Reply to How the Ivy League Broke America

Forum Index » College and University Discussion

Reply to "How the Ivy League Broke America"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]FWIW, I think peak-meritocracy (in the IQy sense that Brooks is talking about) took place when Brooks was applying to college and has been declining ever since.

There's been grade inflation in terms of GPAs, SATs and AP scores, which means that it's more difficult to distinguish the super-brainy students from the merely very smart + diligent. In the 1980s I pulled a 1400 on the SAT and ended up at Middlebury, where my score was 100+ points above Midd's average. But it also was 200 points below a perfect score. So it was easy to distinguish me from the rocket scientist at MIT. Today. that 1400 would be maybe a 1520, so there's just less to distingish one student from another. The fact that applicants now emphasize "passion projects" and "research" is because, from a conventional academic standpoint, many are almost indistinguisably perfect. The signal-to-noise ratio in academic records is just lower today than it was, say, 25 years ago.

Second, Brookis is right that there is a feeling of elitisim on college campuses. But, from pretty extensive experience on elite campuses, the super brainiacs are in general not like that. Most are immersed in their subjects, sitting in the physics lab or whatever. And many are quite humble in their opinions. In other words, pretty much what you'd hope for. The social activists are disproportionatley in social activist academic fields. And, ON AVERAGE, those students wouldn't win out in the IQocracy that Brooks thinks elite colleges today are. (Yes, there are exceptions, but on average I'd bet a lot of $ on it.) Short story, the really smart ones aren't the elitists and the elitsts aren't the really smart ones. (And by "really smart" I don't mean you got a 4.0 HS GPA in today's environment; I mean you'd have gotten a 4.0 back in Brooks' high school days and a near-perfect SAT score pre-grade inflation.)

Maybe today's way of doing it is better than in the past. Raw mental horsepower isn't everything. But, basically, I think Brooks just got the description of things wrong.

[/quote]

Raw mental horsepower wasn't really measured in Brookes's day. So many were excluded from the process, and more emphasis was on a narrow definition of intelligence, which was easily surpassed by connections and legacy. Today's admissions are far more meritocratic.[/quote]

Eh. I think the 90s were the golden age for "meritocratic" admissions to elite schools. Now it's all about the hooks. At least for Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Duke, and Stanford. The other T20 schools will be more amenable to real talent. [/quote]

To an extent.

Gaming the system wasn’t as widespread  30+ years ago. That is, grade inflation wasn’t rife, extensive ACT / SAT prep wasn’t common, and extra curriculars generally weren’t something kids did to build a resume.

So schools knew that any applicant with a perfect GPA, high test scores, and strong extra curriculars really was something special. That is less the case now because everyone is gaming the system.

But those that were gaming the system then - the elite prep schools etc. - had a massive leg up back then. There were a large number of people from those schools getting into elite colleges 30+ years ago that had no business being there. I’d posit there are less of those people at elite colleges today.

But the other thing that has changed is that everyone and their dog is applying to elite colleges. 30+ years ago, many legit HS stars - perfect GPA, high scores, good activities - were content going to their state school. These people are more likely to apply and get in to elite colleges than before.[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics