Anonymous wrote:DEI admits often submit lousy work but profs have to give them decent grades. To stay reasonably objective, this means the better work of non-DEI admits has to be graded at least as well or higher. The end result is almost everyone gets high grades. NYT won't tell you this but it's the obvious explanation.

Really? Let’s see some data. Since you claim to know:
- what “lousy” work an undefined group you’ve decided to call “DEI admits” “often submit
- and what sort of “better work” the amorphous group you’ve decided to call “non-DEI admits “ submit
-and what the NYT “won’t tell” us

you should have absolutely no problem supporting your assertions and over generalizations with actual data, right?

Go for it! Or did you think that your own assertions and sense of what’s “obvious “ to you is somehow convincing and meaningful?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well, when they're letting in morons like Jared Kushner, what do you expect?

Actually, they’re not. Kushner went to Harvard.

Let’s try this again: Extremely bright, extremely motivated, extremely achievement-oriented students choose a top school.
They are given tasks and assignments. If all of them do what they are asked to do, then all of them get As — as they should.

It really doesn’t make sense to continually post threads questioning why students who were picked because they are excellent students earning top grades continue to be excellent students earning top grades while they are in college. Education doesn’t require artificially creating a zero sum game. Education requires mastery.

Then why have grades at all if we are just going to assume or pretend that people who got As in high school (not matter what the high school was teaching or how it was grading) are guaranteed to be stellar at level 4 college courses across the board as well?

Because you are the only person who views this as a “guarantee”. It’s not.

Anonymous wrote:I'm fascinated by the thought process fo some people on this thread.

Teacher, I got an A on the first test, so you should just give me As on all them from now on.

I was the earliest reader in kindergarten, so I should get As for the rest of my life.

I was my high school valedictorian, so you should just grant me summa cum laude in college, and give me a Ph.D while you're at it -- I don't actually need to do the work, you know I'm good for it.

No wonder so many of they HYP grads get to the real world and are miffed at having to do entry level work. They should just be given the keys to the C-suite already!

How about just perhaps, they are smart high achieving kids who didn't change their work ethic once they got to Yale (or whatever other school). So they should be given the A that they earned.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you have an Einstein and a Newton in a class of 2, why can't they both get As they deserve. Why must there always an F?

Because you are grading the class. If you have a class of two, only one can be #1.

But if both earn a 95%+ on the final exam (ie They learned all of the material for the course extremely well), why would you give one an F? Sure you might say "one is smarter than the other", but nobody in their right mind would say "one of them is a loser and stupid because only 1 can be top dog".

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This. They got straight As in high school. Why would you expect them to be getting Bs and Cs in college?

Well, everyone who is a starting quarterback in HS is a good athlete but 95% of them will not make the college football roster. College should be the same way.

95% of great students don't get into Yale. Yale knows that grad schools and employers care about GPAs and they aren't about to hamstring their own students. People have said the hardest part is getting in for decades now and it's still true.

If these students are so excellent, they should be able to handle coursework that challenges *them.* Not just coursework that would be challenging to an average hs graduate, but something that actually raises the bar a bit instead of giving out a participation trophy.

How do you know they aren't? Have you seen Yale coursework and work product that indicates that it isn't challenging and that the grades aren't earned? Why does it surprise you that the best students in high school are still great students in college?

Because if only 20% of your students are getting a 'B' or lower, your class is too easy.

Why?

Calc 1 has specific material that a student needs to learn. If everyone learns it at the 85%+ then they deserve and A or B. Same for many even higher STEM courses. There's material to learn, and if a student mastered it they deserve a good grade. That's the entire purpose of learning. Not to give tests so ridiculous that have nothing to do with the material taught in class or labs or discussion sections or on HW/Quizes so that the average is a 30%.
So if you take 5% of the top HS students who apply, grant them admission. Then you are not dealing with "average students" . You are dealing with kids who have likely been at the top, working their asses off to excel for 12+ years. Do you expect them to just stop being engaged, smart, studious kids now they are at college? The difference is they are now surrounded largely by other students just like them.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This example of the real world seems artificially constructed. ”There are always exactly 5 people who deserve 1s, no matter who is working here at any given time.”

What if — just a thought experiment here — you hired 20 4s from previous years? A all-stars team as it were. Would you still give 5 1s?

DP. The answer is yes. They are compared among each others. The goal is to get the very best SWE and these guys get paid a lot of money. Think of it like the recent College Football Playoff where there are at least six teams that are qualified but only four teams were selected. You don't get a participation trophy.

But that’s a one-day game. Where the goal is a literal trophy. We are talking here about employment, in an industry/world where recruitment and employee turnover are one of the most substantive cost centers, and where every new cohort brings new risk. I suppose the “there are always five 1s” approach might be a way to hit short-term goals (not even sure about that, as it could be a disincentive to hard work for some). But it hardly seems like the long-term play.

+100. What you want is an entire team of 5s. But this set up will never get you there, because you have to give ones, even after you've spent time/money training the people to work to your specifications. So those 1s will take that training and move elsewhere.

And you will get a reputation as a terrible/toxic place to work, so many highly qualified who would likely be 4s+ will simply not want to work in that toxic environment. I perform at 110% at my job. I've always been a "striver". But I wouldn't want to work for a company whose goal is to always have 20% of the team be "bad performers and fire them". There are way too many tech companies not like that for me to join. If I'm going to give 110%, I expect the company to be a nurturing place with managers who care and who view their job being "to create a team of all 4s".

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let’s try this again: Extremely bright, extremely motivated, extremely achievement-oriented students choose a top school.
They are given tasks and assignments. If all of them do what they are asked to do, then all of them get As — as they should.

It really doesn’t make sense to continually post threads questioning why students who were picked because they are excellent students earning top grades continue to be excellent students earning top grades while they are in college. Education doesn’t require artificially creating a zero sum game. Education requires mastery.

If everyone is getting a 3.7 GPA or higher, it will make the vetting process by employers much harder.

This is NOT how it works in the real world. In my software engineering group of twenty, two people will get a rating of 4 (exceptional), three people will get a rating of 3 (outstanding), ten people will get a rating of two (successful), and five people will get a rating of 1 (below average). Why can't they do the same in college? Where I work, they will pick a recent grad with a 2.5 GPA but with AWS certification(s) over a grad with 4.0 GPA but no AWS certification(s).

But what if a particular cohort of employees is truly exceptional? What if more than two people deserve a 4? What if no one deserves a 4 that year? What if you’ve managed to put together an amazing team, as every employer hopes to do, and you genuinely want to keep them all. You’ll still give five 1s? How would that be in the company’s interest?

It's the Jack Welch school of management. It works great if the goal is getting rid of dead weight. The downside is that it breeds a culture of fear and you end up losing the people that you wanted to retain.

But if you hire correctly this wont' happen. It also wont happen if in conjunction with properly hiring you provide mentorship and training for your new employees. Done properly 99%+ can be 3+.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let’s try this again: Extremely bright, extremely motivated, extremely achievement-oriented students choose a top school.
They are given tasks and assignments. If all of them do what they are asked to do, then all of them get As — as they should.

It really doesn’t make sense to continually post threads questioning why students who were picked because they are excellent students earning top grades continue to be excellent students earning top grades while they are in college. Education doesn’t require artificially creating a zero sum game. Education requires mastery.

If everyone is getting a 3.7 GPA or higher, it will make the vetting process by employers much harder.

This is NOT how it works in the real world. In my software engineering group of twenty, two people will get a rating of 4 (exceptional), three people will get a rating of 3 (outstanding), ten people will get a rating of two (successful), and five people will get a rating of 1 (below average). Why can't they do the same in college? Where I work, they will pick a recent grad with a 2.5 GPA but with AWS certification(s) over a grad with 4.0 GPA but no AWS certification(s).

That works for your workplace. My stem workplace will pick a 4.0 gpa from a tough major/school (we check that the coursework was higher level physics and comp sci and math). And we don't curve for annual performance. Your performance is what it is, and some years its all 3s and we give people big raises because everyone knocked it out and made our company successful. Id rather not hire the 1s in the first place and have to replace and train new people.

+1

If you hired and trained and mentored correctly, you shouldn't have many or ANY 1s and very few 2s. The goal should be all 3s and 4s.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let’s try this again: Extremely bright, extremely motivated, extremely achievement-oriented students choose a top school.
They are given tasks and assignments. If all of them do what they are asked to do, then all of them get As — as they should.

It really doesn’t make sense to continually post threads questioning why students who were picked because they are excellent students earning top grades continue to be excellent students earning top grades while they are in college. Education doesn’t require artificially creating a zero sum game. Education requires mastery.

If everyone is getting a 3.7 GPA or higher, it will make the vetting process by employers much harder.

This is NOT how it works in the real world. In my software engineering group of twenty, two people will get a rating of 4 (exceptional), three people will get a rating of 3 (outstanding), ten people will get a rating of two (successful), and five people will get a rating of 1 (below average). Why can't they do the same in college? Where I work, they will pick a recent grad with a 2.5 GPA but with AWS certification(s) over a grad with 4.0 GPA but no AWS certification(s).

You cannot do this in college, because at a T50 school (and more so at a T25), 98%+ of the kids are the ones who will be the 4 or 3 ratings. Few to none of them will be the 2 or 1. These are go-getters who rise to the top. So it's not really accurate to make someone "below average" if they are not. This works in industry because you don't have "only the cream of the crop" at any company. But in college, if a kid gets a 90% in the class, mastered the material and has the lowest score in the class, they are not "below average" or unsuccessful.

That is also why after 1year+ of work experience, your GPA means nothing. What matters is what you do on the job and your knowledge base (AWS certifications, etc that matter for your job or the job you want).

Anonymous wrote:https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/05/nyregion/yale-grade-inflation.html

Knew this was the case at Harvard & Brown, basically just as bad at Yale. Graduating seniors have a 3.7 average gpa. At this point, I feel like major matters more than college. Privates don’t give anyone lower than a B or C, but mostly just As.

Not all private schools have grade inflation. My kid is engineering/CS major at a T40 school. There is no grade inflation. In fact, I'd argue there is the opposite. My kid took Organic Chem freshman year, with all other freshman. Over 60% of the class had taken a full year of Orgo in HS, but did not have official college credit---so they were retaking it for credit. The avg on midterms was over 85% (Most orgo chem classes have an avg in the 30-50s and is curved accordingly). There was no curve at all, in fact with the avg being so high, the C/B range was higher than normal. My kid was thrilled to get a B in the class. Had they been in the "typical sophomore Orgo" the avg was in the 40-50s and was curved accordingly.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DEI admits often submit lousy work but profs have to give them decent grades. To stay reasonably objective, this means the better work of non-DEI admits has to be graded at least as well or higher. The end result is almost everyone gets high grades. NYT won't tell you this but it's the obvious explanation.

Oh horse shit, you racist piece of excrement.

It's not racism. They explicitly lower standards to achieve whatever diversity they want to achieve. This is mathematically inevitable.

That didn't actually happen, moron. What bizarre fantasy life you lead.

Unless, as others point out, you mean "athletes" when you say "DEI?"

Or, white kids?

Ok, so you think black/Hispanic/first gen kids are of equivalent academic caliber - even though we know based on hard statistical information they are not? It's not even some kind of secret the schools deny - they openly have lower standards to achieve diversity objectives.

Yes I do. I’m not a bigot.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you have an Einstein and a Newton in a class of 2, why can't they both get As they deserve. Why must there always an F?

Because you are grading the class. If you have a class of two, only one can be #1.

Grading and ranking are two different things.

Anonymous wrote:I'm fascinated by the thought process fo some people on this thread.

Teacher, I got an A on the first test, so you should just give me As on all them from now on.

I was the earliest reader in kindergarten, so I should get As for the rest of my life.

I was my high school valedictorian, so you should just grant me summa cum laude in college, and give me a Ph.D while you're at it -- I don't actually need to do the work, you know I'm good for it.

No wonder so many of they HYP grads get to the real world and are miffed at having to do entry level work. They should just be given the keys to the C-suite already!

Literally nobody is saying this

People are saying that the kinds of kids capable of compiling the kind of application it takes to gain post-Covid acceptance to Yale are also likely to continue excelling once they enroll there

Anonymous wrote:I'm fascinated by the thought process fo some people on this thread.

Teacher, I got an A on the first test, so you should just give me As on all them from now on.

I was the earliest reader in kindergarten, so I should get As for the rest of my life.

I was my high school valedictorian, so you should just grant me summa cum laude in college, and give me a Ph.D while you're at it -- I don't actually need to do the work, you know I'm good for it.

No wonder so many of they HYP grads get to the real world and are miffed at having to do entry level work. They should just be given the keys to the C-suite already!

+1

I’m wondering if the Ivy parents who are in favor of As for all are the same people blasting too many As in high school?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you have an Einstein and a Newton in a class of 2, why can't they both get As they deserve. Why must there always an F?

Because you are grading the class. If you have a class of two, only one can be #1.

So Einstein and Newton cannot both receive 100 out of 100 in physics final. They both can't score 5s in AP Physics.

Got it.