|
| gedy wrote:
| Just call it a Historically Rich College and have the education
| dept focus on other issues with public schools
| [deleted]
| local_issues wrote:
| Meritocracy is good. My family has Harvard legacy and I support
| this
| xhkkffbf wrote:
| A friend at Princeton told me they're having the opposite
| scandal. Apparently the student newspaper did some data analysis
| and found that legacy students had both higher SATs and better
| GPAs. That sort of breaks the narrative.
|
| The feeling is that the trustees have capped the number of
| legacies at around 10-12% and so it's a bit tougher to get in if
| you're a child of an alumnus. Apparently they treat the pools
| fairly independently.
|
| https://www.dailyprincetonian.com/article/2023/07/princeton-...
| readthenotes1 wrote:
| No surprise there. They probably grew up in wealthier
| households and had all the positive network effects
| lmm wrote:
| Which the evidence suggests is at most a small effect
| compared to genetic intelligence, but of course we have to
| brush that under the carpet.
| CPLX wrote:
| What's genetic intelligence can you explain it to me?
| Vt71fcAqt7 wrote:
| A longer way of saying "intelligence," more or less.
| KMag wrote:
| I believe they're referring to the heritability of IQ. I
| think they're asserting that genetics have a much larger
| effect than environment on IQ scores. I haven't read any
| recent research on the subject, so I can't vouch for the
| accuracy of that assertion.
| lmm wrote:
| I meant intelligence (the underlying "g" factor) rather
| than IQ specifically, but other than that, yes.
| xhkkffbf wrote:
| It was a big surprise to me. The standard story in all of the
| papers is that legacy admission is affirmative action for
| white people. In other words, they let in dolts with low SAT
| scores merely because they had parents who attended the
| school. The newspapers say this all the time. But the
| statistics say something different. The Princeton admissions
| office apparently has so many legacies that they can pick and
| choose the most amazing.
| cuteboy19 wrote:
| They actually did modelling of this during the trial. It
| was found that removing legacy and affirmative action
| causes negligible change in the white population.
| HDThoreaun wrote:
| Everyone comparing SATs and GPAs has completely missed the
| point. Princeton would rather accept for example someone who
| became a nationally known political figure before graduating
| high school than someone with a 4.0 1600. The "what sets you
| apart" part of the application is much more important than your
| grades.
| strikelaserclaw wrote:
| These ivies bank on 1% of their class doing something great
| and they optimize like 50% of their class to find the 1%, the
| rest of the 50% is just to preserve old power structures
| (children of rich people, politicians etc..).
| KMag wrote:
| > much more important than your grades.
|
| .. once your grades and test scores are above the level that
| makes them reasonably confident you can handle the
| coursework.
| RC_ITR wrote:
| To put a big fat disclaimer on this - N is <50% of the entering
| Freshman class, data is self-reported, the statistics (like
| self-reported race) do not line up with official Princeton
| statistics.
|
| My guess is that if you're a legacy that had bad grades, you
| _are certainly_ not going to admit that in your first month on
| campus to the student newspaper.
| denverllc wrote:
| > that legacy students had both higher SATs and better GPAs
|
| Then they can get in without legacy admission.
| rednerrus wrote:
| Why not offer them a fast track if they are actually
| qualified?
| xhkkffbf wrote:
| > Then they can get in without legacy admission.
|
| Not necessarily. Apparently there are a bunch separate pools:
| one for the athletes, one for the professors' kids, one for
| the orchestra etc. If the kid is merely a legacy with good
| SATs, they're not eligible for the other pools.
| JimtheCoder wrote:
| Isn't admissions into the Ivies mostly a crapshoot after you
| reach a certain GPA/SAT threshold?
|
| You have to show you are unique through essays and ECs, and
| that you will be an asset to the university community?
|
| Or that you have chosen good parents?
| libraryatnight wrote:
| Curious about this too. Sort of a popular logic I've never
| sincerely questioned that most people applying to these
| schools have the test scores/GPAs etc so you're sort of
| lost in a sea of 'excellence'. (Only put quotes because it
| would only be one narrow definition - I was excellent at
| Unreal Tournament, setting up LAN parties, and eating Jack
| tacos).
| csa wrote:
| > I was excellent at Unreal Tournament, setting up LAN
| parties
|
| Interestingly, with good enough scores and grades and a
| slight spin on this skill set (e.g., setting up large
| scale LAN tournaments, being world ranked in UT, etc.),
| you would distinguish yourself from the "sea of
| excellence" (you are correct that scores and grades are a
| narrow and incomplete definition by Ivy admissions
| standards).
| csa wrote:
| > Isn't admissions into the Ivies mostly a crapshoot after
| you reach a certain GPA/SAT threshold?
|
| In general, it is not a crapshoot.
|
| There are some things that are very doable by any
| reasonable Ivy admit that will set them apart. Cal Newport
| has written quite a bit about this, and I agree with most
| (if not all) of what he says.
|
| It may _seem_ like a crap shoot, because some /many folks
| don't realize what it is about a successful admit's
| application that sets them apart. Fwiw, it's not "better
| SAT and GPA" or "one more extracurricular".
| wholien wrote:
| Harvard's admits that have legacy status also have better
| SAT/Grades I believe
|
| > And a Harvard spokesperson told me that admitted legacies
| tend to have higher median test scores and grades than the rest
| of admitted students.
|
| https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2019/04/legacy...
|
| Class of 2025 student profile:
|
| > Legacy students also had a higher average SAT score than non-
| legacy students, at 1523 for legacy students and 1491 for non-
| legacy students.
|
| https://features.thecrimson.com/2021/freshman-survey/academi...
| strikelaserclaw wrote:
| Guess you didn't read the point underneath
|
| "Just under a fifth of respondents -- 19.5 percent --
| reported cheating in high school. The wealthiest students
| reported the highest rates of cheating, with 25.2 percent of
| students with families making more than $500,000 a year
| having engaged in academic dishonesty. "
| KMag wrote:
| The actual base rate of academic dishonesty is unknown.
| Maybe these students are especially honest about their
| dishonesty?
| waswaswas wrote:
| This could easily be skewed by self-reporting bias. Perhaps
| wealthier students feel they have less to potentially lose
| by answering the survey honestly.
| cma wrote:
| How many of the legacy students get unlimited time on the
| SAT? 20% of Harvard students do through claiming a learning
| disability, though the odds of 20% of the top ~.05% of
| students (Harvard students) all happening to have learning
| disabilities are insanely low, it is a higher rate than state
| schools. They do it because they have admissions advisors
| etc. that coach them to getting a diagnosis from the doctor
| for ADHD to get unlimited time.
| artsytrashcan wrote:
| That's not a huge range - a handful of missed answers - and,
| I believe, lower than it used to be. I distinctly remember
| being, at 1490, in the bottom quartile of "Harvard-bound
| scores".
| Leary wrote:
| Probably because they didn't control for race
| libraryatnight wrote:
| I was curious if that held once one accounted for means, and
| sure enough they have an income graph. Interesting article!
| stanford_labrat wrote:
| Was recently reflecting on this about my own undergrad admissions
| cycle. Got me wondering: what percent of students at these
| institutions are there simply off of academic talent and not some
| of the larger extraneous factor such as legacy/sports
| recruitment/family donated a building?
|
| Because that was me, just some regular lower class guy who had
| good grades and a not particularly unique angle. It used to
| bother me a lot that somehow these other people were "better"
| than me but I realized not too long ago that in reality, these
| schools are simply not meant for people like me but instead they
| are for the elites.
|
| In retrospect, I wish I had spent more time learning about and
| pursuing the high ranking "techy" type schools like
| MIT/UMich/Caltech/Cal and less time chasing after these
| "prestigious" ivies. Plus, out of my generation of cousins
| (n=30+) only 5 went to an Ivy League school or equivalent and 2
| of them went to the same high school as Bill Gates and the other
| 3 were sports recruits. Anecdotal of course but even amongst my
| high school class the only people who went to an Ivy league had
| 1) Ivy league professors as parents or 2) multi-millionaire
| levels of wealth.
| lukewrites wrote:
| > only 5 went to an Ivy League school or equivalent and 2 of
| them went to the same high school as Bill Gates and the other 3
| were sports recruits
|
| We've been touring some high schools that include the one Gates
| went to. They love to tout their Ivy admission successes, but
| really don't love to be asked how many of those admits are
| legacies.
|
| It's more and more clear that it's a racket for the elites. I
| will do everything in my power to make sure that my kids
| recognize it for the bs that it is.
| waswaswas wrote:
| In my experience rubbing shoulders in these circles, kids
| going to the top tier prep schools are often just really
| impressive--the culture at these schools normalizes an
| expectation of high achievement across multiple domains. Not
| uncommon to see the same kid be a starting quarterback on the
| football team, an award winning painter, and a nationally
| ranked debater. I got into an Ivy equivalent college by
| enthusiastically pursuing my interests at a less competitive
| high school, and frankly, I think I might have cracked under
| the pressure at one of these top tier prep schools.
|
| I completely believe that there are many majors/programs at
| Harvard no more rigorous/educational than those at decent
| large state universities, but make no mistake, these top tier
| prep schools are often leaps and bounds more
| difficult/rigorous than well ranked suburban public high
| schools, outside of the nationally exceptional magnets like
| Thomas Jefferson or Bronx Science.
| strikelaserclaw wrote:
| only 5 ? Thats a lot. Most families don't even have 1.
| sudosteph wrote:
| > Anecdotal of course but even amongst my high school class the
| only people who went to an Ivy league had 1) Ivy league
| professors as parents or 2) multi-millionaire levels of wealth.
|
| I once did a LinkedIn search on my cohort of I.B. students from
| middle and high school, saw the exact same thing play out. The
| children of doctors and professors went to Ivies for undergrad,
| but nearly everyone went to competitive public schools (UNC, GA
| Tech) or "nearly ivy" (ex: Duke) and a large number now have
| advanced degrees from great schools. I don't think the Ivy kids
| actually did much better from what I can tell. But I think it's
| cultural/regional too, I don't think I ever met anyone growing
| up who went to an Ivy. I basically chose my top-choice college
| based on my Mom's favorite in-state basketball team (NC State)
| and never even considered non-public an option.
| csa wrote:
| > what percent of students at these institutions are there
| simply off of academic talent and not some of the larger
| extraneous factor
|
| Very few actually get in purely based on academics. Very, very
| few.
|
| Most folks who are admitted have good enough academics (with
| "good enough" being relatively high but not unreasonable) with
| something else that sets them apart. Usually this is something
| that sets them apart at an international, national, or (maybe)
| regional level, or some sort of demonstrated ability to do
| something interesting (broadly defined), especially if in a
| leadership role.
|
| > and a not particularly unique angle
|
| You probably did not realize what your actual unique angle was,
| or you grossly undervalue that unique angle.
| lokar wrote:
| I suspect "good enough" is approaching the sensitivity of the
| measurement approach. Grades and test scores give a widely
| over stated level of precision for academic aptitude.
| blagie wrote:
| As a (weak) Harvard affiliate, I have to say that grandfather
| clauses have extensive legal precedent, and have extensive case
| law supporting their use from 1890-1910, many argued by Harvard
| graduates. Indeed, similar clauses were commonly included in many
| state constitutions at the time.
|
| If there is racism here, Harvard has long since paid the
| necessary reparations. Harvard set aside $100M, or an entire 0.2%
| of its endowment, to pay off any racial harm it has done. It did
| so after an in-depth analysis about the value of the lives it has
| impacted, and the relative value of those impacted and those
| impacting.
|
| Indeed, it's clear there's nothing to see here. Carry on.
| paxys wrote:
| Politicians from both parties are doing a masterful job
| crucifying the likes of Harvard (which admits 1,900 students per
| year) for the state of higher education in the country while
| simultaneously cutting state-level university funding down to
| nothing over the last 15 years.
|
| If people directed their outrage at their state school system or
| city college instead the problem would be a lot closer to getting
| fixed, but Harvard is a much more exciting battleground to make a
| political statement. It has never really been about little
| Timmy's education, but just sticking it to the other side.
| nichohel wrote:
| What do you mean by "cutting state-level university funding
| down to nothing over the last 15 years"?
| 999900000999 wrote:
| It's not quite that bad, but UC/ Cal State tuition used to be
| next to nothing. In my mother's time it was effectively free.
| Now your out 14k for a UC and 8k for a Cal State.
| lokar wrote:
| Tuition at uc/cal state is free for residents, by law.
|
| You must mean "fees"
|
| :(
| paxys wrote:
| I mean exactly that. Every state in the country reduced
| funding to their public university system during the 2008
| financial crisis. 32/50 states have yet to restore that
| funding. Universities must make up for the shortage by
| increased tuition and increased reliance on international
| students (who pay significantly more).
|
| Ivy League colleges aren't meant to educate the masses, but
| people somehow aren't able to come to terms with that. Your
| kid is significantly more likely to find a place at the local
| U, but now they must take crazy loans for it and compete with
| a rich chinese kid for the spot, all while you are fighting
| big bad Harvard.
| nichohel wrote:
| "Exactly that" hardly. Reducing funding to a level of a
| year ago is hardly "nothing" and most states didn't even go
| that far.
| lolinder wrote:
| This appears to be your source [0]. I'm posting it because
| it's easier to have a conversation about the full report
| than about your extracts from the report.
|
| [0] https://www.nea.org/sites/default/files/2022-10/nea-he-
| rolle...
| thoughtstheseus wrote:
| The complaint is below for reference.
|
| http://lawyersforcivilrights.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/...
| Meekro wrote:
| Scott Alexander has an interesting take on legacy admissions[1]:
| the idea is to admit some privileged kids, and some smart kids,
| so that each can benefit from the other's presence. In other
| words, if you're a smart kid trying to pick a college, the fact
| that at Harvard you can become drinking buddies with the kids of
| industry tycoons, federal judges, senators, etc. is exactly what
| you want. You're not _upset_ that those privileged kids get in
| automatically, it 's actually _a perk_ to you that they do.
|
| [1] https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/why-match-school-
| and-s...
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-07-25 23:01 UTC) |