I believe that admission to elite schools were much more meritocratic 20 years ago versus today

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m not sure the factors you list create more meritocracy but the overall level of achievement is markedly higher today than back then. Whatever grade inflation and SAT scoring you want to cite, students are taking more advanced courses sooner than ever before. They’re just smarter than we ever were.

College professor here. I disagree completely. I can tell you that students’ performance in recent years has plummeted and that the overall quality is far lower than in the time period to which OP referred. Grade inflation and test score inflation mask what is really going on. The quality of education in this country has declined significantly.

But your only college professor, so really not top if the food chain. You literally haven’t left college yet.

You’re proving the professor’s point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m not sure the factors you list create more meritocracy but the overall level of achievement is markedly higher today than back then. Whatever grade inflation and SAT scoring you want to cite, students are taking more advanced courses sooner than ever before. They’re just smarter than we ever were.

Disagree. The “advanced” classes are easier than the “regular” classes of yesteryear. Heck, in many schools, particularly open-enrollment public high schools, there are no “regular” classes, every class is somehow “honors” or higher. Lots of kids taking AP exams and failing them. That is unfortunate as I think it’s better to take one AP exam, study really well for it, and get a 5 than take four AP exams in one month and get 3’s on all of them. Quality over quantity is not in vogue.

I can’t argue with you about the general population but my kid is an “elite student” at a highly ranked public high school (not magnet). I have a PhD in physics from MIT. I can tell you her AP physics C is no less rigorous and perhaps more so than when I took it. She also took a bunch of classes (such as AP stats) that were far more rigorous than I took in high school or even early college. She is far more prepared for college than I was and I did exceptionally well. I have seen some of the problems she is working on. The standards are higher. No question about it.

[Anonymous]

Don’t forget international recruitment for athletics.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Specifically, I believe that the most meritocratic conditions were in place from approximately 1985 to 2005. By then, colleges had stopped discriminating based on race, gender and religion. Compared to today, the SAT was much more difficult; SAT achievement tests/SAT II’s; grade inflation was less prevalent (teachers, especially in English classes, were tougher for sure); tuition was lower across the board, leading to less of a bimodal economic distribution on campus that we see today; and apps were done on paper, so no “shotgunning.”

Agree. And parents weren’t hiring $600 an hour essay coaches, $10k counselors, and starting non-profits for their kids to claim as their own.

Ps. You will sadly get flamed on your post but you are entirely right.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m not sure the factors you list create more meritocracy but the overall level of achievement is markedly higher today than back then. Whatever grade inflation and SAT scoring you want to cite, students are taking more advanced courses sooner than ever before. They’re just smarter than we ever were.

Disagree. The “advanced” classes are easier than the “regular” classes of yesteryear. Heck, in many schools, particularly open-enrollment public high schools, there are no “regular” classes, every class is somehow “honors” or higher. Lots of kids taking AP exams and failing them. That is unfortunate as I think it’s better to take one AP exam, study really well for it, and get a 5 than take four AP exams in one month and get 3’s on all of them. Quality over quantity is not in vogue.

I can’t argue with you about the general population but my kid is an “elite student” at a highly ranked public high school (not magnet). I have a PhD in physics from MIT. I can tell you her AP physics C is no less rigorous and perhaps more so than when I took it. She also took a bunch of classes (such as AP stats) that were far more rigorous than I took in high school or even early college. She is far more prepared for college than I was and I did exceptionally well. I have seen some of the problems she is working on. The standards are higher. No question about it.

Doubtful, but if you say so.....

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m not sure the factors you list create more meritocracy but the overall level of achievement is markedly higher today than back then. Whatever grade inflation and SAT scoring you want to cite, students are taking more advanced courses sooner than ever before. They’re just smarter than we ever were.

Disagree. The “advanced” classes are easier than the “regular” classes of yesteryear. Heck, in many schools, particularly open-enrollment public high schools, there are no “regular” classes, every class is somehow “honors” or higher. Lots of kids taking AP exams and failing them. That is unfortunate as I think it’s better to take one AP exam, study really well for it, and get a 5 than take four AP exams in one month and get 3’s on all of them. Quality over quantity is not in vogue.

I don’t the AP pass/fail rate has changed much in the last fifty years. What has changed is that the students who take them are comparatively younger. They take BC calc in 10th or 11th grade rather than 12th. APUSH as early as 9th.

I mean if you want to crap on students today (although i suspect what your actual agenda is to crap on public schools) go ahead, but it’s like claiming the peak of athletic achievement was in the 1980s.

Apples and oranges.

[Anonymous]

“Shotgunning” makes it far MORE meritocratic GTFO

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Firstly, family wealth was probably a far greater influence than grades; however, are meritocratic values really the best measures for what a college wants and needs? Does it really matter if someone got a 1400 vs a 1500 SAT in terms of their future success? (By the way, SAT scores are highly correlated with wealth, which goes back to the wealth factor above.) Don’t people who have different skill sets still bring value (i.e. different viewpoints)? I think the point schools are trying to make is that they don’t necessarily want only people who have the highest grades — there are other skills and perspectives to bring to the table.

SAT scores are more correlated with race than wealth. Which is uncomfortable to discuss.

+1

When so many students have a tutor, it changes the game - not for the better, because we are being given what the student can do WITH TUTORS, not what they are naturally capable of.

[Anonymous]

You people were rich elites back then, favored by the system, and you NEED to believe it was fair. I was a LMC kid from a flyover state and I don’t know a single person from my high school—where I scored in the 99th percentile on the ACT and I wasn’t close to being the top scorer in my class—who even applied to a T20 school. Things are far, far, FAR more meritocratic now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m not sure the factors you list create more meritocracy but the overall level of achievement is markedly higher today than back then. Whatever grade inflation and SAT scoring you want to cite, students are taking more advanced courses sooner than ever before. They’re just smarter than we ever were.

College professor here. I disagree completely. I can tell you that students’ performance in recent years has plummeted and that the overall quality is far lower than in the time period to which OP referred. Grade inflation and test score inflation mask what is really going on. The quality of education in this country has declined significantly.

test score inflation? can you explain please? in the ACT and SAT? and AP exams?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Lol … college admissions was more meritocratic when men didn’t have to compete with anyone.

Oh lol that’s hilarious.

OP said 20 years ago, not 50.

What elite colleges were not accepting women 20 years ago?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lol … college admissions was more meritocratic when men didn’t have to compete with anyone.

Oh lol that’s hilarious.

Men didn’t have to compete with anyone in 1996? In 2003? What?

The pool of candidates was smaller and less widely dispersed. The pool from which you drew applicants was just smaller for a host of reasons.

And that was a good thing. No, it wasn’t discriminatory at that point. The kids who applied were serious students who carefully curated their application lists.

Agree that the kids who applied were serious students who thought carefully about where to apply. You had to when you were filling out paper apps with different essays and there was no common app. That was probably a good thing as compared to now when it's easier to apply to so many more schools without a lot of thought.

But some things are definitely better now. Much more focus on diversity. "First gen" was not even a term a generation ago when I went to an Ivy. Now schools seem much more intentional about getting those students and also supporting them once they are on campus.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yes, the days when the HoS could call a contact in admissions and put in a word where much more meritocratic

How do we know that doesn't happen today?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, the days when the HoS could call a contact in admissions and put in a word where much more meritocratic

How do we know that doesn't happen today?

It definitely happens today but is limited to certain elite privates.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lol … college admissions was more meritocratic when men didn’t have to compete with anyone.

Oh lol that’s hilarious.

OP said 20 years ago, not 50.

What elite colleges were not accepting women 20 years ago?

+1. Even 50 years ago (1972), who wasn't accepting women?