<p>I think this is a good point, and it has been articulated in different ways by others, including me, mathmom and even Canuckguy.</p>
<p>If HYPS determine that, in order to remain competitive (or maintain “power” ala Canuckguy), they need to change their educational focus by admitting mostly STEM majors or students from China, they will do it, and they may already be headed in that direction. Harvard has committed $1billion to develop an adjacent campus for the sciences (altho’ it was recently put on hold due to the crash).</p>
<p>I don’t understand why some posters keep harping on “goatherding” as a priority for HYPS. Obviously, it is not. A STEM major who knows how to herd goats would possibly bring more interest to campus life than one of thousands who know how to play the piano. Obviously that is not assured, but it is based upon years and years of experience in crafting a class, by the ultimate experts in that subject.</p>
<p>ALL I meant to show through my anecdote, Fab, was the value in having a classroom that has a diverse group of kids. That’s it. I unfortunately used as an example racial preferences. I now wish I hadn’t, and instead had the professor asking the class what they thought of, oh, I don’t know, child labor.</p>
<p>And I agree that there is “value in having a classroom that has a diverse group of kids.” I simply disagree that “diversity” is measured in terms of racial classification.</p>
<p>^^^ (@texaspg) I don’t see anything wrong if people of one race (or other category) gravitate to one major, and people of another race (or other category) gravitate to another. If upwardly mobile 1st gens gravitate to STEM and rich 7th gen “goatherds” gravitate to Art History, fine.</p>
<p>At the same time, I also think liberal artsy institutions (including all the Ivies) do have an interest in preserving departments of Art History, Classics, and Sociology. This may mean that some artsy fartsy applicants get accepted instead of science geeks with somewhat higher scores. But a better way to manage this problem would be to grow the high-demand departments. </p>
<p>For example, I think my alma mater should build an engineering program. To say that would be heresy to some liberal arts purists. But I think engineering in the 21st century is not the same as engineering in the 19th century. It’s not so much about laying rails and building dams anymore. There is a strong intersection with arcane areas of pure science. Engineering today often involves ethical and political choices that need a liberal arts perspective.</p>
<p>Tk - I was curious about Berkeley because it gets talked about a lot and was trying to figure out if that is even the case, i.e., all Asians are graduating from Stem majors at UCB. Just adding up numbers, I find that almost a statistical anamoly if that is true.</p>
<p>I am sorry but I don’t know where you went to school and so I can’t say if they need an engineering school or not. However, I do think as a top 10 school, Chicago badly needs to start one.</p>
<p>“Today’s news regarding Gov. Brown’s support for a court challenge to overturn CA’s Prop 209:”</p>
<p>It’s un-Constitutional to ban racial preferences? Really? I would hope even the Court’s liberal bloc would strike that down for the joke that it is.</p>
<p>That is an excellent point indeed. To me, colleges have no business telling people what they can do in life, just as Nikon has no right to tell photographers that they should shoot socially relevant photographs. The libertarian in me bristles at that suggestion.</p>
<p>Ask xiggi. He was the one who claimed that AdComs love candidates whose essays indicate that they have a penchant for goatherding and collecting manhole covers.</p>
<p>At that time, it got a standing ovation from folks who claimed that it clearly showed how AdComs LOVE quirky candidates. I on the other hand felt that to be incredibly stupid, so I decided to do an experiment. Repeat the goatherding angle over and over again, and see if at some point people start to realize how stupid it is to be exceptionally immature and quirky, and start to distance themselves from it.</p>
<p>In my opinion, no. It is perhaps justified for colleges to build a class based on each applicant’s preferred major. But not what they want to do post-graduation. That’s the right of the student.</p>
<p>Now that I have answered your question, care to answer mine which I had asked earlier? One thing that frustrates me about this thread is that I try my best to answer every single question asked of me, but do not get the courtesy back. Perhaps it is my Asian upbringing at work here.</p>
<p>I am familiar with both the studies. The summary conclusion is that SAT scores mean nothing, but the Barron’s rank is indicative of a 15% gap in earnings between blocks of schools. In your example - between top-10 and top-40, the difference would be about 30%. That’s HUGE.</p>
<p>So, while it is perfectly reasonable to measure academic quality through research throughput or PhD enrollment, the market doesn’t seem to care much about that. So, it is disingenuous to recommend a lower ranked school to someone, and tell them that the quality of education is the same. Some people may even fall for it, and that’s just unethical in my view.</p>
<p>I think the assumption, made long ago, is that they don’t know what they want to do by age 17, which is why liberal arts education evolved the way it did. But, mileage may vary. There are lots of Olympic athletes and movie starlets on Ivy League campuses who know exactly what they are going to be doing for the rest of their lives and for these students, I often wonder what the allure of a college degree really is since they seem to only require it for certification purposes.</p>
<p>If that is the case, and I agree, then there is absolutely no point is asking kids what they want to do, and rejecting some unsuspecting kids for giving the “wrong” answer. What is even worse is deducing the potential future career by looking at ECs and rejecting kids based on that. But what takes the cake is using race as a marker for future profession, and discriminating against Asians accordingly.</p>
<p>Can we instead just assume (as you stated above) that 17 year olds have no idea what they will do in life and focus on the strength of their current portfolio instead?</p>
<p>^^The assumption may be that they don’t know, but, you yourself are not shy about stating that the assumption is wrong when it comes to Asian kids. How can you have it both ways?</p>
<p>I may have my beliefs, but if I were an AdCom I would never, ever allow my beliefs come in the way of treating everyone the same. I would treat all applicants exactly the same. I would recuse myself if I felt that my beliefs are coming in the way of an objective judgment. You are a lawyer, surely you know how the jury system works? Same principle at work here.</p>
<p>We all have our prejudices, but we can’t act on them when it comes to making a public decision. I may believe - to give a popular example - that Anthony was guilty. But if the facts don’t prove it, I must acquit.</p>
<p>If our liberal arts graduates - who dominate the AdCom ranks - have not internalized this, we have failed in educating them.</p>
<p>Come on guys, this is America that we are talking about!</p>
<p>Not at all. Why would it be racist? I was using examples of personal characteristics that earlier in this thread you claimed were irrelevant to performance in college and thus should not be considered. I did not link them to any particular race, or even claim that they necessarily exist (I said “regardless of whether they are…”). How do you see racism in the passage you quoted, or are you just trying to avoid answering my question?</p>