Reply to What an Ivy league education gets you

Forum Index » College and University Discussion

Reply to "What an Ivy league education gets you - the Atlantic "

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]What the article is getting at is that smart people with emotional intelligence go far. Basing that conclusion on Ivy schools is a little reductive however. It's a very outdated metric. There are bright students with a high emotional IQ at all sorts of schools in 2026.

But peer group and good manners do matter of course - as they have since the beginning of time. Not exactly rocket science.  [/quote]
The metric is the concentration of these people.  Far fewer in other schools.[/quote]

Eh. Given admission priorities these days, the Ivy League ain't all that in 2026. For smart + emotional IQ, there are a lot of other schools, as everyone who has toured universities over the past three years has discerned. The Harvard Man is a myth today. Things have changed a lot. [/quote]

Disagree.  Ivy leagues are all test required now.  Of course they have institutional priorities, but they all submit scores.  The majority of other schools are test optional, AND give the same if not more preference to priorities. [/quote]

These tests are meaningless when we all know that the little Larlos of the world studied with tutors for years AND had to take the tests multiple times to achieve their “superior” scores.[/quote]

These tests are the single most valid and predictive indicators of everything from future college performance to likelihood of publishing research that will be cited.  [/quote]

Again, correlation =/= causation.

Yes, the privileged kids who benefit from private tutors and infinite chances end up being privileged adults.

Honestly, the level of discourse in this thread (and the complete lack of understanding of statistics and to be blunt, how the world works) just reinforces the point that the average Ivy admit is NOT the best and the brightest, but just another privileged spawn of striving, prestige obsessed parents who couldn’t think their way out of a paper bag…[/quote]

OMFG

"correlation =/= causation"  is not a substitute for reading comprehension or thinking.

Test scores are not causing these results, tests are MEASURING the thing that is causing these results.

Tests measure cognitive ability and cognitive ability improved outcomes.  It doesn't matter that Larlo has higher cognitive ability because Larlo had the ability to develop their cognitive ability because mommy and daddy invested a crap ton into his human capital, the end result is that Larlo has better cognitive ability.  And, that higher cognitive ability means that Larlo is going to have better lifetime outcomes.

But the population of people with high cognitive ability is not limited to wealthy Larlos.  It also includes the children of immigrant families that believe in education and are willing to make smart investments in their own children.  And a tiny number of kids that are so talented that they would have blossomed in almost any environment.

I understand that some kids have advantages in achieving high cognitive ability because they have parents that are rich or parents that are willing to make sacrifices, but ultimately that is what test scores measure.

[/quote]

You are correct that test scores are indeed measuring “the thing” that causes these results. And that “thing” is PRIVILEGE (be it wealth and/or resources).

The rest of your post is laughable. The fact that Larlo needed to take the test six times to achieve a marginally higher score than Susie achieved the first time proves that he WORSE cognitive ability than she does. I also dispute your premise that these tests even measure cognitive ability in the first place. In the current landscape they ultimately measure a student’s aptitude for… taking these particular tests. Which brings us full circle to privilege.[/quote]

The function of testing has been studied by psychologists since at least WWII.  The amount of research that confirms that standardized training measures cognitive ability is so well established that there is no dissent.  The controversy is around things like nature vs nurture not whether testing is a valid measure of ability.

Despite what Princeton Review wants you to believe, the SAT does a lot more than test how will you can do on the SATs.

I know you desperately want to believe that test score disparities are the result of some privilege but its not, not at the high end.  There, at the high end, it does a pretty good job of measuring ability without regard to wealth or income.  [/quote]

And yet… there IS dissent. Obviously.

Listen, I appreciate that you snowplowed Larlo’s way to a 1580 on his SAT (years of tutoring and it only took him four tries!) and your personal self esteem hinges on everyone else recognizing his genius, BUT - the ONLY aspect of cognitive ability that improved for him was memorization.

That’s not nothing, to be sure, but it certainly has no bearing on his overall reasoning or problem solving abilities. That lower middle class kid who took the SAT without ever once having seen a practice problem and pulled a 1450 is actually much smarter than Larlo. Sorry.[/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