Anonymous
06/19/2025 15:01
Subject: What would a meritocracy in higher ed look like?
[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]Also regarding sports recruiting and academic standards, I'm specifically referring to elite schools where the recruiting sports lose the school money and don't really contribute to its prestige. If you think sports teams are a necessary part of these institutions, fine, but so are the orchestras, moot courts, model un, and many other groups within these universities, none of whose potential participants get an extra special route to admissions.[/quote]
Gimme a break. At least the recruited athletes are usually evaluated multiple times by college coaches to ensure they are at the caliber needed for their sport.
So their athletic skill is real, as opposed to many of the non-athletes who have their not-for-profits set up and run by mommy and daddy in the name of the kid, or the coveted summer internship or job that was negotiated by daddy at the country club with his golfing partner. Or the kids whose parents send them to attend pricey math and science prep classes since age 4 to get a leg up on the “olympiads”.
[/quote]
Real athletic skill is often earned by pricey sports clubs and training since age four. So how can you say their skill is real? Could it be that skill elite development can be expensive? But why do you only accept that for athletics but not academics? The truth is that elite academic performance is far more accessible than elite athletic performance. The former can require just a single used textbook while the latter often requires five figures in club fees, training, equipment, showcase camps, training camps, gym fees, food (lots of meat!), protein powder, supplements, etc.
Why do only certain athletes get the privilege of having there performance checked? 10k runners do, but marathon runners don't. Football players do, but rugby players don't. Wrestlers do, but Judokas don't. It's completely arbitrary - there's no reason to believe the former are somehow athletically better than the latter, so why privilege them with with a special admissions process over the latter?
[/quote]
Eh - you can get to a certain skill level by training, but ultimately, the ceiling to be a truly elite athlete is exceedingly rare and not easily found. You might be able to train someone to be an average Division III athlete, but getting to the elite D-III level for most sports (think Johns Hopkins or Washington University), much less the Division I level is going to take truly elite athletic talent that can’t necessarily be taught. The training is needed to maximize that talent, but that talent still needs to be there. It’s similar to how you can practice and train to raise your SAT score, but it still takes a certain innate talent to score a 1600.
I’ve got twins - one is a combo of a top academic social science/music kid and the other is a competitive athlete that also excels at academics. The former also plays a sport, but it’s more of a “keep in shape activity” while the latter is on a competitive club team that regularly sends kids to Division I and top academic D-III programs. The former kid has a substantial number of high level activities and awards (state and regional level) for both social sciences and music. They would be an incredibly busy person if they were just focused on only one of social sciences or music, but they have both pointy passions that the want to pursue. It’s actually kind of crazy to list all of their activities out.
The latter kid that is the competitive athlete legitimately spends as much or more time on their sport alone as they do as the former kid with everything else combined. This is on top of taking a full slate of honors/AP classes and having the time management skills to excel at them. That’s legitimately what it takes to get even a chance at the elite academic D-III admissions tip that a lot of people complain about here (much less a Division I scholarship or an Ivy recruitment). Their teammate that got a spot at HYP in their sport was in the top 5 overall in the state in that sport (plus high national rankings) AND a 4.0/1600 SAT.
The point is that the supply of kids that are actually truly elite in athletics (at least the ones sponsored at the varsity level at colleges) is low compared to the demand from colleges for those elite athletes (as sports are often a zero sum game and easily measured in terms of competitiveness between schools). The supply of kids that are truly elite in athletics and also elite academically compared to the demand is even lower.
That’s really what it is: a supply and demand equation. There are specific teams at colleges that need specific spots filled and they need a specific level of skill and talent in order to fill that spot. (Just filling that spot with someone random isn’t good enough because, once again, sports are one of the highest profile areas where schools objectively compete against each other and schools are naturally going to assign that a high priority.) Academic superstars are actually in greater supply by comparison, particularly those that want to pursue STEM or high-paying areas such as business and economics.
That’s the game. We see both sides of it with one social sciences/music kid and one that is on the competitive athlete track. I would never begrudge someone that gets an admissions tip for being a top athlete and, especially once you get past football and basketball recruitment (which is really where there’s more leeway on grades and test scores because those are the revenue sports), they’re often doing that with top academic marks, too. It’s not an accident that colleges see a ton of leadership qualities with that profile and elite employers (such as investment banks and consulting firms) *love* athletes with great academic records.[/quote]
As the previous commenter, it seems you agree with me on one issue compared to the person I replied to who seemed to believe athletic skill is all talent while academic skill is all prep.
And banks preference for athletes is similar to their preference for students from certain business frats and certain universities. There's a reason quant firms, which don't discriminate based on school name (although they do discriminate based on class rigor) or which clubs/frats you're a part of, also don't discriminate against non-athletes despite certain positions also being high stress and highly collaborative.
I do begrudge the advantage given to athletes in certain sports because I know those advantages are being denied to musicians and artists and athletes in any other sport besides a highly limited list. If the leadership qualities you claim their sport demonstrates to AOs and their "top" scores and every other holistic aspect of their applications were sufficient to admit them without coach support, then coach support would not be necessary and there would be no problem ending it and letting the AOs do their jobs without undue influence. But that clearly isn't the case.
Gimme a break. At least the recruited athletes are usually evaluated multiple times by college coaches to ensure they are at the caliber needed for their sport.
So their athletic skill is real, as opposed to many of the non-athletes who have their not-for-profits set up and run by mommy and daddy in the name of the kid, or the coveted summer internship or job that was negotiated by daddy at the country club with his golfing partner. Or the kids whose parents send them to attend pricey math and science prep classes since age 4 to get a leg up on the “olympiads”.
[/quote]
Real athletic skill is often earned by pricey sports clubs and training since age four. So how can you say their skill is real? Could it be that skill elite development can be expensive? But why do you only accept that for athletics but not academics? The truth is that elite academic performance is far more accessible than elite athletic performance. The former can require just a single used textbook while the latter often requires five figures in club fees, training, equipment, showcase camps, training camps, gym fees, food (lots of meat!), protein powder, supplements, etc.
Why do only certain athletes get the privilege of having there performance checked? 10k runners do, but marathon runners don't. Football players do, but rugby players don't. Wrestlers do, but Judokas don't. It's completely arbitrary - there's no reason to believe the former are somehow athletically better than the latter, so why privilege them with with a special admissions process over the latter?
[/quote]
Eh - you can get to a certain skill level by training, but ultimately, the ceiling to be a truly elite athlete is exceedingly rare and not easily found. You might be able to train someone to be an average Division III athlete, but getting to the elite D-III level for most sports (think Johns Hopkins or Washington University), much less the Division I level is going to take truly elite athletic talent that can’t necessarily be taught. The training is needed to maximize that talent, but that talent still needs to be there. It’s similar to how you can practice and train to raise your SAT score, but it still takes a certain innate talent to score a 1600.
I’ve got twins - one is a combo of a top academic social science/music kid and the other is a competitive athlete that also excels at academics. The former also plays a sport, but it’s more of a “keep in shape activity” while the latter is on a competitive club team that regularly sends kids to Division I and top academic D-III programs. The former kid has a substantial number of high level activities and awards (state and regional level) for both social sciences and music. They would be an incredibly busy person if they were just focused on only one of social sciences or music, but they have both pointy passions that the want to pursue. It’s actually kind of crazy to list all of their activities out.
The latter kid that is the competitive athlete legitimately spends as much or more time on their sport alone as they do as the former kid with everything else combined. This is on top of taking a full slate of honors/AP classes and having the time management skills to excel at them. That’s legitimately what it takes to get even a chance at the elite academic D-III admissions tip that a lot of people complain about here (much less a Division I scholarship or an Ivy recruitment). Their teammate that got a spot at HYP in their sport was in the top 5 overall in the state in that sport (plus high national rankings) AND a 4.0/1600 SAT.
The point is that the supply of kids that are actually truly elite in athletics (at least the ones sponsored at the varsity level at colleges) is low compared to the demand from colleges for those elite athletes (as sports are often a zero sum game and easily measured in terms of competitiveness between schools). The supply of kids that are truly elite in athletics and also elite academically compared to the demand is even lower.
That’s really what it is: a supply and demand equation. There are specific teams at colleges that need specific spots filled and they need a specific level of skill and talent in order to fill that spot. (Just filling that spot with someone random isn’t good enough because, once again, sports are one of the highest profile areas where schools objectively compete against each other and schools are naturally going to assign that a high priority.) Academic superstars are actually in greater supply by comparison, particularly those that want to pursue STEM or high-paying areas such as business and economics.
That’s the game. We see both sides of it with one social sciences/music kid and one that is on the competitive athlete track. I would never begrudge someone that gets an admissions tip for being a top athlete and, especially once you get past football and basketball recruitment (which is really where there’s more leeway on grades and test scores because those are the revenue sports), they’re often doing that with top academic marks, too. It’s not an accident that colleges see a ton of leadership qualities with that profile and elite employers (such as investment banks and consulting firms) *love* athletes with great academic records.[/quote]
As the previous commenter, it seems you agree with me on one issue compared to the person I replied to who seemed to believe athletic skill is all talent while academic skill is all prep.
And banks preference for athletes is similar to their preference for students from certain business frats and certain universities. There's a reason quant firms, which don't discriminate based on school name (although they do discriminate based on class rigor) or which clubs/frats you're a part of, also don't discriminate against non-athletes despite certain positions also being high stress and highly collaborative.
I do begrudge the advantage given to athletes in certain sports because I know those advantages are being denied to musicians and artists and athletes in any other sport besides a highly limited list. If the leadership qualities you claim their sport demonstrates to AOs and their "top" scores and every other holistic aspect of their applications were sufficient to admit them without coach support, then coach support would not be necessary and there would be no problem ending it and letting the AOs do their jobs without undue influence. But that clearly isn't the case.
Anonymous
06/19/2025 14:27
Subject: What would a meritocracy in higher ed look like?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:For medical schools, there are weed-out classes.
For elite colleges, why can't we have the same? For example, students are required to take Advanced Literature/writing in humanities, and Advanced Calculus in stem.
Top 20 colleges would require A or A+ in both the pass muster. Top 50 B+, top 100 B, so on and so forth.
We have that…it’s called AP tests. Colleges could require you have a 5 in AP BC, though I guess everyone would have to track to taking by junior year or they could have contingent acceptances like UK schools.
This is literally what at least University of Toronto requires for US kids applying for certain STEM programs.
They could take this approach but don’t. Again, if nearly all colleges are public and essentially nationally controlled you can implement something like this.
No, I don’t meant AP classes. Those are watered down classes that do more harm than good.
Anonymous
06/19/2025 14:26
Subject: What would a meritocracy in higher ed look like?
Anonymous wrote:A meritocratic process would place greater weight on my DC's strengths, less weight on other students' strengths (unless they are also my DC's strengths), and would consider any social or academic obstacles faced by my DC in comparison with students who are more privileged while ignoring the social and academic obstacles of other students who are less privileged than my DC.
Anonymous
06/19/2025 14:05
Subject: What would a meritocracy in higher ed look like?
Anonymous wrote:For the meritocracy crowd, how do you envision a transition purely to stats. From my understanding, this would reasonably involve the elimination of legacy admissions, complete elimination of applicant background and school disadvantage information from applications, rigorous reforms to the SAT or at least required AP/IB courses with test scores for consideration of admission, etc.
Any red state university is already this so are religious based colleges
Any state that chooses vouchers for public schools
Anonymous
06/19/2025 14:02
Subject: What would a meritocracy in higher ed look like?
A meritocracy would let everyone in and just fail out 90 percent.
I was a Stony-brook Engineering major briefly. Back then anyone was allowed to do it. Of course 80 percent failed out or switched majors. I don’t think colleges have it in them anymore.
I was a Stony-brook Engineering major briefly. Back then anyone was allowed to do it. Of course 80 percent failed out or switched majors. I don’t think colleges have it in them anymore.
Anonymous
06/19/2025 13:47
Subject: What would a meritocracy in higher ed look like?
It would be like Stuyvesant, which yes is completely meritocratic, but soft skills matter in the work place too.
Anonymous
06/19/2025 13:39
Subject: What would a meritocracy in higher ed look like?
Nothing the DOGE/Palantir kids have ever seen/played around with looks anything like a large Federal agency's loosely integrated set of systems built and screwed around with for decades. And, Federal systems are not computer science projects, they're custom/one-off implementations supporting complex Federal business requirements.Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:No, the DOGE kids have no experience. Certainly none relevant to their positions.Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Colleges look for future leaders, that concept is vastly different from Olympiad winners. Olympia competition is limited to math, physics, chemistry, biology, information science. Limiting seats to Olympia winners is an extremely weird idea. The majority of math Olympia winners end up at Jane Street and Citadel. Do we want that for our society as a whole? Naw.
I think, if anything, we should exclude these Olympia people from the top colleges. They are free to attend state universities and such.
That’s one of the most stupid comment I’ve read on this forum.
Are you afraid they ruin the curve at your kid’s Ivy?
Doing well in those competitions or other stem competitions for that matter, builds critical thinking and resilience, plus that they have a higher IQ than most kids.
What would you do to test the other 50% of the campus that aren't in these specific testable majors?
There are only a few hundred campers each year, can’t even fill a liberal art college.
Then just have JS set up JSU to collect those, a pipeline better than Bucknell.
Palantir already has gotten started by giving internships to students committed to not going to college. It'd honestly be amazing for everyone if these kinds of people skipped out on education.
What do they have internships in? What are "these kinds of people" - palantir=exceptional?
These are kids that already have 5+ years of skills that they learned on their own. Hate to make the reference…but they are the DOGE types of kids.
Skills and experience are two different things. The DOGE kids do have more ability and skill than 98% of all CS college grads and often had jobs in HS.
Just pointing out that this is the profile of the kids getting the Palantir internship.
Anonymous
06/19/2025 12:54
Subject: What would a meritocracy in higher ed look like?
Anonymous wrote:For medical schools, there are weed-out classes.
For elite colleges, why can't we have the same? For example, students are required to take Advanced Literature/writing in humanities, and Advanced Calculus in stem.
Top 20 colleges would require A or A+ in both the pass muster. Top 50 B+, top 100 B, so on and so forth.
We have that…it’s called AP tests. Colleges could require you have a 5 in AP BC, though I guess everyone would have to track to taking by junior year or they could have contingent acceptances like UK schools.
This is literally what at least University of Toronto requires for US kids applying for certain STEM programs.
They could take this approach but don’t. Again, if nearly all colleges are public and essentially nationally controlled you can implement something like this.
Anonymous
06/19/2025 12:07
Subject: What would a meritocracy in higher ed look like?
Who would care? I’m not looking for an anxious perfectionist with great test scores.
Anonymous
06/19/2025 11:42
Subject: What would a meritocracy in higher ed look like?
For medical schools, there are weed-out classes.
For elite colleges, why can't we have the same? For example, students are required to take Advanced Literature/writing in humanities, and Advanced Calculus in stem.
Top 20 colleges would require A or A+ in both the pass muster. Top 50 B+, top 100 B, so on and so forth.
For elite colleges, why can't we have the same? For example, students are required to take Advanced Literature/writing in humanities, and Advanced Calculus in stem.
Top 20 colleges would require A or A+ in both the pass muster. Top 50 B+, top 100 B, so on and so forth.
Anonymous
06/19/2025 10:30
Subject: What would a meritocracy in higher ed look like?
Not to split hairs...but if you look at which D3 schools have won the most titles in different sports, most are not high-academic D3s.
The exceptions are Middlebury for Hockey and Kenyon for swimming and diving.
JHU is D1 for LAX, so that puts them into a very different category for that sport.
The exceptions are Middlebury for Hockey and Kenyon for swimming and diving.
JHU is D1 for LAX, so that puts them into a very different category for that sport.
Anonymous
06/19/2025 10:13
Subject: What would a meritocracy in higher ed look like?
[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]Also regarding sports recruiting and academic standards, I'm specifically referring to elite schools where the recruiting sports lose the school money and don't really contribute to its prestige. If you think sports teams are a necessary part of these institutions, fine, but so are the orchestras, moot courts, model un, and many other groups within these universities, none of whose potential participants get an extra special route to admissions.[/quote]
Gimme a break. At least the recruited athletes are usually evaluated multiple times by college coaches to ensure they are at the caliber needed for their sport.
So their athletic skill is real, as opposed to many of the non-athletes who have their not-for-profits set up and run by mommy and daddy in the name of the kid, or the coveted summer internship or job that was negotiated by daddy at the country club with his golfing partner. Or the kids whose parents send them to attend pricey math and science prep classes since age 4 to get a leg up on the “olympiads”.
[/quote]
Real athletic skill is often earned by pricey sports clubs and training since age four. So how can you say their skill is real? Could it be that skill elite development can be expensive? But why do you only accept that for athletics but not academics? The truth is that elite academic performance is far more accessible than elite athletic performance. The former can require just a single used textbook while the latter often requires five figures in club fees, training, equipment, showcase camps, training camps, gym fees, food (lots of meat!), protein powder, supplements, etc.
Why do only certain athletes get the privilege of having there performance checked? 10k runners do, but marathon runners don't. Football players do, but rugby players don't. Wrestlers do, but Judokas don't. It's completely arbitrary - there's no reason to believe the former are somehow athletically better than the latter, so why privilege them with with a special admissions process over the latter?
[/quote]
Eh - you can get to a certain skill level by training, but ultimately, the ceiling to be a truly elite athlete is exceedingly rare and not easily found. You might be able to train someone to be an average Division III athlete, but getting to the elite D-III level for most sports (think Johns Hopkins or Washington University), much less the Division I level is going to take truly elite athletic talent that can’t necessarily be taught. The training is needed to maximize that talent, but that talent still needs to be there. It’s similar to how you can practice and train to raise your SAT score, but it still takes a certain innate talent to score a 1600.
I’ve got twins - one is a combo of a top academic social science/music kid and the other is a competitive athlete that also excels at academics. The former also plays a sport, but it’s more of a “keep in shape activity” while the latter is on a competitive club team that regularly sends kids to Division I and top academic D-III programs. The former kid has a substantial number of high level activities and awards (state and regional level) for both social sciences and music. They would be an incredibly busy person if they were just focused on only one of social sciences or music, but they have both pointy passions that the want to pursue. It’s actually kind of crazy to list all of their activities out.
The latter kid that is the competitive athlete legitimately spends as much or more time on their sport alone as they do as the former kid with everything else combined. This is on top of taking a full slate of honors/AP classes and having the time management skills to excel at them. That’s legitimately what it takes to get even a chance at the elite academic D-III admissions tip that a lot of people complain about here (much less a Division I scholarship or an Ivy recruitment). Their teammate that got a spot at HYP in their sport was in the top 5 overall in the state in that sport (plus high national rankings) AND a 4.0/1600 SAT.
The point is that the supply of kids that are actually truly elite in athletics (at least the ones sponsored at the varsity level at colleges) is low compared to the demand from colleges for those elite athletes (as sports are often a zero sum game and easily measured in terms of competitiveness between schools). The supply of kids that are truly elite in athletics and also elite academically compared to the demand is even lower.
That’s really what it is: a supply and demand equation. There are specific teams at colleges that need specific spots filled and they need a specific level of skill and talent in order to fill that spot. (Just filling that spot with someone random isn’t good enough because, once again, sports are one of the highest profile areas where schools objectively compete against each other and schools are naturally going to assign that a high priority.) Academic superstars are actually in greater supply by comparison, particularly those that want to pursue STEM or high-paying areas such as business and economics.
That’s the game. We see both sides of it with one social sciences/music kid and one that is on the competitive athlete track. I would never begrudge someone that gets an admissions tip for being a top athlete and, especially once you get past football and basketball recruitment (which is really where there’s more leeway on grades and test scores because those are the revenue sports), they’re often doing that with top academic marks, too. It’s not an accident that colleges see a ton of leadership qualities with that profile and elite employers (such as investment banks and consulting firms) *love* athletes with great academic records.
Gimme a break. At least the recruited athletes are usually evaluated multiple times by college coaches to ensure they are at the caliber needed for their sport.
So their athletic skill is real, as opposed to many of the non-athletes who have their not-for-profits set up and run by mommy and daddy in the name of the kid, or the coveted summer internship or job that was negotiated by daddy at the country club with his golfing partner. Or the kids whose parents send them to attend pricey math and science prep classes since age 4 to get a leg up on the “olympiads”.
[/quote]
Real athletic skill is often earned by pricey sports clubs and training since age four. So how can you say their skill is real? Could it be that skill elite development can be expensive? But why do you only accept that for athletics but not academics? The truth is that elite academic performance is far more accessible than elite athletic performance. The former can require just a single used textbook while the latter often requires five figures in club fees, training, equipment, showcase camps, training camps, gym fees, food (lots of meat!), protein powder, supplements, etc.
Why do only certain athletes get the privilege of having there performance checked? 10k runners do, but marathon runners don't. Football players do, but rugby players don't. Wrestlers do, but Judokas don't. It's completely arbitrary - there's no reason to believe the former are somehow athletically better than the latter, so why privilege them with with a special admissions process over the latter?
[/quote]
Eh - you can get to a certain skill level by training, but ultimately, the ceiling to be a truly elite athlete is exceedingly rare and not easily found. You might be able to train someone to be an average Division III athlete, but getting to the elite D-III level for most sports (think Johns Hopkins or Washington University), much less the Division I level is going to take truly elite athletic talent that can’t necessarily be taught. The training is needed to maximize that talent, but that talent still needs to be there. It’s similar to how you can practice and train to raise your SAT score, but it still takes a certain innate talent to score a 1600.
I’ve got twins - one is a combo of a top academic social science/music kid and the other is a competitive athlete that also excels at academics. The former also plays a sport, but it’s more of a “keep in shape activity” while the latter is on a competitive club team that regularly sends kids to Division I and top academic D-III programs. The former kid has a substantial number of high level activities and awards (state and regional level) for both social sciences and music. They would be an incredibly busy person if they were just focused on only one of social sciences or music, but they have both pointy passions that the want to pursue. It’s actually kind of crazy to list all of their activities out.
The latter kid that is the competitive athlete legitimately spends as much or more time on their sport alone as they do as the former kid with everything else combined. This is on top of taking a full slate of honors/AP classes and having the time management skills to excel at them. That’s legitimately what it takes to get even a chance at the elite academic D-III admissions tip that a lot of people complain about here (much less a Division I scholarship or an Ivy recruitment). Their teammate that got a spot at HYP in their sport was in the top 5 overall in the state in that sport (plus high national rankings) AND a 4.0/1600 SAT.
The point is that the supply of kids that are actually truly elite in athletics (at least the ones sponsored at the varsity level at colleges) is low compared to the demand from colleges for those elite athletes (as sports are often a zero sum game and easily measured in terms of competitiveness between schools). The supply of kids that are truly elite in athletics and also elite academically compared to the demand is even lower.
That’s really what it is: a supply and demand equation. There are specific teams at colleges that need specific spots filled and they need a specific level of skill and talent in order to fill that spot. (Just filling that spot with someone random isn’t good enough because, once again, sports are one of the highest profile areas where schools objectively compete against each other and schools are naturally going to assign that a high priority.) Academic superstars are actually in greater supply by comparison, particularly those that want to pursue STEM or high-paying areas such as business and economics.
That’s the game. We see both sides of it with one social sciences/music kid and one that is on the competitive athlete track. I would never begrudge someone that gets an admissions tip for being a top athlete and, especially once you get past football and basketball recruitment (which is really where there’s more leeway on grades and test scores because those are the revenue sports), they’re often doing that with top academic marks, too. It’s not an accident that colleges see a ton of leadership qualities with that profile and elite employers (such as investment banks and consulting firms) *love* athletes with great academic records.
Anonymous
06/19/2025 08:04
Subject: What would a meritocracy in higher ed look like?
Anonymous wrote:No, the DOGE kids have no experience. Certainly none relevant to their positions.Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Colleges look for future leaders, that concept is vastly different from Olympiad winners. Olympia competition is limited to math, physics, chemistry, biology, information science. Limiting seats to Olympia winners is an extremely weird idea. The majority of math Olympia winners end up at Jane Street and Citadel. Do we want that for our society as a whole? Naw.
I think, if anything, we should exclude these Olympia people from the top colleges. They are free to attend state universities and such.
That’s one of the most stupid comment I’ve read on this forum.
Are you afraid they ruin the curve at your kid’s Ivy?
Doing well in those competitions or other stem competitions for that matter, builds critical thinking and resilience, plus that they have a higher IQ than most kids.
What would you do to test the other 50% of the campus that aren't in these specific testable majors?
There are only a few hundred campers each year, can’t even fill a liberal art college.
Then just have JS set up JSU to collect those, a pipeline better than Bucknell.
Palantir already has gotten started by giving internships to students committed to not going to college. It'd honestly be amazing for everyone if these kinds of people skipped out on education.
What do they have internships in? What are "these kinds of people" - palantir=exceptional?
These are kids that already have 5+ years of skills that they learned on their own. Hate to make the reference…but they are the DOGE types of kids.
Skills and experience are two different things. The DOGE kids do have more ability and skill than 98% of all CS college grads and often had jobs in HS.
Just pointing out that this is the profile of the kids getting the Palantir internship.
Anonymous
06/18/2025 23:20
Subject: What would a meritocracy in higher ed look like?
no one is denying the quality of education, the question is who are they providing it to?Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:A meritocratic process wouldn't be about too many people vying for too few seats but rather a way to provide quality education based on aptitude and aspirations whatever they are. This would rightly feel like socialism.
Meritocracy is a myth in the U.S.
History bears this out for those who choose not to ignore it.
And the top colleges are providing quality education as it currently stands.
Anonymous
06/18/2025 23:19
Subject: What would a meritocracy in higher ed look like?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Also regarding sports recruiting and academic standards, I'm specifically referring to elite schools where the recruiting sports lose the school money and don't really contribute to its prestige. If you think sports teams are a necessary part of these institutions, fine, but so are the orchestras, moot courts, model un, and many other groups within these universities, none of whose potential participants get an extra special route to admissions.
Gimme a break. At least the recruited athletes are usually evaluated multiple times by college coaches to ensure they are at the caliber needed for their sport.
So their athletic skill is real, as opposed to many of the non-athletes who have their not-for-profits set up and run by mommy and daddy in the name of the kid, or the coveted summer internship or job that was negotiated by daddy at the country club with his golfing partner. Or the kids whose parents send them to attend pricey math and science prep classes since age 4 to get a leg up on the “olympiads”.
Real athletic skill is often earned by pricey sports clubs and training since age four. So how can you say their skill is real? Could it be that skill elite development can be expensive? But why do you only accept that for athletics but not academics? The truth is that elite academic performance is far more accessible than elite athletic performance. The former can require just a single used textbook while the latter often requires five figures in club fees, training, equipment, showcase camps, training camps, gym fees, food (lots of meat!), protein powder, supplements, etc.
Why do only certain athletes get the privilege of having there performance checked? 10k runners do, but marathon runners don't. Football players do, but rugby players don't. Wrestlers do, but Judokas don't. It's completely arbitrary - there's no reason to believe the former are somehow athletically better than the latter, so why privilege them with with a special admissions process over the latter?