that alone. My own sibs attended highly ranked schools, yet their stats in the late 80s and 90s were lower than my kids at UMD today. Lots of smart kids attend their state schools or lower-ranked privates with generous merit aid because that’s what they can afford. Look at where many of the very gifted kids in the Blair magnet end up.

Op here- this is basically the point of the thread. In the 90s, a handful of schools absorbed the very best students if they could afford it or got sufficient aid. The remainder went to state u. Now there are so many “very best students” and umc affordability has been destroyed. So the very best students are all over the place. And dei, largely an indulgence of the schools with the largest endowments, raises questions as to the overall quality of their student bodies.

DP: Interesting that you didn't address my earlier post. What is the tipping point? You are focused on DEI but there are many reasons why the make-up of students has changed. The UMC unhooked smart class president was the "equity" project in the 90s, along with increasing minority students but limiting Asian American students. Are you arguing that the quality has changed solely because the number of DEI students has doubled? The SAT/ACT testing gaps existed in the 1990s just like the present. You are basically arguing that the 10-15% increase in spaces for URMs reduced the perceived quality of students in these institutions. Or do you believe it is a combination of DEI and TO? And yes, many of the high-achieving UMC non-hooked students are now at the next tier of schools and state universities. However, you fail to take into account that the number of college students increased by 30% and the number of seats in the Ivy Plus schools didn't increase. They had to go somewhere regardless of DEI initiatives.

I am friends with an AO at an Ivy League school, and contrary to popular belief-- white UMC students are applying TO, especially athletes and some legacies and some of them are getting in--the TO admitted students are not only URM or large donor/development cases. My friend's unhooked, UMC daughter just got into Dartmouth ED test optional. She fits the profile of the 90's student without the test score. Didn't submit because she scored 33 on the ACT.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Most of my peers and family members who went to Ivies and elite schools wouldn’t get in today. In the 80s, the straight A honor student who was president of the student council with a perfect SAT had their pick. At our local HS, those kids stand almost no chance of admission based on that alone. My own sibs attended highly ranked schools, yet their stats in the late 80s and 90s were lower than my kids at UMD today. Lots of smart kids attend their state schools or lower-ranked privates with generous merit aid because that’s what they can afford. Look at where many of the very gifted kids in the Blair magnet end up.

Op here- this is basically the point of the thread. In the 90s, a handful of schools absorbed the very best students if they could afford it or got sufficient aid. The remainder went to state u. Now there are so many “very best students” and umc affordability has been destroyed. So the very best students are all over the place. And dei, largely an indulgence of the schools with the largest endowments, raises questions as to the overall quality of their student bodies.

The point of your thread is brown and poor students are lower quality. But you hide behind DEI.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Most of my peers and family members who went to Ivies and elite schools wouldn’t get in today. In the 80s, the straight A honor student who was president of the student council with a perfect SAT had their pick. At our local HS, those kids stand almost no chance of admission based on that alone. My own sibs attended highly ranked schools, yet their stats in the late 80s and 90s were lower than my kids at UMD today. Lots of smart kids attend their state schools or lower-ranked privates with generous merit aid because that’s what they can afford. Look at where many of the very gifted kids in the Blair magnet end up.

Op here- this is basically the point of the thread. In the 90s, a handful of schools absorbed the very best students if they could afford it or got sufficient aid. The remainder went to state u. Now there are so many “very best students” and umc affordability has been destroyed. So the very best students are all over the place. And dei, largely an indulgence of the schools with the largest endowments, raises questions as to the overall quality of their student bodies.

Except your premise is false. In the 90s, these schools absorbed the best connected students and some bright ones too. Now, partly because of diversity, they absorb more of the best students than they used to. But, yes, there a lots of "best" students to go around. DEI acvounts for few admits, and these students are at least as "best" as the connected students of the 90s. Your politics are showing. Are you a paid poster or just someone who promotes propaganda for fun?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Most of my peers and family members who went to Ivies and elite schools wouldn’t get in today. In the 80s, the straight A honor student who was president of the student council with a perfect SAT had their pick. At our local HS, those kids stand almost no chance of admission based on that alone. My own sibs attended highly ranked schools, yet their stats in the late 80s and 90s were lower than my kids at UMD today. Lots of smart kids attend their state schools or lower-ranked privates with generous merit aid because that’s what they can afford. Look at where many of the very gifted kids in the Blair magnet end up.

And many at Ivies too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Most of my peers and family members who went to Ivies and elite schools wouldn’t get in today. In the 80s, the straight A honor student who was president of the student council with a perfect SAT had their pick. At our local HS, those kids stand almost no chance of admission based on that alone. My own sibs attended highly ranked schools, yet their stats in the late 80s and 90s were lower than my kids at UMD today. Lots of smart kids attend their state schools or lower-ranked privates with generous merit aid because that’s what they can afford. Look at where many of the very gifted kids in the Blair magnet end up.

My office mate is a UVA ‘83 alum, but openly states he would not be admitted to UVA if he applied today.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Again, Id like to point out that rigid expectations for admissions that involve near perfect test scores and top grades does not make a class of creative innovators. It makes a class of brown-nosing drones.

I had a friend who taught at Yale recently say (we were talking about grade inflation), that the kids are all super smart, but it's boardroom smart. Salesman smart. They know how to convince you to buy a thing, but that doesn't mean they've picked up a lot of curiosity about how it was made, or why, or why making something else might make more sense. They're not risk takers, he said. Or if they are, they're too smart to show it in the classroom.

Some of you probably think that's great. I don't.

This is pure cope from people who aren’t very smart but love to imagine this doesn’t matter “because smart people are really dull and I’m much more interesting and creative”. Nope. You’re not smart and you’re not really interesting and creative either, sorry.

Tell yourself whatever you want. I'm smart and "connected" enough to know a ton of ivy grads and the professors who teach them. Attitudes like yours are what make highly-competitive environments less about merit and more about branding. These boards are full of people counseling their children not to report sub-1550 sat scores, or encouraging them to take the math or English class that will land them the easy A, to make sure to take an uncommon sport, play an uncommon instrument, start a nonprofit (which is 99% bs), all with the goal of marketing themselves into the perfect little college package.

You can't take risks in that environment--there's no room. Success is measured by a narrow set of parameters. Just look at the thread with the kid who got an 89.55.

It's also true that boardrooms and banks (and governments) mostly need people like this. Hard-working, obedient, bright and savvy enough to know how to sell themselves as a commodity--whole also being arrogant enough to put themselves first. A lot of that instruction comes naturally with our current version of UMC utopia: but it's a deeply conformist and status-obssessed environment.

Growing up like that has its own cost.

I have had every privilege to allow me access into your world, but the reason I don't live in it or raise my kids in it is I think it sucks. It's a facade that often hides very interesting creative people who never learn to use their gifts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My office mate is a UVA ‘83 alum, but openly states he would not be admitted to UVA if he applied today.

How many applicants did UVA have in 1979 relative to class size?

How many applicants does UVA have today relative to class size?

[Anonymous]

I would never say that college admissions back in the 90's were purely based on merit. However, they were certainly more predictable. A completely unhooked student, as I was, could look at their grades and SAT scores and be able to make a reasonable assessment about what schools were reaches, targets, or safeties. Doesn't seem to be as much the case today. I doubt that my teen will get admitted to my alma mater (where legacy is not a consideration) even though she will have much higher stats than I did.

[Anonymous]

Education has become democratized. Whether you think that is a net win or a net loss comes down to your worldview. I personally am glad that we educate women, people of color, lower SES individuals - but yes, with increased competition (and degree attainment) it becomes less “special.”

That said, less than 40% of the US adult population has a bachelors degree.

[Anonymous]

Most state schools have expanded along with increased demand over the decades. That’s why there is now an overall surplus of college seats nationally. It’s just that the selective privates being discussed here have remained largely static.