Have colleges totally lost their value as a signal?

[Anonymous]

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[b]. 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?

[Anonymous]

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[b]. 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. 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.

[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 [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.

[Anonymous]

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.

I am arguing it has not always been the case, or rather, it is much more the case now than it used to be. Much more.

[Anonymous]

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.

[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.

And yet Yale’s graduation rate suggests that everyone they admit can do the work, which really is the main qualification, right?


So they’re really not accepting any unqualified applicants are they?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

And yet Yale’s graduation rate suggests that everyone they admit can do the work, which really is the main qualification, right?


So they’re really not accepting any unqualified applicants are they?

Yale and its peers have trouble retaining test optional applicants, athletes, etc., in math-heavy majors. Can they get everyone through to a BA in studio art? Of course.

[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.

Nah. Even in my day (the 80s) there were plenty of “top notch” kids who did not go to elite schools, for numerous reasons including couldn’t afford it. And even then there were way more high performers than there were slots in the T25 and therefore lots of great kids had to go to “lesser” / second choice schools.

Agree 100%.

OP, have you ever been out of the northeast? There are dozens of states in which the smartest kids typically go to whichever in-state school gives them the best financial deal.

But you and a bunch of your ignorant colleagues are sure to say, “Well, how smart could you be if you are from Arkansas or South Dakota?” To which someone might reply, “Well, smart enough not to think Ivies & similar schools have a monopoly on smart kids.”

[Anonymous]

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

[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.

It was always a fairly crappy signal of ability and at best, a somewhat dependable signal of privilege. All that’s really changed is fewer people deluding themselves thar where someone went to college is an accurate way to shoebox them.

[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.

I have been thinking that also!

[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[b]. 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. 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.

Then don’t send your kids there. They probably won’t get in any way. Be happy with UMD, it is a good school. And how do you define merit any way? A kid who has been coddled since birth by rich parents - NCRC elite preschool, followed by GDS or Sidwell K-12, private SAT tutoring, private college counseling - is that how you define merit?

[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.

Perfect response but I doubt OP will understand it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I have been thinking that also!

I've noticed it for a while, which is why I sometimes troll the posters doing it. Then Jeff locks or deletes the threads and I wonder if it's my trolling, or the bots.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

And yet Yale’s graduation rate suggests that everyone they admit can do the work, which really is the main qualification, right?


So they’re really not accepting any unqualified applicants are they?

It's very hard to flunk out of Yale.

Your state college... Not so much.