Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The only data he actually cites doesn’t really support his claim.

1. Public perception of higher education generally has slipped. This doesn’t support the claim that elite colleges are harmed more than state schools.

2. Polls that say private schools are not worth the cost of public. Again this doesn’t distinguish between “elite” and non elite public. Maybe people would say “yes, I wouldn’t pay for Elon but I think MIT is worth it”

3. Harvard perception. The division along political lines suggests that this is a political issue. Republicans voters have been told to hate those east coast liberal colleges and their students. But the average Republican voter isn’t hiring anyone. It would be more interesting to see a poll along socio economic and geographic lines. Do NYC republicans have the same view? That’s more relevant than people in Alabama.

Maybe the book will have more information but otherwise this seems like a whole lot of opinion and conjecture for now.

I'm a hiring manager who has definitely had opinions of elite colleges change over the last few years. Also a graduate of an elite college myself.

Should reread his post carefully instead of jumping to conclusions. Silver speaks to everything you raised.

+1 similarly situated hiring manager. I need people who work hard and listen to other people’s opinions, not people who feel entitled to a top spot because their parents rode them through high school and they prepped well for standardized tests.

Heard something similar from a research scientist. They said that state grads made better RA than ivy grads who felt cleaning equipment was beneath them, and kept touting how they went to "some elite" college.

This is some seriously stereotyped thinking. Some bosses don't like to feel threatened by their "underlings" too and purposefully hire for those who seem more subservient so they won't get shown up. Some have chips on their shoulders about schools too. Just judge people on their merits and don't make up some generalized stories about the "elite" or "state school grads."

I've met far more kids from Elite schools with "chip on their shoulder" than from state schools. If I'm running a Chem or Bio lab, the entry level positions for BA/BS degrees most likely includes cleaning and prepping equipment in the job description. Those jobs are well known for being grunt work jobs. I want to hire someone who is going to do that job and do it well, not someone who is going to spend their days complaining that they are not yet getting to do the "real work". Well if you want to "do the real work" you have to work your way up and most likely go get your MS/PHD. Otherwise you start doing the grunt work and not getting paid a lot (for having a Stem Degree).

Sounds like a crappy system that the "elite" students are right to challenge tbh. Why do you need a college grad for a "grunt work" job? Bio/chem research is notorious for keeping people in low-paying environments for way too long given how challenging the major is (e.g. having to do post-docs to get a research job). Sounds like it could use people to question the system and envision new opportunities and ways of working.

Because along with the "grunt level work" it does include lab work that requires the employee to have a BS/BA. It's not ALL "grunt level work" that could be done by someone with a HS diploma. It's well known that you need a MS/PHD to do the real research work in that area. So if you want to question the system and not do the work, then go directly and get an advanced degree. Or choose a different career path.
Because in reality, even with an MS, you will likely still work for someone with their PHD who is leading the research. You will not have your OWN lab typically until you have your PHD. I know, have a friend who has a BS in chemistry, worked for several years, then got their MS and got a better job with more interesting work, but ultimately even then, you are still under the guidance of the PHD in charge. So if you want to make your own decisions, you go get your PHD (they are).
Just because you went to Harvard does not mean you get to demand you are qualified to go directly to "only interesting work". But you knew going into that major (if you did any research) that this is the path to success.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can see people are upset because they have an investment, whether emotional, financial, or ideological, with the current modus operandi at most elite colleges so they are bitterly resistant to the changing realities surrounding elite higher education these days despite that Silver cites data showing significant shift in public perspectives on higher education and elite higher education.

This is what people thought of a freshly minted Harvard graduate in 1994: highly accomplished and brainy nerd.

This is what many people now think when they encounter a freshly minted Harvard graduate in 2024: Either a legacy admit from an extremely connected and / or wealthy family (nepotism) or a mollycoddled diversity admit benefiting from a system that rewards identity over merit. And both will bring the same increasingly annoying social justice warrior outlook largely divorced from reality.

Silver is not a right wing MAGAtard, he is a Democrat and sold his polling business to the NYT. But like a lot of very intelligent nerds, Silver doesn't shy away from frankness.

You are an idiot. The minority students at Harvard etc have near perfect test scores and/or grades. The average student now is miles ahead of the 1994 student in terms of academic indicators. Same with the wealthy kids; at the top schools everyone has the scores that's why they add other factors to select.

dp... that is not what the Harvard lawsuit showed.

I'm not saying there aren't high scoring URM, but as a whole, they are not a group that scores that high.

I am an expert on the Harvard case. Show me where it says that in the data. Half of the black applicants to Harvard that were REJECTED have academic indicators that would have been in the 90th percentile of ACCEPTED APPLICANTS OF ALL RACES.

Harvard has like 4 times as many applicants with perfect scores or grades than they have slots. The black students who are admitted to Harvard have extremely strong scores just as many of the black students who are rejected. The problem is that people like you want Harvard to only pick the perfect score students, but there are not enough seats for that and Harvard doesn’t think that perfect score automatically merits admission anyway.

+1000
Harvard recognizes that there is more to a student as a whole than just their SAT scores. they recognize that 1480 vs 1550 is not really that different. They want to look at the resume and choose the real leaders not just the kids who ticked the boxes thru HS because their College counselor told them to do this.

+ another 1000 1450 is still top 1%, and 1360 is still top 5%. Way over 99% of jobs can be done well without being a genius.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The only data he actually cites doesn’t really support his claim.

1. Public perception of higher education generally has slipped. This doesn’t support the claim that elite colleges are harmed more than state schools.

2. Polls that say private schools are not worth the cost of public. Again this doesn’t distinguish between “elite” and non elite public. Maybe people would say “yes, I wouldn’t pay for Elon but I think MIT is worth it”

3. Harvard perception. The division along political lines suggests that this is a political issue. Republicans voters have been told to hate those east coast liberal colleges and their students. But the average Republican voter isn’t hiring anyone. It would be more interesting to see a poll along socio economic and geographic lines. Do NYC republicans have the same view? That’s more relevant than people in Alabama.

Maybe the book will have more information but otherwise this seems like a whole lot of opinion and conjecture for now.

I'm a hiring manager who has definitely had opinions of elite colleges change over the last few years. Also a graduate of an elite college myself.

Should reread his post carefully instead of jumping to conclusions. Silver speaks to everything you raised.

+1 similarly situated hiring manager. I need people who work hard and listen to other people’s opinions, not people who feel entitled to a top spot because their parents rode them through high school and they prepped well for standardized tests.

Heard something similar from a research scientist. They said that state grads made better RA than ivy grads who felt cleaning equipment was beneath them, and kept touting how they went to "some elite" college.

This is some seriously stereotyped thinking. Some bosses don't like to feel threatened by their "underlings" too and purposefully hire for those who seem more subservient so they won't get shown up. Some have chips on their shoulders about schools too. Just judge people on their merits and don't make up some generalized stories about the "elite" or "state school grads."

I've met far more kids from Elite schools with "chip on their shoulder" than from state schools. If I'm running a Chem or Bio lab, the entry level positions for BA/BS degrees most likely includes cleaning and prepping equipment in the job description. Those jobs are well known for being grunt work jobs. I want to hire someone who is going to do that job and do it well, not someone who is going to spend their days complaining that they are not yet getting to do the "real work". Well if you want to "do the real work" you have to work your way up and most likely go get your MS/PHD. Otherwise you start doing the grunt work and not getting paid a lot (for having a Stem Degree).

Sounds like a crappy system that the "elite" students are right to challenge tbh. Why do you need a college grad for a "grunt work" job? Bio/chem research is notorious for keeping people in low-paying environments for way too long given how challenging the major is (e.g. having to do post-docs to get a research job). Sounds like it could use people to question the system and envision new opportunities and ways of working.

DP you are correct that research jobs in the bio/chem field don't pay well enough, but that's really beside the point. I work in a field that requires a lot of writing, and a person out of college or grad school, whether it be an Ivy or a public university or anything in between, is not ready to produce documents ready for prime time. We have to start them with the less glamourous work, and spend a lot of time correcting and rewriting their work, because that is how they learn. I had the misfortune of working with a Harvard grad that came in to an internship assuming he was super smart and didn't need to learn anything, and could not take feedback. If you can't help with the grunt work, and are still learning how to do the "real" work, and can't take feedback, then you aren't going to be a valuable member of the team. Needless to say, I torpedoed his effort to get a full time position with us.

The other problem with offering jobs to Ivy league grads is that if you are not McKinsey or the IMF or whatever they all think they are doing you a favor by considering a job at your org/agency/company. Meaning the odds of them accepting the position are lower than with others. Meanwhile you risk losing other strong candidates.

I’m not surprised. Harvard, Princeton, and Yale have unleashed some of the most sociopathic politicians on our country. When it takes an unbelievable resume to get in, you’re going to get a lot of liars and cheaters.

I’ll take my Cornell coworkers over my vassar coworkers tyvm.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The only data he actually cites doesn’t really support his claim.

1. Public perception of higher education generally has slipped. This doesn’t support the claim that elite colleges are harmed more than state schools.

2. Polls that say private schools are not worth the cost of public. Again this doesn’t distinguish between “elite” and non elite public. Maybe people would say “yes, I wouldn’t pay for Elon but I think MIT is worth it”

3. Harvard perception. The division along political lines suggests that this is a political issue. Republicans voters have been told to hate those east coast liberal colleges and their students. But the average Republican voter isn’t hiring anyone. It would be more interesting to see a poll along socio economic and geographic lines. Do NYC republicans have the same view? That’s more relevant than people in Alabama.

Maybe the book will have more information but otherwise this seems like a whole lot of opinion and conjecture for now.

I'm a hiring manager who has definitely had opinions of elite colleges change over the last few years. Also a graduate of an elite college myself.

Should reread his post carefully instead of jumping to conclusions. Silver speaks to everything you raised.

+1 similarly situated hiring manager. I need people who work hard and listen to other people’s opinions, not people who feel entitled to a top spot because their parents rode them through high school and they prepped well for standardized tests.

Heard something similar from a research scientist. They said that state grads made better RA than ivy grads who felt cleaning equipment was beneath them, and kept touting how they went to "some elite" college.

This is some seriously stereotyped thinking. Some bosses don't like to feel threatened by their "underlings" too and purposefully hire for those who seem more subservient so they won't get shown up. Some have chips on their shoulders about schools too. Just judge people on their merits and don't make up some generalized stories about the "elite" or "state school grads."

I've met far more kids from Elite schools with "chip on their shoulder" than from state schools. If I'm running a Chem or Bio lab, the entry level positions for BA/BS degrees most likely includes cleaning and prepping equipment in the job description. Those jobs are well known for being grunt work jobs. I want to hire someone who is going to do that job and do it well, not someone who is going to spend their days complaining that they are not yet getting to do the "real work". Well if you want to "do the real work" you have to work your way up and most likely go get your MS/PHD. Otherwise you start doing the grunt work and not getting paid a lot (for having a Stem Degree).

Sounds like a crappy system that the "elite" students are right to challenge tbh. Why do you need a college grad for a "grunt work" job? Bio/chem research is notorious for keeping people in low-paying environments for way too long given how challenging the major is (e.g. having to do post-docs to get a research job). Sounds like it could use people to question the system and envision new opportunities and ways of working.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:safer bet is to try to get into a good but not hyper selective college and to do well there

How is it a "safer bet"? The competition is way more stiff, because in terms of sheer numbers there are more good students and you need to finish higher in the class than at the top schools (where the margin for error is usually much greater).

Look, you’re going to have to perform in college at some level. Or maybe that’s the obsession with elite colleges - you can coast without actually having to compete with anyone. But is it really harder (for the kid who would be a legitimate candidate to apply to an Ivy) to graduate magna at Penn State or University of Delaware than it is to get into Princeton? I very much doubt it. If you’re 16 or 17, and that was the career you thought you wanted, you are (and will be more true 5-10 years from now) more likely to get into a T75 college, graduate magna, and get a job at consulting firm X than you are to get into a 5% acceptance rate college and get a job at consulting firm X. Of course, these aren’t mutually exclusive, you can apply to Princeton and StateU or whatever, but people need to realize that StateU is a viable path to pretty much anything they want to do.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Every Single Person On This Board Would Jump At Harvard Over George Mason If Your Child Were Admitted And Could Afford It.

This entire post is just more white rage and post-hoc* justification.

* def.: after the fact

I think Silver is talking more about ROI than about people's individual preferences.

Nobody is going to get admitted to both Harvard and George Mason AND have to pay the same price to attend each one.

+1. Yup George mason would come with excellent merit and if you don't have the money for Harvard you'd be smart to take it, graduate debt free and with some money in bank for grad school (might be Harvard or equivalent)

Anonymous wrote:Every Single Person On This Board Would Jump At Harvard Over George Mason If Your Child Were Admitted And Could Afford It.

This entire post is just more white rage and post-hoc* justification.

* def.: after the fact

Only if I could afford it. We can, so it's not an issue.
But if I only had $30K/year saved/smartly available to spend for college, my kid would be attending a school that only costs $30K/year No way would I take parent loans of 60K/year for Harvard or any other school.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The only data he actually cites doesn’t really support his claim.

1. Public perception of higher education generally has slipped. This doesn’t support the claim that elite colleges are harmed more than state schools.

2. Polls that say private schools are not worth the cost of public. Again this doesn’t distinguish between “elite” and non elite public. Maybe people would say “yes, I wouldn’t pay for Elon but I think MIT is worth it”

3. Harvard perception. The division along political lines suggests that this is a political issue. Republicans voters have been told to hate those east coast liberal colleges and their students. But the average Republican voter isn’t hiring anyone. It would be more interesting to see a poll along socio economic and geographic lines. Do NYC republicans have the same view? That’s more relevant than people in Alabama.

Maybe the book will have more information but otherwise this seems like a whole lot of opinion and conjecture for now.

I'm a hiring manager who has definitely had opinions of elite colleges change over the last few years. Also a graduate of an elite college myself.

Should reread his post carefully instead of jumping to conclusions. Silver speaks to everything you raised.

+1 similarly situated hiring manager. I need people who work hard and listen to other people’s opinions, not people who feel entitled to a top spot because their parents rode them through high school and they prepped well for standardized tests.

Heard something similar from a research scientist. They said that state grads made better RA than ivy grads who felt cleaning equipment was beneath them, and kept touting how they went to "some elite" college.

This is some seriously stereotyped thinking. Some bosses don't like to feel threatened by their "underlings" too and purposefully hire for those who seem more subservient so they won't get shown up. Some have chips on their shoulders about schools too. Just judge people on their merits and don't make up some generalized stories about the "elite" or "state school grads."

I've met far more kids from Elite schools with "chip on their shoulder" than from state schools. If I'm running a Chem or Bio lab, the entry level positions for BA/BS degrees most likely includes cleaning and prepping equipment in the job description. Those jobs are well known for being grunt work jobs. I want to hire someone who is going to do that job and do it well, not someone who is going to spend their days complaining that they are not yet getting to do the "real work". Well if you want to "do the real work" you have to work your way up and most likely go get your MS/PHD. Otherwise you start doing the grunt work and not getting paid a lot (for having a Stem Degree).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can see people are upset because they have an investment, whether emotional, financial, or ideological, with the current modus operandi at most elite colleges so they are bitterly resistant to the changing realities surrounding elite higher education these days despite that Silver cites data showing significant shift in public perspectives on higher education and elite higher education.

This is what people thought of a freshly minted Harvard graduate in 1994: highly accomplished and brainy nerd.

This is what many people now think when they encounter a freshly minted Harvard graduate in 2024: Either a legacy admit from an extremely connected and / or wealthy family (nepotism) or a mollycoddled diversity admit benefiting from a system that rewards identity over merit. And both will bring the same increasingly annoying social justice warrior outlook largely divorced from reality.

Silver is not a right wing MAGAtard, he is a Democrat and sold his polling business to the NYT. But like a lot of very intelligent nerds, Silver doesn't shy away from frankness.

You are an idiot. The minority students at Harvard etc have near perfect test scores and/or grades. The average student now is miles ahead of the 1994 student in terms of academic indicators. Same with the wealthy kids; at the top schools everyone has the scores that's why they add other factors to select.

dp... that is not what the Harvard lawsuit showed.

I'm not saying there aren't high scoring URM, but as a whole, they are not a group that scores that high.

I am an expert on the Harvard case. Show me where it says that in the data. Half of the black applicants to Harvard that were REJECTED have academic indicators that would have been in the 90th percentile of ACCEPTED APPLICANTS OF ALL RACES.

Harvard has like 4 times as many applicants with perfect scores or grades than they have slots. The black students who are admitted to Harvard have extremely strong scores just as many of the black students who are rejected. The problem is that people like you want Harvard to only pick the perfect score students, but there are not enough seats for that and Harvard doesn’t think that perfect score automatically merits admission anyway.

+1000
Harvard recognizes that there is more to a student as a whole than just their SAT scores. they recognize that 1480 vs 1550 is not really that different. They want to look at the resume and choose the real leaders not just the kids who ticked the boxes thru HS because their College counselor told them to do this.

We don't bother recruiting at Ivies because we know we'd only get the bottom third kids, who are going to be far worse than the top decile at a LAC or state school. The cream of the crop at Ivies goes to Med School, Law School, McKinsey, or Goldman. I have no idea if they're great or not, but I know they'd never give us a second look. We do very well with our current strategy; kids want to be here, work hard, and aren't affected / spoiled (mostly.)

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am getting from this that the white folks are mad at “DEI”. It cannot be that elite anymore now that the browns and the blacks are getting in. All that riff raff ! Let us hire our own folks from the top public universities!

🤦‍♀️

In your own way you did get straight to the heart of the matter, even if not necessarily in the way you intended.

The simple reality is many diversity admits at elite colleges are nowhere close to the white or Asian admits in terms of scores and accomplishments, it does devalue the overall perspectives of the degree.

I see a resume from an Asian graduate from Harvard, I know she is going to be among the absolutely tippety top of students given that they have the highest barriers to entry to Harvard. But I don't consider resumes from a black Harvard graduate in the same light. I know, as the Harvard data confirmed, they had much lower admissions standards.

Good thing this is anonymous because you racially discriminate in hiring.

dp.. unfortunately, that's the double edged sword of DEI.

That you have to automatically assume the "asian graduate is smarter than the black graduate"?
How about you actually read the resume (with no assumption if it is M/F or any race) and make your decisions on the facts

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can see people are upset because they have an investment, whether emotional, financial, or ideological, with the current modus operandi at most elite colleges so they are bitterly resistant to the changing realities surrounding elite higher education these days despite that Silver cites data showing significant shift in public perspectives on higher education and elite higher education.

This is what people thought of a freshly minted Harvard graduate in 1994: highly accomplished and brainy nerd.

This is what many people now think when they encounter a freshly minted Harvard graduate in 2024: Either a legacy admit from an extremely connected and / or wealthy family (nepotism) or a mollycoddled diversity admit benefiting from a system that rewards identity over merit. And both will bring the same increasingly annoying social justice warrior outlook largely divorced from reality.

Silver is not a right wing MAGAtard, he is a Democrat and sold his polling business to the NYT. But like a lot of very intelligent nerds, Silver doesn't shy away from frankness.

You are an idiot. The minority students at Harvard etc have near perfect test scores and/or grades. The average student now is miles ahead of the 1994 student in terms of academic indicators. Same with the wealthy kids; at the top schools everyone has the scores that's why they add other factors to select.

dp... that is not what the Harvard lawsuit showed.

I'm not saying there aren't high scoring URM, but as a whole, they are not a group that scores that high.

I'd argue (and so would Harvard) that a lower income kid from a HS where only 25% go onto college (or even less) who take the most rigorous schedule available to them, has a 4.0UW, scores 1380 on one try (without any test prep) and has leadership skills is just as good candidate for Harvard as a rich white/asian kid from Scarsdale who has had every advantage in life, 1580, 4.0UW at a prep school.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am getting from this that the white folks are mad at “DEI”. It cannot be that elite anymore now that the browns and the blacks are getting in. All that riff raff ! Let us hire our own folks from the top public universities!

🤦‍♀️

In your own way you did get straight to the heart of the matter, even if not necessarily in the way you intended.

The simple reality is many diversity admits at elite colleges are nowhere close to the white or Asian admits in terms of scores and accomplishments, it does devalue the overall perspectives of the degree.

I see a resume from an Asian graduate from Harvard, I know she is going to be among the absolutely tippety top of students given that they have the highest barriers to entry to Harvard. But I don't consider resumes from a black Harvard graduate in the same light. I know, as the Harvard data confirmed, they had much lower admissions standards.

BS---there are plenty of black students at Harvard whose resumes fully match the "asians and whites". Also, you are not very smart, if you think the lower income kid from a HS that only 20% of kids go onto college cannot be as bright as the rich white or rich asian kid at Harvard. That smart kid has just taken a different path to Harvard and now has the chance to shine. And will do quite well as long as they don't end up at a company with racist hiring staff