Have colleges totally lost their value as a signal?

[Anonymous]

As the parent of a current college kid who went to an Ivy as LMC kid in the 1980s, the OP and others here who believe that it was all about merit then and it's all about social engineering now are flat-out wrong. It was and always has been social engineering. It's just that the process and the outcomes up until recently were focused on rewarding the privileged; now they are focused on rewarding diversity.

Bottom line: there's still TONS of privilege at elite schools, the only difference is that the environment is more multi-cultural and there's a slightly larger number of kids who didn't grow up privileged. Both then and now, most American kids go to a nearby public school. The more things change...

[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.

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

Define merit.

(Hint: it involves more than test scores and grades, but my guess is that you would not acknowledge that in your definition.)

[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.

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.

It's more meritocratic now. When I graduated high school in 1987, I never even dreamed about applying to an Ivy as a kid from a working class background in the Midwest. I had the stats and the extracurriculars and was the first in my family to go to college. It just wasn't a thing on my radar. The internet has made a lot of information more available to all kinds of kids. Part of what y'all are whining about is the competition from kids who are more like me. Sorry not sorry.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There have always been really smart kids who chose their public university over an Ivy, or just didn't apply to an Ivy, because that's what they could afford or they needed to stay closer to home. I was one of the top 5 students in my class and got in everywhere I applied ( in-state and oos public, selective privates). When the meager financial aid offers came in it was clear I was going to our public U. And it was fine, I enjoyed college and was well prepared for my career.

When I hire people now, I don't care where they went to school. I care about what they actually did there. FWIW the best intern I ever hired went to U of South Dakota and the worst went to UPenn.

1000 times this! Success in life is about what you do! Smart kids will succeed everywhere. Majority of smart kids do not even apply to T50 schools because they know they cannot afford them....they go to the local State U, and perhaps join the honors college. Those that give it their all in college are who you want to hire. Not the kid who got to college simply because they grew up with a silver spoon and started at 3rd base.

[Anonymous]

Your point that the Yale kid would still be the better student doesn't hold up. Since those schools mostly accept ALCD (athlete, legacy, child of staff, or donor), they are not always the top student.

Malcolm Gladwell says the top 10% of any class (or was it 1/3??) at any college are the kids to watch. The bottom third of Harvard is not much better with regards to outcomes than any other other school.

He makes the case that persistence isn't due to ability but due to where they rank in their class.

This is based on relative deprivation theory. As human beings, we do not form self-assessments based on standing in the world. We form them based on our immediate circle.

Watch this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7J-wCHDJYmo

"Malcolm Gladwell explains why you'd be better off going to a worse school (and why you should hire people at the top of their class, regardless of the pedigree of their institution).

Google Zeitgeist is a collection of talks by people who are changing the world. Hear entrepreneurs, CEOs, storytellers, scientists, and dreamers share their visions of how we can shape tomorrow."

[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.

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.

u

Scores. You forgot: we needed scores.

Someone with a 1200 SAT (equivalent to about a 1400 today) did not even apply to Ivies. There were strict standardized testing cutoffs. Now the floodgates are open…and with more HS grade inflation too.

[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.

Agree with this. My parents, god love 'em, went to Dartmouth and Mount Holyoke, graduating around 1950. Now maybe my mom was a good enough student to get into Mount Holyoke, but my dad? No. He was no academic star but he did go to an exclusive boarding school and come from money.

[Anonymous]

OP- what is not being addressed is the overflow of talent at the top. It used to be that schools like Wash U or Emory would have to compromise on academics to fill their classes. The typical emory kid had no shot at Harvard. There was more differentiation. Today the kids basically have the same academics, but the Harvard kid had some hook. DEI also consumes more seats, sending extremely qualified kids down market. The result is the very best schools aren’t that much better than the next layer and so on. We have a situation now where HYP double legacies with 1600 get rejected. That would never happen in the past. So there is just less significance to being a graduate of the schools historically considered the very best.

[Anonymous]

I think OP is one of the people who mistakenly believes being born wealthy and experiencing everything that comes with that lifestyle actually a proxy for merit. Obviously her kids are exceptional and if they are rejected by ivies it must mean they are intentionally choosing lesser candidates.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think OP is one of the people who mistakenly believes being born wealthy and experiencing everything that comes with that lifestyle actually a proxy for merit. Obviously her kids are exceptional and if they are rejected by ivies it must mean they are intentionally choosing lesser candidates.

No, I think grades and test scores are a good proxy for merit. Call me crazy.

[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.

Agree with this. My parents, god love 'em, went to Dartmouth and Mount Holyoke, graduating around 1950. Now maybe my mom was a good enough student to get into Mount Holyoke, but my dad? No. He was no academic star but he did go to an exclusive boarding school and come from money.

We were specifically talking about the 90s not the 50s.

[Anonymous]

Growing up in the rural Midwest where nobody ever gave one second of thought about Ivies has yielded unexpected dividends in my professional life. I’ve never assumed a person w Yale on their resume was any smarter or better for a job than a person w Iowa on theirs .. I’ve been proven right 1000x over and my team has always been stronger for it.

[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.

How in the world do you know which Yale students have trouble with attrition? Saying things you hope to be true doesn’t make them true.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think OP is one of the people who mistakenly believes being born wealthy and experiencing everything that comes with that lifestyle actually a proxy for merit. Obviously her kids are exceptional and if they are rejected by ivies it must mean they are intentionally choosing lesser candidates.

No, I think grades and test scores are a good proxy for merit. Call me crazy.

Not crazy. Just different than the colleges, and when you run a college you can use your criteria.

I hire people, and I would not hire based exclusively on rankings of grades and test scores. The highest scoring person might not be the best candidate for what we are seeking. As long as you can fulfill the minimal academic requirements, we then can focus on other criteria which better fits our needs.

The criteria of some guy whose child is applying for a job at my shop could not be less relevant.

[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.

Yup. And in many ways it still says more about your family’s income vs your intelligence.