Have colleges totally lost their value as a signal?

[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.

Have to agree. Attended elite Ivy '98-'02. It was already commonly said at the time that most legacies couldn't get in. The typical student was a hard working, bright, accomplished UMC kid from a professional UMC suburb without real hooks other than grades and scores. While there were legacies and some athletes, the overall environment was very meritocratic. Keep in mind that legacies could also come from non-wealthy families (my freshman roommate was a legacy but father was a teacher and was on substantial financial aid) and athletes could have excellent grades and scores. Student body was also heavily Jewish and it's hard to argue they were the legacies of Gentlemen's Cs! There were also the rich kid cohorts but they lived to themselves and didn't really seem to have a major presence or influence on campus.

It's probably true that in the mid to late 1990s, adcomms set aside certain percentage for legacies and URMs, which mainly meant AAs as Latinos were just an emerging presence. But it still left the clear majority of the student body for the meritocratic pool. What's changed is social engineering has substantially whittled down the meritocratic space.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Yale University boasts impressive graduation rates, with 97% of students graduating, placing it in the top 5% of institutions. The retention rate is also high at 98%, and the 6-year graduation rate stands at 97%. Furthermore, the 4-year graduation rate is 88%, which is also within the top 5%.

https://research.com/best-colleges/yale-unive...tion-rate-and-career

But don't let facts and data get in the way of your narrative of made up stuff.

[Anonymous]

OP is the sort that will open her eyes after Ben Carson has saved her life... look up at his face and say "Where's the surgeon? I want to thank him."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Even 20 years ago it was difficult to flunk out of an Ivy. The schools are very good at getting kids out on time. The Ivies don't take kids who can't get through in four years but they also have ways to allow their weaker students graduate on time. Certain majors and certain courses make things easier.

As someone involved with hiring for consulting I'd have to agree that we don't view the Ivies the same way we did 20 years ago. In 2004 we could justifiably assume that at a minimum 80% of a graduating Ivy class would qualify for recruitment. Nowadays it's more like 50%. The bottom half of the elite Ivies these days are filled with decent kids but not as strong as the kids who used to be in that place 20 years ago, who are now at a much larger range of schools or better LACs or instate flagships for various reasons.

[Anonymous]

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.

Well done

[Anonymous]

OP go ba k to your racist hole

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Yale University boasts impressive graduation rates, with 97% of students graduating, placing it in the top 5% of institutions. The retention rate is also high at 98%, and the 6-year graduation rate stands at 97%. Furthermore, the 4-year graduation rate is 88%, which is also within the top 5%.

https://research.com/best-colleges/yale-unive...tion-rate-and-career

But don't let facts and data get in the way of your narrative of made up stuff.

Where’s the data saying that everyone who started freshman year as a physics major graduated as a physics major?

Nowhere.

My claim is that people change majors, and weaker students often change from harder majors to easier majors.

[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.

Over half the students at places like Yale would not get in on merit.

[Anonymous]

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.

This is an angry, racist rant There is plenty of data supporting OP's point. The game has changed and score and grades don't matter nearly as much as having a hook now, being an ahh to athlete or being an URM. The schools openly acknowledge that the bar is lowered, in some cases quite significantly, for URM. This isn't some myth, there is data behind it.

Once again, posters make the false assumption that being URM makes someone a lesser student or lesser intelligence than their upper middle class whic kid who didn't get in. Just a really sad commentary on the entitlement here.

[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.

Narrator: the middle class has ALWAYS had to pursue cheaper options.

[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.

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.

No, it has always been the case. The difference is that today, there are simply more kids applying to colleges than 20 and 50 years ago because of globalization and population growth. The number of seats at these schools generally has not changed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Have to agree. Attended elite Ivy '98-'02. It was already commonly said at the time that most legacies couldn't get in. The typical student was a hard working, bright, accomplished UMC kid from a professional UMC suburb without real hooks other than grades and scores. While there were legacies and some athletes, the overall environment was very meritocratic. Keep in mind that legacies could also come from non-wealthy families (my freshman roommate was a legacy but father was a teacher and was on substantial financial aid) and athletes could have excellent grades and scores. Student body was also heavily Jewish and it's hard to argue they were the legacies of Gentlemen's Cs! There were also the rich kid cohorts but they lived to themselves and didn't really seem to have a major presence or influence on campus.

It's probably true that in the mid to late 1990s, adcomms set aside certain percentage for legacies and URMs, which mainly meant AAs as Latinos were just an emerging presence. But it still left the clear majority of the student body for the meritocratic pool. What's changed is social engineering has substantially whittled down the meritocratic space.

"social engineering"

Have you considered that for the first 150 years, these schools socially engineered to be white, male and upper class?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Yale University boasts impressive graduation rates, with 97% of students graduating, placing it in the top 5% of institutions. The retention rate is also high at 98%, and the 6-year graduation rate stands at 97%. Furthermore, the 4-year graduation rate is 88%, which is also within the top 5%.

https://research.com/best-colleges/yale-unive...tion-rate-and-career

But don't let facts and data get in the way of your narrative of made up stuff.

Where’s the data saying that everyone who started freshman year as a physics major graduated as a physics major?

Nowhere.

My claim is that people change majors, and weaker students often change from harder majors to easier majors.

Are you suggesting that less than 3% of their graduates are in STEM majors?

That's 97% across the board. All students, all majors. Not really a lot of headroom for any manipulation by major.

Facts.

Your claims are made up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Yale University boasts impressive graduation rates, with 97% of students graduating, placing it in the top 5% of institutions. The retention rate is also high at 98%, and the 6-year graduation rate stands at 97%. Furthermore, the 4-year graduation rate is 88%, which is also within the top 5%.

https://research.com/best-colleges/yale-unive...tion-rate-and-career

But don't let facts and data get in the way of your narrative of made up stuff.

Where’s the data saying that everyone who started freshman year as a physics major graduated as a physics major?

Nowhere.

My claim is that people change majors, and weaker students often change from harder majors to easier majors.

Neither do colleges publish data on who changes major at what points or graduation GPAs. I am sure they do internally but do not publish the data.

So, all this is nothing but an assumption and speculation on your part.
Which clearly shows your POV. Only white men could possibly meet the merit requirements for Ivys, all others just got in on DEI and then the Ivy turns into a diploma mill to gift them a degree, no?

[Anonymous]

Anybody else wondering if OP is on a bender?