"After Credentials" (Paul Graham)

[tokenadult]

If low-incomes are not making it into top schools, perhaps it's because they have low GPA, low scores, and nothing to talk about except selling pot.

This is total baloney. You haven't shown the performance of actually reading the links that I posted above.

[molliebatmit]

Originally Posted by l84ad8

We are not talking about ability. We are talking about performance. Admissions are based on performance, not on some unverifiable potential ability.

I think we are talking about ability. After all, performance-wise, most high school seniors are pretty unimpressive. Even of the pool of candidates for top schools, there are very few who have done truly outstanding work which really showcases outstanding intellectual talent.

The job of admissions officers at top schools is to pick those applicants who have the most promise, whether or not they've actually been able to showcase that promise in their high school years.

[sakky]

I still am yet to find a definite reason, outside of prestige of course, that makes a private research university largely greater than a public school.

I can give you one, at least for the top private schools: they tend to be much safer than are the top public schools. That is to say, even if you're a poor student at a top private school, you're probably still going to graduate. Both GWB and John Kerry have freely admitted that they were lackluster and unmotivated students while at Yale. But Yale nevertheless still graduated them. Contrast that with the public schools (i.e. Berkeley) where you run the significant risk of actually flunking out. I know quite a few people that that happened to. If they had gone to HYPS, they probably would have graduated. Sure, not with good grades, but at least they would have graduated. {But of course, they didn't get into HYPS.}

Public schools are a great deal for those students who do well. But what about those students who don't do well? What happens to them? That's the problem. These students won't graduate, and then employers will think they're unhireable because they don't have degrees. We live in a world where employers won't care why you don't have a degree. All they will see is that you don't have a degree. The top private schools, on the other hand, will still confer degrees on their students who aren't doing well, hence saving them from that scarlet letter of failure. They are akin to insurance.

This article = a lot of very sour grapes.

I don't know about that. The author has a bachelor's from Cornell and a MA and PhD from Harvard.

[sakky]

The only thing that might come out of a parent financially helping their kid to success is their kid getting wealthier, faster. If that's what they're looking for, that's nice, but the kid won't learn anything in the process.

Yeah, but I think that's all the parents really care about anyway. Let's face it. Most parents don't really care all that much about what their kids really learn, or whether they learn anything at all (beyond simple common sense). What they really want is for their kids to be financially secure and happy, and if they can do that without actually having to learn much, that's fine.

[tomslawsky]

"Not to get political and I know that I'll ruffle a few feathers here but our current president is a prime example of this legacy admissions and getting by through family connections and wealth. Just because you coast by with a C average at an Ivy league and graduated doesn't mean that you ever got that education in the first place."

This statement demonstrates ignorance on several levels. You should do some research on the older SAT scoring curve and ivy league grade inflation and then re-post.

[Morsmordre]

This statement demonstrates ignorance on several levels. You should do some research on the older SAT scoring curve and ivy league grade inflation and then re-post.

Bush got a 1206 on his SATs when he took them. The average at Yale at the time was 1370. 1206 was, and still is, a mediocre SAT score, especially for Yale. Taking into account the new curve on the verbal (math stayed roughly the same) his score would be about a 1300. Few people can get into Yale with a 1300 without a significant hook. Granted a C average then means more than it does now (perhaps B-), its still unimpressive. Even Fox News said on our oh so benevolent President's grades:

The president acknowledged that he was known here for so-so grades and a lively social life.

FOXNews.com - Self-Deprecating Bush Talks to Yale Grads - Politics | Republican Party | Democratic Party | Political Spectrum
There can be little doubt that had Bush been born to a family that lacked the resources to donate heavily to Yale, Bush would have been rejected.

[l84ad8]

This is total baloney. You haven't shown the performance of actually reading the links that I posted above.

If you want to assert that high-performing poors get adverse treatment at top schools, show some evidence. Do not "link" a kitchen sink. I did read several of your "links" and they were complete garbage. None had any hard data that would support theory that high-grades, high-score poors don't get into top schools.

[l84ad8]

I think we are talking about ability.

You are badly mistaken. Admissions outcomes are determined mostly by the applicant's grades, scores, and writing ability. All of these are performance benchmarks. Adcoms hope that past performance (high school benchmarks) is indicative of potential for future performance (college benchmarks, and eventually employment benchmarks), but ultimately, nobody can tell.

[l84ad8]

Both GWB and John Kerry have freely admitted that they were lackluster and unmotivated students while at Yale. But Yale nevertheless still graduated them.

And both this country and the international community would have been better off if Yale had .. kick GWB out. As to Kerry, despite his military record, he was one bad politician (although not nearly as bad as GWB).

[molliebatmit]

You are badly mistaken. Admissions outcomes are determined mostly by the applicant's grades, scores, and writing ability. All of these are performance benchmarks. Adcoms hope that past performance (high school benchmarks) is indicative of potential for future performance (college benchmarks, and eventually employment benchmarks), but ultimately, nobody can tell.

Well, of course it depends on the types of schools about which we're talking. If we're talking about the top schools in this country (as I assume we are), then admissions decisions are not determined primarily by grades, scores, and writing ability -- the applicant pools of top schools have too narrow a distribution of stats to make these distinctions meaningful. (E.g., at MIT about 50% of applicants have an SAT I math score of 750 or above, and 70% of applicants are in the top 5% of their high school classes. Decisions within this group are not made on the basis of SAT score or class rank -- the minute differences between applicants are not meaningful enough.)

And admissions officers do not merely cross their fingers and hope that their decisions are right; they carefully track admitted students for grade-related and job-related outcomes to determine whether their methods are producing the kind of alums they want for the school.

[tokenadult]

Admissions outcomes are determined mostly by the applicant's grades, scores, and writing ability.

And if you had used your reading ability to look up the links I posted above, you would understand that there are many colleges that prefer wealthier students with less by way of grades, scores, and writing ability to poorer students who have better grades, scores and writing ability. This is true of college recruiting of prospective students, true of colleges admitting students who apply, and true of colleges graduating students who enroll after being admitted. The advantage is to the rich and barely able rather than to the able and poor.

For the reading convenience of persons who like to self-educate, I'll repeat the links here.


BW Online | July 7, 2003 | Needed: Affirmative Action for the Poor

http://www.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ffp0621.pdf

http://www.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ff0615S.pdf

http://www.tcf.org/Publications/Education/carnrose.pdf

http://www.tcf.org/Publications/Educ...-affaction.pdf

A Thumb on the Scale | Harvard Magazine

The Best Class Money Can Buy - The Atlantic (November 2005)

The Harvard Crimson :: News :: Recruiting a New Elite

Cost Remains a Key Obstacle to College Access

http://www.jackkentcookefoundation.o...%202-21-08.pdf

Legacies of Injustice: Alumni preferences threaten educational equity--and no one seems to care. - Reason Magazine

Promise Lost: College-Qualified Students Who Don?t Enroll in College (IHEP)

Colleges reach out to poorer students - The Boston Globe

The Associated Press: Study flunks 49 states in college affordability

[tokenadult]

Admissions outcomes are determined mostly by the applicant's grades, scores, and writing ability.

And if you had used your reading ability to look up the links I posted above, you would understand that there are many colleges that prefer wealthier students with less by way of grades, scores, and writing ability to poorer students who have better grades, scores and writing ability. This is true of college recruiting of prospective students, true of colleges admitting students who apply, and true of colleges graduating students who enroll after being admitted. The advantage is to the rich and barely able rather than to the able and poor.

For the reading convenience of persons who like to self-educate, I'll repeat the links here.


BW Online | July 7, 2003 | Needed: Affirmative Action for the Poor

http://www.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ffp0621.pdf

http://www.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ff0615S.pdf

http://www.tcf.org/Publications/Education/carnrose.pdf

http://www.tcf.org/Publications/Educ...-affaction.pdf

A Thumb on the Scale | Harvard Magazine

The Best Class Money Can Buy - The Atlantic (November 2005)

The Harvard Crimson :: News :: Recruiting a New Elite

Cost Remains a Key Obstacle to College Access

http://www.jackkentcookefoundation.o...%202-21-08.pdf

Legacies of Injustice: Alumni preferences threaten educational equity--and no one seems to care. - Reason Magazine

Promise Lost: College-Qualified Students Who Don?t Enroll in College (IHEP)

Colleges reach out to poorer students - The Boston Globe

The Associated Press: Study flunks 49 states in college affordability

[ramaswami]

I am with l84ad8: selective college admissions is based on performance (SATs, APs etc etc) and past performance is an excellent predictor of future performance.

To molliemit: contrary to the widespread belief that there are too many high scorers in the pool of candidates to the ivies, mit, etc the pool is very very small. For example, the number of students scoring above 2350 on the SAT is about 1600, of which only 1100 are US residents. Throw in those scoring 5s on 10 APs with the corresponding high grades in challenging courses, the number of high performers is small and this reflects performance not just ability.

The biggest contribution of parents is the teaching of the habit of deferred gratification. Wealth does not directly contribute much advantage in the admissions process (other than legacy and big donations) but the wealthy who are most often successful teach industriousness.

To succeed in most things in life you need hard work, above a certain level of IQ, and this hard word a la performance translates into high scores, high athletic achievement, etc.

[tokenadult]

Wealth does not directly contribute much advantage in the admissions process

What about the evidence gathered by Anthony P. Carnevale and Stephen J. Rose for the Century Foundation?

http://www.tcf.org/Publications/Education/carnrose.pdf

What about the Jack Kent Cooke Foundation study?

http://www.jkcf.org/assets/files/000...ement_Trap.pdf

(I see this link has been updated since I last checked it, so this is new to the thread.)

[sakky]

And both this country and the international community would have been better off if Yale had had balls to kick GWB out. As to Kerry, despite his military record, he was one bad politician (although not nearly as bad as GWB)

But that's not what we're talking about. We're not talking about what's best for society. We're talking about what's best for the individual student. The truth is, if GWB and Kerry had gone to some public school (i.e. Berkeley), they probably wouldn't have graduated. Yeah, ok, maybe you could argue that that would have been better for the world. But it wouldn't have been better for them, and that's the point.

To repeat my point: one of the greatest features of the top private schools over the public schools is that at the former, you are not going to flunk out. You are going to get a degree if you want one. The only people who don't get a degree are the ones who find something better to do (i.e. Bill Gates), not because they couldn't get it. It's a risk-averse proposition. Most people are risk averse. However, at the public schools, you run the real risk of flunking out, and that's clearly a negative.