Have colleges totally lost their value as a signal?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Data:

“ Asian Americans in the Harvard Class of 1995 have the highest average SAT scores of the groups within Harvard College, according to the report. The study also shows that Blacks in the Harvard Class of 1994 were admitted to the College at a higher rate than any other minority group.

Harvard's Black students in the class of 1995 have the lowest average SAT scores, and Asian and Native Americans in the class of 1994 were admitted at rates below the overall average, the report says.

Harvard's Asian Americans in the Class of 1995 have average SAT scores of 1450, Blacks averaged scores of 1290, whites scored 1400 and Hispanics averaged 1310, the report states.

Overall, students in the Harvard class of 1995 averaged 1390 total on the test. Dean of Admissions and Financial Aid William R. Fitzsimmons '67 said this is the first time ever that a mean SAT score for Harvard has been disclosed.

Harvard's average SAT scores for the class of 1995 rank the highest out of all polled institutions, with Yale second at 1350, and Princeton third at 1340, according to the study.”

https://www.thecrimson.com/article/1993/5/7/report-discloses-sats-admit-rate-pa/

So much has changed since 1995. Nearly 30 years the average SAT Harvard students was 1390. Now the average SAT score for Black Harvard students is higher than that. Did everyone get a lot smarter? Did everyone start prepping even harder? Online resources like Khan Academy have surely moved the needle.

Also, to be clear, I recognize that there are some Black students at Harvard with 1550 scores etc. So don't think I'm not giving them credit for their merits.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Too many anecdotal experience or observations from too long ago (1950!?!) being made while ignoring the data, which does exist for anyone who wants to spend some time going down the google rabbit hole.

In short, what has happened since the 1990s is that the elite Ivies students have both grown richer while simultaneously having more first gen/working class kids. How is this possible? A dimorphic student body that seems almost entirely wealthy students and full financial aid students. The middle cohort, the middle class kids, the UMC but not wealthy kids, have been squeezed out significantly. All this data is out there thanks to researchers and the infamous Harvard lawsuits. So it does lend credibility to the argument that meritocracy has declined.

Some of it is surely related to costs. The growing donut hole gap covers a bigger range of incomes compared to 20 years ago. Ivies seem to prioritize more first gen/URM students on massive fin aid packages instead of more middle/lower UMC kids on middling fin aid packages. Probably because the former provides the equity and diversity while the latter doesn't.

And?

There is no "right" to attend any college. Colleges make up their student body how they want to. If they want rich legacies and diversity that is subsidized by FA, then that is what they want. Maybe the doughnut hole kid should have done something to stand out in the application process. Just being UMC with good scores and good grades is generally not enough for the admissions officers, as it had been perhaps in the 1980's.

[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

A faulty premise. A faulty premise just makes you, Op, sound less intelligent. There are some state university students, at all state universities, at all kinds of colleges, who could have been admitted to an ivy.

Do you know what correlation means? There are always exceptions, perhaps many, but the point is there is a strong relationship. Yale kids were on average smarter than Wash U kids who were smarter than UMD kids. That relationship still holds but is now much weaker.

I don't think it holds at all.

I went to a state flagship and also to a "big 3" type school. The smartest people at my college were every bit as genius as the smartest people from my high school, many of whom went on to Ivy's/elite private colleges and universities.

It is a stupid generalization to make about cohorts of kids at different elite schools (and yes, Wash U is an elite school too)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Data:

“ Asian Americans in the Harvard Class of 1995 have the highest average SAT scores of the groups within Harvard College, according to the report. The study also shows that Blacks in the Harvard Class of 1994 were admitted to the College at a higher rate than any other minority group.

Harvard's Black students in the class of 1995 have the lowest average SAT scores, and Asian and Native Americans in the class of 1994 were admitted at rates below the overall average, the report says.

Harvard's Asian Americans in the Class of 1995 have average SAT scores of 1450, Blacks averaged scores of 1290, whites scored 1400 and Hispanics averaged 1310, the report states.

Overall, students in the Harvard class of 1995 averaged 1390 total on the test. Dean of Admissions and Financial Aid William R. Fitzsimmons '67 said this is the first time ever that a mean SAT score for Harvard has been disclosed.

Harvard's average SAT scores for the class of 1995 rank the highest out of all polled institutions, with Yale second at 1350, and Princeton third at 1340, according to the study.”

https://www.thecrimson.com/article/1993/5/7/report-discloses-sats-admit-rate-pa/

The only thing good test scores show is the test taking skills of the person taking the test. The SAT does not measure anything anymore.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I went to a state flagship and also to a "big 3" type school. The smartest people at my college were every bit as genius as the smartest people from my high school, many of whom went on to Ivy's/elite private colleges and universities.

I would think so, given that many state flagships have tens of thousands of students.

What percentage of a state flagship's students are genius level?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Data:

“ Asian Americans in the Harvard Class of 1995 have the highest average SAT scores of the groups within Harvard College, according to the report. The study also shows that Blacks in the Harvard Class of 1994 were admitted to the College at a higher rate than any other minority group.

Harvard's Black students in the class of 1995 have the lowest average SAT scores, and Asian and Native Americans in the class of 1994 were admitted at rates below the overall average, the report says.

Harvard's Asian Americans in the Class of 1995 have average SAT scores of 1450, Blacks averaged scores of 1290, whites scored 1400 and Hispanics averaged 1310, the report states.

Overall, students in the Harvard class of 1995 averaged 1390 total on the test. Dean of Admissions and Financial Aid William R. Fitzsimmons '67 said this is the first time ever that a mean SAT score for Harvard has been disclosed.

Harvard's average SAT scores for the class of 1995 rank the highest out of all polled institutions, with Yale second at 1350, and Princeton third at 1340, according to the study.”

https://www.thecrimson.com/article/1993/5/7/report-discloses-sats-admit-rate-pa/

So much has changed since 1995. Nearly 30 years the average SAT Harvard students was 1390. Now the average SAT score for Black Harvard students is higher than that. Did everyone get a lot smarter? Did everyone start prepping even harder? Online resources like Khan Academy have surely moved the needle.

Also, to be clear, I recognize that there are some Black students at Harvard with 1550 scores etc. So don't think I'm not giving them credit for their merits.

They’ve re-normed the test twice since then. A 1390 in ‘95 is equivalent to a mid 1500’s in todays scores.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The argument remains the same. There is more parity among the student bodies of the top schools. This is a function of a very large number of highly qualified students (way too many for the historically top schools to accommodate), the donut hole phenomenon (cost of attendance has outstripped wage growth for decades) and DEI related scrambling of merit criteria.

But you're writing as if each of these factors is contributing equally to the increased parity.

I listed the factors, not sure what the relative contribution is. All are probably meaningful.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Data:

“ Asian Americans in the Harvard Class of 1995 have the highest average SAT scores of the groups within Harvard College, according to the report. The study also shows that Blacks in the Harvard Class of 1994 were admitted to the College at a higher rate than any other minority group.

Harvard's Black students in the class of 1995 have the lowest average SAT scores, and Asian and Native Americans in the class of 1994 were admitted at rates below the overall average, the report says.

Harvard's Asian Americans in the Class of 1995 have average SAT scores of 1450, Blacks averaged scores of 1290, whites scored 1400 and Hispanics averaged 1310, the report states.

Overall, students in the Harvard class of 1995 averaged 1390 total on the test. Dean of Admissions and Financial Aid William R. Fitzsimmons '67 said this is the first time ever that a mean SAT score for Harvard has been disclosed.

Harvard's average SAT scores for the class of 1995 rank the highest out of all polled institutions, with Yale second at 1350, and Princeton third at 1340, according to the study.”

https://www.thecrimson.com/article/1993/5/7/report-discloses-sats-admit-rate-pa/

So much has changed since 1995. Nearly 30 years the average SAT Harvard students was 1390. Now the average SAT score for Black Harvard students is higher than that. Did everyone get a lot smarter? Did everyone start prepping even harder? Online resources like Khan Academy have surely moved the needle.

Also, to be clear, I recognize that there are some Black students at Harvard with 1550 scores etc. So don't think I'm not giving them credit for their merits.

They’ve re-normed the test twice since then. A 1390 in ‘95 is equivalent to a mid 1500’s in todays scores.

I got 1500 in 1992. What is that today?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The argument remains the same. There is more parity among the student bodies of the top schools. This is a function of a very large number of highly qualified students (way too many for the historically top schools to accommodate), the donut hole phenomenon (cost of attendance has outstripped wage growth for decades) and DEI related scrambling of merit criteria.

But you're writing as if each of these factors is contributing equally to the increased parity.

I listed the factors, not sure what the relative contribution is. All are probably meaningful.

As in like equally meaningful or approximately so?

[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

A faulty premise. A faulty premise just makes you, Op, sound less intelligent. There are some state university students, at all state universities, at all kinds of colleges, who could have been admitted to an ivy.

Do you know what correlation means? There are always exceptions, perhaps many, but the point is there is a strong relationship. Yale kids were on average smarter than Wash U kids who were smarter than UMD kids. That relationship still holds but is now much weaker.

I don't think it holds at all.

I went to a state flagship and also to a "big 3" type school. The smartest people at my college were every bit as genius as the smartest people from my high school, many of whom went on to Ivy's/elite private colleges and universities.

It is a stupid generalization to make about cohorts of kids at different elite schools (and yes, Wash U is an elite school too)

Are you literally arguing that the caliber of students at big 3 state u was or is the same as HYP? Obviously some or many state u students were at the HYP level, but we are saying overall.

[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.

It’s not “racist” to point out that for CENTURIES these schools were absolutely not meritocratic. They only admitted white men. Remember RBG being awarded one of 4 or so seats set aside for women in law school— and then flat out being told by the Dean at a dinner she shouldn’t be taking a seat from a man?

Institutional racist/ sexism, discrimination based on ethnicity was a fact for centuries, not an opinion. For that matter (for everyone now so incredibly concerned about anti-sematism on campuses) these schools also had formal (not even kinda hidden) efforts to limit the number Jewish students.

And once these colleges desegregated and went co-Ed for my generation, there was no outreach to women and URM. We were permitted to apply. It’s not like there was any formal effort to get get talented uRMs to actually apply.

And these schools were not need blind/meets full need for less affluent kids in the past.
. Getting in was only half the battle. You had to pay for it.

i was valedictorian of my class, 1500+ (on the old SAT, so 99.8% or something like that), all conference in a sport, a national Merit scholar and ultimately a Morehead Scholar to UNC. No one suggested an Ivy was even an option for me. I did get into Duke and Davidson (which I only applied to because I lived in NC). But I got $0 in need or merit from either — even though my FAFSA income was my mother being a single parent public school teacher. Today, I’d get full tuition need based aid at these schools. But back when there was “merit”, if you weren’t rich, you may or may not have been able to take out loans. And that was it. If I hadn’t had a Morehead, IDk how I would have paid for college. Loans I guess. My sister was over 40 before she paid off her UNC undergrad loans

You say there are lower standards for URMs. Three things— One— Jared Kushner is younger than me. Do you really want to maintain admissions for his generation then were more about merit than now?

Second, probably not anymore following the SCOTUS ruling. So why whine?

Third, for most of there schools history URMs (women, Asians, too many Jews) were not admitted as formal policy. Why is it so upsetting that others also get a shot?

Putting aside the guy who thinks merit looks like only rich white men (which I hope is a bad joke), these school were formally only for rich white men for centuries. And there were significant barriers to entry for URMs after that (financial, and just not being told it was an option). And formal structural barriers (namely ED, which prefers full pay, legacy and athletics) still at these schools that give preference to rich white kids.

And as a white person, I am so tired of someone yelling about how racist it is to notice and comment on structural barriers the, like legacy and athletic admissions, benefit white people.

For centuries only white people could enroll at, say Yale. It’s not racist to point out that white people benefit most from legacy admissions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Data:

“ Asian Americans in the Harvard Class of 1995 have the highest average SAT scores of the groups within Harvard College, according to the report. The study also shows that Blacks in the Harvard Class of 1994 were admitted to the College at a higher rate than any other minority group.

Harvard's Black students in the class of 1995 have the lowest average SAT scores, and Asian and Native Americans in the class of 1994 were admitted at rates below the overall average, the report says.

Harvard's Asian Americans in the Class of 1995 have average SAT scores of 1450, Blacks averaged scores of 1290, whites scored 1400 and Hispanics averaged 1310, the report states.

Overall, students in the Harvard class of 1995 averaged 1390 total on the test. Dean of Admissions and Financial Aid William R. Fitzsimmons '67 said this is the first time ever that a mean SAT score for Harvard has been disclosed.

Harvard's average SAT scores for the class of 1995 rank the highest out of all polled institutions, with Yale second at 1350, and Princeton third at 1340, according to the study.”

https://www.thecrimson.com/article/1993/5/7/report-discloses-sats-admit-rate-pa/

So much has changed since 1995. Nearly 30 years the average SAT Harvard students was 1390. Now the average SAT score for Black Harvard students is higher than that. Did everyone get a lot smarter? Did everyone start prepping even harder? Online resources like Khan Academy have surely moved the needle.

Also, to be clear, I recognize that there are some Black students at Harvard with 1550 scores etc. So don't think I'm not giving them credit for their merits.

They’ve re-normed the test twice since then. A 1390 in ‘95 is equivalent to a mid 1500’s in todays scores.

I got 1500 in 1992. What is that today?

Probably a 1600 or very close. The closer you get to perfect the less the re-norm matters. The average score increase was about 200, which clearly isn’t possible for a score like yours.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The argument remains the same. There is more parity among the student bodies of the top schools. This is a function of a very large number of highly qualified students (way too many for the historically top schools to accommodate), the donut hole phenomenon (cost of attendance has outstripped wage growth for decades) and DEI related scrambling of merit criteria.

But you're writing as if each of these factors is contributing equally to the increased parity.

I listed the factors, not sure what the relative contribution is. All are probably meaningful.

As in like equally meaningful or approximately so?

I would say the explosion of high quality applicants is the most significant driver of parity but DEI raises the risk that a student graduating from a super elite school is there only because he or she met the minimum standards. So the damage to the value of the signal works in two ways. First the average student isn’t much better and second the risk that any given student is at the elite school for reasons unrelated to their individual capacities is higher.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I would say the explosion of high quality applicants is the most significant driver of parity but DEI raises the risk that a student graduating from a super elite school is there only because he or she met the minimum standards. So the damage to the value of the signal works in two ways. First the average student isn’t much better and second the risk that any given student is at the elite school for reasons unrelated to their individual capacities is higher.

Is a student who's first generation or from Oklahoma admitted to HYP with a 1500 SAT score over a student with a 1560 SAT from the DMV a "DEI" applicant in your book, ceteris paribus?

[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.

As a donut hole family, I hope this is true. In the ‘90s, elite schools had lower scoring legacy and URM students but they were overall a minority of the student body.

Today, it seems like public and private elite schools are more comparable from a student achievement standpoint.