@moooop fair enough point about size of the student body might not be an issue but was just talking with friends kid who is a junior at UCLA and she is still in some classes with 300+ students and mentioned something about attendance is optional (maybe because they don’t have enough seats?). You would think that by the time you were a junior with upper division courses the class size would be more manageable? These kinds of anecdotes concern me at our in state public universities...
@Corraleno Actually multiple studies have shown that outcomes are very similar for students who are accepted to elite schools, whether or not they actually *attend* those schools.
Moreover, we consistently find that the average SAT score of the schools the student applied to, but either was rejected by or chose not to attend, has a large effect on earnings. For example, results from the model in row 7 show that a 100 point increase in the highest school-average SAT score among the colleges at which the student was rejected is associated with a 7 percent increase in earnings. These results raise serious doubt about a causal interpretation of the effect of attending a school with a higher average SAT score in regressions that do not control for selection.
Which at the back end is ridiculous, you do know that around 40-50% of the applicants to Harvard aren't academically qualified to attend, now suddenly they are just as successful. Doesn't pass the common sense test.
The Dale-Kreuger studies controlled for both HS GPA/rank and SAT score. They were comparing earnings of rejected and accepted students who had similar same stats, not "applicants to Harvard who aren't academically qualified to attend."
Didn't you say: "The predictive ability of individual SAT score also dropped to near 0." So the low-stats kids who applied to Harvard would still do well?
Elites are just about as meritocratic as they have been since the started with "holistic admissions" in the early 20th century.