Universities Really Are Messed Up (says Yale

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This sounds like an attempt by Yale to conflate Yale’s weaknesses with challenges being faced by other institutions. Yale is solely responsible for squandering its advantages and diminishing its reputation.

PP: What made you conclude that Yale has squandered its advantages and diminished its reputation? Could you expand on the evidence? Am genuinely curious as Yale seems to have maintained its prestige as well as a nurturing school for students. Just asking so I could be more informed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the lack of transparency is huge. They really need to switch to just having some basic paramaters (SATs/ACTs above X, top X% of graduating class) and then have a lottery for spots.

That sounds like a recipe for going back to when it was designed to admit even more advantaged students then the current system allows. That's certainly not going to help the Fox News viewers that someone was posting about on here.

But a lottery for students who meet certain clear academic thresholds would get rid of the admissions advantages for expensive sports or starting your own charity (that only your parents donate to - I have a friend whose kids used this to get into an Ivy) or getting an internship at your dad's friends company. With Khan academy a smart kid anywhere can study for the SATs and be in the top of their class if they have the drive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the lack of transparency is huge. They really need to switch to just having some basic paramaters (SATs/ACTs above X, top X% of graduating class) and then have a lottery for spots.

That sounds like a recipe for going back to when it was designed to admit even more advantaged students then the current system allows. That's certainly not going to help the Fox News viewers that someone was posting about on here.

But a lottery for students who meet certain clear academic thresholds would get rid of the admissions advantages for expensive sports or starting your own charity (that only your parents donate to - I have a friend whose kids used this to get into an Ivy) or getting an internship at your dad's friends company. With Khan academy a smart kid anywhere can study for the SATs and be in the top of their class if they have the drive.

A lottery would be embarrassing because it would not end up with a class that would make many people happy. If it was easy and would achieve the same objectives, they would have done it by now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the lack of transparency is huge. They really need to switch to just having some basic paramaters (SATs/ACTs above X, top X% of graduating class) and then have a lottery for spots.

That sounds like a recipe for going back to when it was designed to admit even more advantaged students then the current system allows. That's certainly not going to help the Fox News viewers that someone was posting about on here.

But a lottery for students who meet certain clear academic thresholds would get rid of the admissions advantages for expensive sports or starting your own charity (that only your parents donate to - I have a friend whose kids used this to get into an Ivy) or getting an internship at your dad's friends company. With Khan academy a smart kid anywhere can study for the SATs and be in the top of their class if they have the drive.

lottery away for your next future crop of private equity vultures and corporate lawyers. Who cares? Maybe we could take a little more time and attention to find our future nuclear physicists and biochemists, etc. not sure I want my transplant surgeon to be the lottery winner.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the lack of transparency is huge. They really need to switch to just having some basic paramaters (SATs/ACTs above X, top X% of graduating class) and then have a lottery for spots.

That sounds like a recipe for going back to when it was designed to admit even more advantaged students then the current system allows. That's certainly not going to help the Fox News viewers that someone was posting about on here.

But a lottery for students who meet certain clear academic thresholds would get rid of the admissions advantages for expensive sports or starting your own charity (that only your parents donate to - I have a friend whose kids used this to get into an Ivy) or getting an internship at your dad's friends company. With Khan academy a smart kid anywhere can study for the SATs and be in the top of their class if they have the drive.

lottery away for your next future crop of private equity vultures and corporate lawyers. Who cares? Maybe we could take a little more time and attention to find our future nuclear physicists and biochemists, etc. not sure I want my transplant surgeon to be the lottery winner.

If you don't care, don't post.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the lack of transparency is huge. They really need to switch to just having some basic paramaters (SATs/ACTs above X, top X% of graduating class) and then have a lottery for spots.

That sounds like a recipe for going back to when it was designed to admit even more advantaged students then the current system allows. That's certainly not going to help the Fox News viewers that someone was posting about on here.

But a lottery for students who meet certain clear academic thresholds would get rid of the admissions advantages for expensive sports or starting your own charity (that only your parents donate to - I have a friend whose kids used this to get into an Ivy) or getting an internship at your dad's friends company. With Khan academy a smart kid anywhere can study for the SATs and be in the top of their class if they have the drive.

lottery away for your next future crop of private equity vultures and corporate lawyers. Who cares? Maybe we could take a little more time and attention to find our future nuclear physicists and biochemists, etc. not sure I want my transplant surgeon to be the lottery winner.

If you don't care, don't post.

I care about the scientists and I don't care so much about the investment bankers. Go ahead and have a different opinion. It's a forum.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the lack of transparency is huge. They really need to switch to just having some basic paramaters (SATs/ACTs above X, top X% of graduating class) and then have a lottery for spots.

That sounds like a recipe for going back to when it was designed to admit even more advantaged students then the current system allows. That's certainly not going to help the Fox News viewers that someone was posting about on here.

But a lottery for students who meet certain clear academic thresholds would get rid of the admissions advantages for expensive sports or starting your own charity (that only your parents donate to - I have a friend whose kids used this to get into an Ivy) or getting an internship at your dad's friends company. With Khan academy a smart kid anywhere can study for the SATs and be in the top of their class if they have the drive.

lottery away for your next future crop of private equity vultures and corporate lawyers. Who cares? Maybe we could take a little more time and attention to find our future nuclear physicists and biochemists, etc. not sure I want my transplant surgeon to be the lottery winner.

THose jobs are not open to only people who went to Yale (or a top college). But if Yale said, there is no meaningful difference among students with SATs above 1550 who are in the top 5% of their graduating class so we will do a lottery I would take that over the current system. if they wanted to, they could run separate lotteries by state or to ensure a class that represents the U.S. by family income. But that takes power away from the school so it will never happen.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the lack of transparency is huge. They really need to switch to just having some basic paramaters (SATs/ACTs above X, top X% of graduating class) and then have a lottery for spots.

That sounds like a recipe for going back to when it was designed to admit even more advantaged students then the current system allows. That's certainly not going to help the Fox News viewers that someone was posting about on here.

But a lottery for students who meet certain clear academic thresholds would get rid of the admissions advantages for expensive sports or starting your own charity (that only your parents donate to - I have a friend whose kids used this to get into an Ivy) or getting an internship at your dad's friends company. With Khan academy a smart kid anywhere can study for the SATs and be in the top of their class if they have the drive.

lottery away for your next future crop of private equity vultures and corporate lawyers. Who cares? Maybe we could take a little more time and attention to find our future nuclear physicists and biochemists, etc. not sure I want my transplant surgeon to be the lottery winner.

THose jobs are not open to only people who went to Yale (or a top college). But if Yale said, there is no meaningful difference among students with SATs above 1550 who are in the top 5% of their graduating class so we will do a lottery I would take that over the current system. if they wanted to, they could run separate lotteries by state or to ensure a class that represents the U.S. by family income. But that takes power away from the school so it will never happen.

I don't think it makes any sense to take some of our top universities that could train our next Einstein and have it just be a lottery. I don't really know how to find the next Einstein, but probably MIT has a better idea of how to do it than we do.

For other disciplines a lottery might make more sense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Interesting.

"The committee offered dozens of recommendations, like expanding financial aid, reducing admissions preferences, zealously protecting free speech and adjusting grading policies."

So, they have identified the things that make it messed up and the want to recommend doing more of those? Ok.

Expanding financial aid is going to make it more messed up? Reducing admissions preferences is going to make it more messed up?

Preferences for who or why? More international? More unqualified? If it was working why are universities “really messed up?” Seems like they’d be saying it’s never been better.

Preferences for advantaged people which probably mostly translates to financially advantaged.

How can they have been doing that at the same time as having a preference for FGLI? Clearly that preference comes at the expense of the other preferences. 50-60% are already on financial aid. Do you think it should be 100%?

Wake up. Places like yale are hardly infested with fgli students. There are some not a lot. And do you even know the sticker price? Yes, most families would need financial assistance to be able to send students to a place that expensive. The fact that 40% don't need aid is exactly part of the problem.

I can't keep DCUM straight. Either Yale is all private school kids or all FGLI

It's not really difficult. Assuming a quick Google search is more or less correct, It's 37% private school kids and 19% fgli. That is from a population where 10% of high school seniors are from private schools and over 50% are from fgli homes. If those stats are correct, you can see why people think things are fancy private universities are tilted towards advantaged kids.

what else that costs 400k *isn't* tilted towards the advantaged.

fancy private schools are not a right. who cares. we'd be better off putting them in the category of country clubs and stop wringing our hands over this. it reeks of envy. and I send my kids to state schools.

So, no more research grants, Pell grants, or tax breaks? I think a lot of Americans would be fine with that result, but surely you can understand why Yale is trying to avoid it.

we benefit from science done at these schools. if we want to do it elsewhere, fine. it won't be cheaper. universities provide a lot of low cost, high quality labor. yale doesnt' care about pell grants. pell grants are tiny. they do care about tax breaks, but the all Churches would get lumped in there too if that was going to happen (I'm okay with that!)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the lack of transparency is huge. They really need to switch to just having some basic paramaters (SATs/ACTs above X, top X% of graduating class) and then have a lottery for spots.

That sounds like a recipe for going back to when it was designed to admit even more advantaged students then the current system allows. That's certainly not going to help the Fox News viewers that someone was posting about on here.

But a lottery for students who meet certain clear academic thresholds would get rid of the admissions advantages for expensive sports or starting your own charity (that only your parents donate to - I have a friend whose kids used this to get into an Ivy) or getting an internship at your dad's friends company. With Khan academy a smart kid anywhere can study for the SATs and be in the top of their class if they have the drive.

lottery away for your next future crop of private equity vultures and corporate lawyers. Who cares? Maybe we could take a little more time and attention to find our future nuclear physicists and biochemists, etc. not sure I want my transplant surgeon to be the lottery winner.

THose jobs are not open to only people who went to Yale (or a top college). But if Yale said, there is no meaningful difference among students with SATs above 1550 who are in the top 5% of their graduating class so we will do a lottery I would take that over the current system. if they wanted to, they could run separate lotteries by state or to ensure a class that represents the U.S. by family income. But that takes power away from the school so it will never happen.

I don't think it makes any sense to take some of our top universities that could train our next Einstein and have it just be a lottery. I don't really know how to find the next Einstein, but probably MIT has a better idea of how to do it than we do.

For other disciplines a lottery might make more sense.

Nobody proposed a pure lottery.

Say you have 10,000 students with perfect grades and perfect SAT scores, all ranked number one in their class. A sane university would find the next Einstein by educating them all. After all, based on his own prior record, a 17-year-old Einstein would not get admitted to an American T20 in 2026.

But since educating all highly-qualified students is apparently out of the question, the next most sane approach is to select the lucky few by lottery. Instead we use “who lives in New Mexico” and “who has the most expensive independent counselor.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the lack of transparency is huge. They really need to switch to just having some basic paramaters (SATs/ACTs above X, top X% of graduating class) and then have a lottery for spots.

That sounds like a recipe for going back to when it was designed to admit even more advantaged students then the current system allows. That's certainly not going to help the Fox News viewers that someone was posting about on here.

But a lottery for students who meet certain clear academic thresholds would get rid of the admissions advantages for expensive sports or starting your own charity (that only your parents donate to - I have a friend whose kids used this to get into an Ivy) or getting an internship at your dad's friends company. With Khan academy a smart kid anywhere can study for the SATs and be in the top of their class if they have the drive.

lottery away for your next future crop of private equity vultures and corporate lawyers. Who cares? Maybe we could take a little more time and attention to find our future nuclear physicists and biochemists, etc. not sure I want my transplant surgeon to be the lottery winner.

THose jobs are not open to only people who went to Yale (or a top college). But if Yale said, there is no meaningful difference among students with SATs above 1550 who are in the top 5% of their graduating class so we will do a lottery I would take that over the current system. if they wanted to, they could run separate lotteries by state or to ensure a class that represents the U.S. by family income. But that takes power away from the school so it will never happen.

I don't think it makes any sense to take some of our top universities that could train our next Einstein and have it just be a lottery. I don't really know how to find the next Einstein, but probably MIT has a better idea of how to do it than we do.

For other disciplines a lottery might make more sense.

Nobody proposed a pure lottery.

Say you have 10,000 students with perfect grades and perfect SAT scores, all ranked number one in their class. A sane university would find the next Einstein by educating them all. After all, based on his own prior record, a 17-year-old Einstein would not get admitted to an American T20 in 2026.

But since educating all highly-qualified students is apparently out of the question, the next most sane approach is to select the lucky few by lottery. Instead we use “who lives in New Mexico” and “who has the most expensive independent counselor.”

I don't know that perfect grades and perfect SAT scores are the absolute required criterion for success in for certain programs in certain disciplines. Obviously these students need to have the ability to do high-level academic work, but what are the things that really help find the brains that best engage with scientific discoveries? In my opinion those are a public good.

If it's a lottery then great. If it's not a lottery then let's not use the lottery. I'm not sure some anonymous posters on DCUM have the best answers for this conundrum. And I doubt taking a wrecking ball to our scientific research budgets are going to be helpful either.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the lack of transparency is huge. They really need to switch to just having some basic paramaters (SATs/ACTs above X, top X% of graduating class) and then have a lottery for spots.

That sounds like a recipe for going back to when it was designed to admit even more advantaged students then the current system allows. That's certainly not going to help the Fox News viewers that someone was posting about on here.

But a lottery for students who meet certain clear academic thresholds would get rid of the admissions advantages for expensive sports or starting your own charity (that only your parents donate to - I have a friend whose kids used this to get into an Ivy) or getting an internship at your dad's friends company. With Khan academy a smart kid anywhere can study for the SATs and be in the top of their class if they have the drive.

lottery away for your next future crop of private equity vultures and corporate lawyers. Who cares? Maybe we could take a little more time and attention to find our future nuclear physicists and biochemists, etc. not sure I want my transplant surgeon to be the lottery winner.

THose jobs are not open to only people who went to Yale (or a top college). But if Yale said, there is no meaningful difference among students with SATs above 1550 who are in the top 5% of their graduating class so we will do a lottery I would take that over the current system. if they wanted to, they could run separate lotteries by state or to ensure a class that represents the U.S. by family income. But that takes power away from the school so it will never happen.

I don't think it makes any sense to take some of our top universities that could train our next Einstein and have it just be a lottery. I don't really know how to find the next Einstein, but probably MIT has a better idea of how to do it than we do.

For other disciplines a lottery might make more sense.

Nobody proposed a pure lottery.

Say you have 10,000 students with perfect grades and perfect SAT scores, all ranked number one in their class. A sane university would find the next Einstein by educating them all. After all, based on his own prior record, a 17-year-old Einstein would not get admitted to an American T20 in 2026.

But since educating all highly-qualified students is apparently out of the question, the next most sane approach is to select the lucky few by lottery. Instead we use “who lives in New Mexico” and “who has the most expensive independent counselor.”

I don't know that perfect grades and perfect SAT scores are the absolute required criterion for success in for certain programs in certain disciplines. Obviously these students need to have the ability to do high-level academic work, but what are the things that really help find the brains that best engage with scientific discoveries? In my opinion those are a public good.

If it's a lottery then great. If it's not a lottery then let's not use the lottery. I'm not sure some anonymous posters on DCUM have the best answers for this conundrum. And I doubt taking a wrecking ball to our scientific research budgets are going to be helpful either.

having a system where taxpayers are subsidizing institutions that have admission standards that are opaque and disproportionately benefit the wealthy is not a good way to garner continued public support for those taxpayer subsidies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Hundreds of colleges are trying to recruit kids who would rather chase the schools they reject everyone. Articles like this will have you thinking all the colleges are bad when it’s just a handful.

If you are against the practices of Yale, go elsewhere. Dont expect a faculty report to suddenly change things at the schools that reject 96% of their applicants.

+100

[Anonymous]

We can make changes but let's not throw out the baby with the bath water. It takes all of 2 seconds to quickly come up with this list of important scientific discoveries of the last 10 years and the universities that are associated with the research....some are public, some are private....Some seem to be a collaboration of both

mRNA COVID-19 Vaccine Technology (NIH-supported/University of Pennsylvania/various): Enabled the rapid development of mRNA vaccines to fight COVID-19, revolutionizing vaccination, notes the National Institutes of Health (NIH).

CRISPR-Cas9 Gene Editing Optimization (UC Berkeley/Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard): Enhanced gene editing technologies, allowing for faster and cheaper DNA modification.

Proxima Centauri b Discovery (Carnegie Institution for Science/Various): Discovery of the closest exoplanet, 4.2 light-years away, marking a milestone in planetary science.

Neuromorphic Computing Chips (IBM/Cornell University): Developed "True North," a microchip emulating human brain architecture for AI, with 1 million neurons and 256 synapses.

Nanoarchitected Materials (Caltech): Engineered ultra-lightweight and strong materials, including non-brittle ceramics, with applications in aerospace and protective gear.

Molecular Bose-Einstein Condensate (Columbia University): Created a unique, ultra-cold state of matter (Kelvin) using molecules, enabling new quantum research.

AI for Alzheimer's Prediction (Boston University): Developed AI that uses speech analysis to predict Alzheimer’s disease with high accuracy.
CRISPR-Modified Immune Cells for Brain Cancer (UC Irvine): Engineered microglia to cross the blood-brain barrier for targeted delivery of therapies to Alzheimer's plaques.

DermaSensor AI Skin Cancer Detection (Boston University): A noninvasive device utilizing light to detect skin cancer in real-time.

Direct Methane-to-Methanol Conversion (Brookhaven National Laboratory): Engineered a catalyst for low-temperature conversion of natural gas to liquid fuel.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Progressives avoid common sense in all aspects, especially education. And since they dominate all top colleges, this concern for reform will blow over as soon as the bullhorn brigades mobilize.

I would say the elite and leave it at that, conservatives and progressives have completely gone off the deep end when it comes to college. They stopped being about education long ago and just are just another mechanism of the elite to reinforce the caste system that exists in the US. Multi million dollar donors, questionable charities and so called commmuniity service, high priced consultants as a requirement on top of being a legacy and bastardizing sports that used to be available to all. Driving up the cost of college while pretending to help the lower income, and less we forget the ridiculous process of joining clubs onc you arrive on campus all while sucking the government dry and collecting billion dollar endowments. This farce must end.

?????