“You see kids who only do things related to their majors, and people swoon. But tippy tops are looking for balance. Or, Great, man! Just win a national award and you’re a lock.”
If you win a national award like ISEF or medal at the national or international olympiad, your chances of getting into a tippy top are good, not a lock, but good.
From the Crimson:
“About a quarter of Intel Science Talent Search finalists from the past five years attended or are currently attending Harvard College.”
Contrary to what others think, these kids know the difference between 25% and a 100%, and also that Harvard is the toughest school to get into, they do a little better at Stanford, MIT, Cal Tech, Princeton, Yale.
Strangely, I find it encouraging that this person is consistent in blaming everyone who gets preferred admission. I find it the most offensive when someone is freaking out about African Americans “taking their place”, but want to keep legacy, sports and other preferences.
Much2learn I was referencing an amalgamation of various comments from different people.
Unfortunately I have encountered numerous people that would never consider themselves racially biased who are quick to mention how they have suffered based on reverse racial bias at the hands of admissions committees. Some say it in a veiled politically correct manner while others are clearly discreet racists. Sad but reality.
Just one of those issues people vent because they assume everyone of a certain background agrees and emotionally charged because it involves their kids. Never excusable.
A bit of an aside, but this feeds the myth that everyone has Harvard as the number one pick, which isn’t necessarily the case. For example, Harvard accepted only two of the four IMO gold medalists that applied in 2018, only to find that both had Harvard as their backup plan, in case they didn’t get into their first choice, MIT. MIT ended up with all four.
What bother me most in this whole larger debate is the idea that college is a zero sum game. If an URM applicant gets a spot at HYP, it DOES NOT mean that there is “less education” available for a denied applicant.
Gettting admitted to HYP should not be the end game. A good education should be. I’m probably preaching to the choir here … .
It absolutely is a zero sum game, try not to ignore the fact that there are a finite number of slots at top schools. Whether you agree with how they dole them out is another issue but to deny it’s a zero sum game is ridiculous.
CU123 and surfcity- College addmisions is not a zero sum game. In a zero sum game the marginal utility gained or lost by one participant is identically offset by the inverse gain or loss of another participant. It is a 1v1 relationship. Think checkers.
At exclusive schools each “winner” is offset by roughly 19 “losers”. Hardly a zero sum game. In game theory college admissions is more like chess as a pawn can be sacrificed to capture a queen creating an asymmetric result. This thread is based on people applying the zero sum concept erroneously.
Whenever someone gets rejected their presumption (normally the parent) is that they were next in line. The reality is there could have been 18 others still ahead of them in line for that one accepted slot if simple math is used. The statistical reality however is far worse. At a school with let’s say 40,000 applicants who accept 3,000 the you will never know where in line you stood. You may in fact have 36,999 kids who were ranked higher. Hardly zero sum. In admissions you don’t loose because someone else won, you loose because the school choose not to select you. The extent of that loss is not quantifiable by someone else’s gain. You are not just competing with individuals, but entire cohorts, benchmarks and populations of applicants into the tens of thousands.
Human nature and disappointment compels people to view themselves as next in line, statistical reality dictates otherwise.
Parents of failed applicants personalize the rejection and use anecdotal evidence to prove their kid should/would have been next in line. The only means to do this is the misuse of the concept of zero sum which suggest an individual, or smaller group and not the applicant pool as a whole “took” the beloved child’s spot.
Reality is if kid X didn’t get in that doesn’t mean your kid Y would have. Your kid was rejected, full stop (doesn’t lessen their effort or value as people), but to make excuses diminishes those accepted.
It doesn’t matter who was next in line, it matters that there was SOMEONE next in line, and therefore it is a zero sum game for that SOMEONE. The fact that we don’t know who that someone is, …is irrelevant.
Ok. How 'bout we just say you either get in to your top choice(s) or not. And if not, if you’re really worth your salt, you pick up the pieces and move on, with grace. If you can’t, I’ll wonder why not.
There simply isn’t enough room at top colleges. And life demands more than dotting all your i’s in high school. Be resilient. Quit blaming. Move forward.
And btw, there isn’t “a line” at these top colleges. That’s more the rack and stacks.
Actually The fact that there is “a line” does matter. That exact factor is what contradicts the definition of zero sum game. It is a mathematical representation used in game theory not just a phrase. CU123 you are applying sentiment to a math equation as I described. Zero sum 1:1, college admissions 1:19 winner loser ratio.
Individuals want to identify and discredit whom ever “beat them” so they grasp at zero sum and force it’s application to college admissions and the winner.
When there exists a line an aggregated loss is greater then the aggregated gain. In other words for every winner there are multiple losers. Would you also call the lottery a zero sum game? The application process is like the lottery but with each participant contributing uniquely to their likelihood of success and failure.
Lastly, “the line” is a metaphor but in practice their are lots of small lines not just an acceptance percent. This was used for illustrative purposes in articulating game theory and zero sum.
Except there is no net loss for all applicants as a group unless you’re counting application fees, same as with a job interview with twenty candidates and one open position. Unlike a lottery, the losers aren’t worse off than if they never played. If you’re going to argue semantics, you should at least do so accurately.
I am a big fan of holistic admissions which I think promotes diversity. And I think diversity is necessary and critical. As an example, I think the late night conversations at the dorms between kids of different backgrounds is one of the most valuable parts of the college learning experience.
Yet I also completely understand why some kids would feel victimized by this. My D graduated HS this year and I knew most of her classmates pretty well and the kids all talked so most kids knew the scores and grades of their classmates. When college acceptances were coming in it was very obvious that her Asian American classmates (particularly of Indian descent) did substantially less well than their non-Asian peers with similar strengths. It seemed very unfair to me and I felt very sad for those kids.
I don’t know how to properly balance diversity with fairness to certain groups. But I certainly won’t criticize an Asian American for complaining about the system being unfair to them because from my limited viewpoint I think it is.
Roethlisburger- in admissions when using a game theory concept lol Ken zero sum, (not my choice as I am refuting its usage) what is a better measure of success and failure if not offer of admissions?
Opportunity cost have marginal utility in practice. Not being accepted is an opportunity lost. In addition, in game theory models success/failure or win/loss are binary representations of results that can applied mathematically.