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

And quite frankly, anyone that does should be a place you run away from fast. Who wants to work somewhere that cares about that worthless test? Heck after your first job, nobody cares about your College GPA. They care about your work and recommendations. Really smart and not able to work well with others or complete projects on time is not someone who I want working for me.
I'll take the 3.2 or 3.5 college kid who gives 120% all the time and people actually want to work with.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I like reading David Brooks. He’s a little too limousine liberal for me, but I appreciate the analysis. Both he, and Trump, want to move manufacturing jobs back to America. The problem with this plan is that these jobs are being automated. We can’t social engineer a middle class by creating work for them that the free market doesn’t need.

We are a knowledge based society and everyone needs a skill to receive a decent paying job. It can be trades, but it’s got to be something. Many of the people I see that are disenchanted with current American society are those that do not have a skill. Even soft science college graduates are working at Starbucks. They really don’t have a skill.

High schools need to do a better job at ensuring each graduate has a path towards employment. If college is out of the picture, then a trade.

I agree with public service as an option. It would give kids not interested in military service a place to get a skill. So many trades jobs are going to immigrant labor.

And we need to push science. As a country, we’re still importing scientists. We have good paying jobs in American. We don’t have enough students willing to take hard science classes.

I don't think that's true. Kids are clamoring to get into engineering programs and get shut out. Most kids in LACS are in the science programs. Maybe we need more seats in the schools?

There are plenty of spaces in engineering program. Just look outside the T50. Even in the 40-75 range there are many schools that are NOT direct admit to engineering---your kid is just admitted to the school and then can pick a major. go even lower ranked and Direct admit is not a thing. Anyone can major in engineering provided you Get a C or better in the entry level courses. If you want to major in that, you can easily do it. Just not at a T25 school

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I found this interesting. I'm glad I chose to invest the money instead.
"According to the Yale Law professor Daniel Markovits, the author of The Meritocracy Trap, if the typical family in the top 1 percent of earners were to take that surplus—all the excess money they spend, beyond what a middle-class family spends, on their child’s education in the form of private-school tuition, extracurricular activities, SAT-prep courses, private tutors, and so forth—and simply invest it in the markets, it would be worth $10 million or more as a conventional inheritance."

The problem with this theory is that many kids wouldn't even be marginally successful or happy if the parents didn't spend that money.

We have three SN kids with combinations of ADHD and dyslexia. They would end up in jail or dead if we didn't spend a fortune on interventions and EC's just so they have tolerable lives.

IMO, that is entirely different than parents who send their kids to tutoring who are getting a B+ in a course or just preemptively to keep them on top. If your kids have any learning/developmental issues (no matter how small) it is to your advantage to spend all you can to get early interventions and help to give them the best life possible. I have a kid with "minor" issues---we started at age 9 and continued until 15. That helped immensely. That kid graduated college from a T100 school (after a rough start in a Pre-med path that I knew wouldn't work but they had to try) with a 3.4+ GPA, finance degree and been working for 2.5+ years in the same great job with a top company (not directly using finance but who cares---they are employed, getting promoted and getting raises, which is more than many people can say for the last 2-3 years of 22-25 yo).

Had we not intervened, I'm certain we would be on a much different path now. That's why we did it all, despite the school telling me "he's reading on grade level, no issues, no need for any interventions". Because our private testing told a different story and that he was reading/comprehednign at only 10% (50% would be average for the age). Instead I probably spent $100K+ on tutoring and therapy to put them on the best path forward. Worth every penny.

Anonymous wrote:Here is a gift link:

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2024/12/meritocracy-college-admissions-social-economic-segregation/680392/?gift=g8Qag2Tr0bUr9rwgBJD1Xa_D0BA146MOAbqxpfJD6dM&utm_source=copy-link&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=share

Thanks. This is a great article.

But very long.

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.

I interviewed at Morgan Stanley way back in the day to try to get on trading desk fresh out of my MBA. My friend in HR told me they group candidates into three piles.
1) Those who make the money (Trading/Investment/Broker Banking etc.)
2) Those who count the money (Finance, Audit, Accounting, IT)
30 Those who mail out the checks (mailroom, Back office)

Bucket 1 is T25
Bucket 2 is Top 200 Colleges
Bucket 3 is is HS Degree, Community College, bottom of barrel college.

I dont think much has changed over time

I would say bucket 1 is somewhat bigger these days for undergrad. Maybe T30 + SLACs + undergrad business programs that punch above their weight. For MBAs T25 is probably still accurate. Buckets 2 and 3 still accurate, though 3 might have fewer only HS degrees these days.

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.

+100

This was a long time coming. College is now a means to an end, not the end goal in and of itself. It's just a ticket to a job. People aren't necessarily there to learn anything. DCUM progeny excepted, of course

It's like Brooks said in the piece -- striving too hard in college used to be considered in poor taste and was a class marker. It was basically a bunch of preppy dudes reading and biding their time until they could waltz into whatever job their family handed to them.

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.

I interviewed at Morgan Stanley way back in the day to try to get on trading desk fresh out of my MBA. My friend in HR told me they group candidates into three piles.
1) Those who make the money (Trading/Investment/Broker Banking etc.)
2) Those who count the money (Finance, Audit, Accounting, IT)
30 Those who mail out the checks (mailroom, Back office)

Bucket 1 is T25
Bucket 2 is Top 200 Colleges
Bucket 3 is is HS Degree, Community College, bottom of barrel college.

I dont think much has changed over time

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

DP. I wish they did. I’d probably have a much better job if it still mattered.

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:

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:

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.

I'd go after private k-12 before ivies.

at least ivies are affordable and you can apply as a scrappy teen. these 60k K-12 are just rich parents

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I like reading David Brooks. He’s a little too limousine liberal for me, but I appreciate the analysis. Both he, and Trump, want to move manufacturing jobs back to America. The problem with this plan is that these jobs are being automated. We can’t social engineer a middle class by creating work for them that the free market doesn’t need.

We are a knowledge based society and everyone needs a skill to receive a decent paying job. It can be trades, but it’s got to be something. Many of the people I see that are disenchanted with current American society are those that do not have a skill. Even soft science college graduates are working at Starbucks. They really don’t have a skill.

High schools need to do a better job at ensuring each graduate has a path towards employment. If college is out of the picture, then a trade.

I agree with public service as an option. It would give kids not interested in military service a place to get a skill. So many trades jobs are going to immigrant labor.

And we need to push science. As a country, we’re still importing scientists. We have good paying jobs in American. We don’t have enough students willing to take hard science classes.

I don't think that's true. Kids are clamoring to get into engineering programs and get shut out. Most kids in LACS are in the science programs. Maybe we need more seats in the schools?

The mismatch between seats and what kids want (which happens to be what is needed) is the elephant in the room that schools try to ignore. When they shift resources from english to nursing, they get huge blowback even though there are no more english majors (see Marymount). You have elite schools barring students from majoring in something useful while retaining bloated art history departments (pomona). Engineering and comp si are the hardest admits at any school that makes kids apply to specific majors and schools. A level down, nursing is the hardest admit even though there is a massive shortage

Not sure that top LACs want to change into engineering-focused schools. But it would be hard because they have tenured professors in humanities. I think they are more likely to require an applicant to apply to the major when they apply to the school.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I like reading David Brooks. He’s a little too limousine liberal for me, but I appreciate the analysis. Both he, and Trump, want to move manufacturing jobs back to America. The problem with this plan is that these jobs are being automated. We can’t social engineer a middle class by creating work for them that the free market doesn’t need.

We are a knowledge based society and everyone needs a skill to receive a decent paying job. It can be trades, but it’s got to be something. Many of the people I see that are disenchanted with current American society are those that do not have a skill. Even soft science college graduates are working at Starbucks. They really don’t have a skill.

High schools need to do a better job at ensuring each graduate has a path towards employment. If college is out of the picture, then a trade.

I agree with public service as an option. It would give kids not interested in military service a place to get a skill. So many trades jobs are going to immigrant labor.

And we need to push science. As a country, we’re still importing scientists. We have good paying jobs in American. We don’t have enough students willing to take hard science classes.

I don't think that's true. Kids are clamoring to get into engineering programs and get shut out. Most kids in LACS are in the science programs. Maybe we need more seats in the schools?

The mismatch between seats and what kids want (which happens to be what is needed) is the elephant in the room that schools try to ignore. When they shift resources from english to nursing, they get huge blowback even though there are no more english majors (see Marymount). You have elite schools barring students from majoring in something useful while retaining bloated art history departments (pomona). Engineering and comp si are the hardest admits at any school that makes kids apply to specific majors and schools. A level down, nursing is the hardest admit even though there is a massive shortage

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.