Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Interesting article though it doesn’t support OP’s comment. My key takeaways (only from the article):

1. There continue to be many employers that still hire mainly only from the elite schools (admittedly, the example was a law firm which is strange since the article focuses on undergrads);

2. Studies show that the kids that are the “best” at school (evidence led by GPA/test scores) often aren’t the best at “life” measured by success in whatever career people choose…be it academia, business, etc. this is why Google apparently doesn’t ask for GPA when hiring because the kids with the highest GPA often dont become their best employees.

3. Wealth can effectively buy you into top schools through private schools, test prep, tutors, etc. so the colleges claiming to have gotten rid of the old Blue Blood system are still continuing it to some extent.

4. The MC and LMC resent that they are effectively shut out of these gate-keeping colleges which to them means they are relegated to crappy jobs

5. The demographic crisis will force hundreds of colleges to drastically change their MO so perhaps that will lead to a new group of “elite” schools attainable by the MC/LMC.

The Google thing is a lie spread by the former head of HR Google trying to generate cloud for his new company. Google cares a lot about GPA.

Google also cares a LOT about what college you went to .

Yes. Yes they do. And it is the same 15-20 schools that are most coveted

They did care back in the Marissa Mayer days, but they have much more college diversity now. Source: I work at Google and have for 15+ yrs.

Interesting. My mother was being recruited by Google for a higher level position at age 60 about 15 years ago and they asked for her college GPA and her SAT score. She was dumbfounded and didn't even remember her SAT score from 40+ years ago and could not believe they'd consider it at all relevant.

Employers don't ask for SAT scores ( from high school).

Geez

Maybe not anymore, but DH was definitely asked back in the day.

I was definitely asked when applying to MBB. They wanted the breakdown too.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

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.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

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.

They are more meritocratic and not. Yes, legacies are no longer automatic accepts, but they still have a big leg up. And athletic recruits, have an enormous advantage.

I know many many families that have kids currently in or just graduated from Ivies plus Stanford and Duke. Every single one of them is either a legacy or a sports recruit. Every single one comes from a privileged background. I know some of their stats, they wouldn’t have gotten in otherwise.

Anonymous wrote:Boy- those down-to-earth, average to low intelligence really stuck it to us. They stuck it to America and their own safety because they believed the snake oil salesman.

Now we have an anti-vaxxer for public health who will take us back to the 1800s. Remember Polio, Measles, Small Pox, a flu epidemic before vaccines?

We have a pedophile with less than 2 years of law experience for Attorney General.

We have a conspiracy theorist, friends with Putin and other dictators for our National Security.

We have a President using his private security to vet these people since they’d never pass an FBI background check. And using his office to exact revenge for selfish purposes.

I don’t think intelligence is what broke America. These people were full on Trump regardless. And, let’s see where that gets us.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

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.

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.

Anonymous wrote:All this emphases on STEM has created intellectual pygmies. Just look at our tech bros who almost without exception have not made it past Ayn Rand nonsense level of intellectual development and now will literally run the country. The pinnacle of their discourse is that podcaster Lex Fridman, dude is so naive and uniformed about the complexities of the world that it's nauseating.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Interesting article though it doesn’t support OP’s comment. My key takeaways (only from the article):

1. There continue to be many employers that still hire mainly only from the elite schools (admittedly, the example was a law firm which is strange since the article focuses on undergrads);

2. Studies show that the kids that are the “best” at school (evidence led by GPA/test scores) often aren’t the best at “life” measured by success in whatever career people choose…be it academia, business, etc. this is why Google apparently doesn’t ask for GPA when hiring because the kids with the highest GPA often dont become their best employees.

3. Wealth can effectively buy you into top schools through private schools, test prep, tutors, etc. so the colleges claiming to have gotten rid of the old Blue Blood system are still continuing it to some extent.

4. The MC and LMC resent that they are effectively shut out of these gate-keeping colleges which to them means they are relegated to crappy jobs

5. The demographic crisis will force hundreds of colleges to drastically change their MO so perhaps that will lead to a new group of “elite” schools attainable by the MC/LMC.

The Google thing is a lie spread by the former head of HR Google trying to generate cloud for his new company. Google cares a lot about GPA.

Google also cares a LOT about what college you went to .

Yes. Yes they do. And it is the same 15-20 schools that are most coveted

They did care back in the Marissa Mayer days, but they have much more college diversity now. Source: I work at Google and have for 15+ yrs.

Interesting. My mother was being recruited by Google for a higher level position at age 60 about 15 years ago and they asked for her college GPA and her SAT score. She was dumbfounded and didn't even remember her SAT score from 40+ years ago and could not believe they'd consider it at all relevant.

Employers don't ask for SAT scores ( from high school).

Geez

Maybe not anymore, but DH was definitely asked back in the day.

Anonymous wrote:Paywall.
Wonder if it's anything like Stephen Brill's Tailspin. That's worth a read.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Interesting article though it doesn’t support OP’s comment. My key takeaways (only from the article):

1. There continue to be many employers that still hire mainly only from the elite schools (admittedly, the example was a law firm which is strange since the article focuses on undergrads);

2. Studies show that the kids that are the “best” at school (evidence led by GPA/test scores) often aren’t the best at “life” measured by success in whatever career people choose…be it academia, business, etc. this is why Google apparently doesn’t ask for GPA when hiring because the kids with the highest GPA often dont become their best employees.

3. Wealth can effectively buy you into top schools through private schools, test prep, tutors, etc. so the colleges claiming to have gotten rid of the old Blue Blood system are still continuing it to some extent.

4. The MC and LMC resent that they are effectively shut out of these gate-keeping colleges which to them means they are relegated to crappy jobs

5. The demographic crisis will force hundreds of colleges to drastically change their MO so perhaps that will lead to a new group of “elite” schools attainable by the MC/LMC.

The Google thing is a lie spread by the former head of HR Google trying to generate cloud for his new company. Google cares a lot about GPA.

Google also cares a LOT about what college you went to .

Yes. Yes they do. And it is the same 15-20 schools that are most coveted

They did care back in the Marissa Mayer days, but they have much more college diversity now. Source: I work at Google and have for 15+ yrs.

Interesting. My mother was being recruited by Google for a higher level position at age 60 about 15 years ago and they asked for her college GPA and her SAT score. She was dumbfounded and didn't even remember her SAT score from 40+ years ago and could not believe they'd consider it at all relevant.

Employers don't ask for SAT scores ( from high school).

Geez

Anonymous wrote: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.