I’m not entirely sure that the job outcomes of graduates is totally off topic. I think it’s part of the lack of transparency that affects families whose seniors are applying to colleges, so in a way it’s related to the college admissions process.
There are some families who think that acceptance to IvyPlus schools (to use a term from above) will significantly affect their post-grad outcomes. Many families think that a school’s acceptance rate has an inverse relationship with their post-grad outcomes (i.e. the lower the admit rate, the better the outcomes for all their grads). Far too many families think that attending a for-profit college will bring significant economic benefits. And many families think that any college degree will be more financially rewarding than other educational options (like a trade school). And because of these beliefs, many families spend far more money than they would have otherwise if they had known the likely outcomes.
That said, I wonder how many people start in jobs that don’t need a degree, but end up getting promoted into fields that require one? So, they enter in a position to get their foot in the door, and then are able to advance because they have a diploma? So not looking at what job they have when they first graduate from college, but what job do they have 2-5 years down the line that they would not have been able to get if they weren’t a college graduate.
I certainly don’t want to upset you or anyone. However, I think this is really the essence of whether or not college admissions is broken. If all schools offer all students the same career paths and opportunities, then nothing is broken, because everyone can get in somewhere.
As companies and governments seem to be dropping degree requirements now, I would venture to say that few would disqualify an existing employee doing a good job from a promotion due to lack of a degree.
If we are talking attendance and graduation (not just acceptance) and all other variables are kept constant in terms of the student (impossible in actuality) I do think Ivy Plus schools provide greater optionality and opportunity. I think these disparities become more pronounced when the comparative school has a lesser academic reputation, poor name recognition or regional bias.
I base this perception upon the disproportionate representation of this less than 1% of students in lucrative and high profile roles and professions versus the other 99+% of those attending non Ivy+. We can of course disagree on the underlying reasons for this reality.
Before we go there success can be achieved from any school and the individuals abilities and effort matter. Additionally there are likely kids at most schools that have what it takes to attend an Ivy+. I am not looking to cast shade.
I don’t disagree with you that Ivy Pus schools can provide greater opportunity, as I mentioned upthread.
But how many “upper middle class” (UMC) families (in quotes because these are families who don’t qualify for need-based aid at SHYMP…which in my mind falls outside the scope of UMC, but who consider themselves as UMC) feel the need to really stretch financially in order for their kid to attend an Ivy Plus? So instead of attending their state flagship for $30k, or a well-respected but not jaw-dropping private for $45k, end up taking out tons of loans and/or pulling out retirement funds in order to pay for the Ivy Plus school? Unless their child ends up among the minority of Harvard grads getting into a prestigious IB/consulting gig, they are unlikely to have better financial outcomes than if they’d attended one of their other options.
The other day I was reading about an individual who had taken out $150k in Parent Plus loans so their kid could attend a particular college (which is a bit less than the difference between the well-respected private at $45k and an Ivy Plus school). But the parent was in their 60s and was having some issues and was trying to figure out how they could retire. I don’t know what the circumstances were for when this child enrolled in the school. But I would not be surprised to learn that the family thought that the outcomes would be sufficiently better by attending this school that they could ill-afford over their other options, and for most UMC students, that is not the case.
Perhaps they are, but in my less than progressive neck of the woods, it’s still an impediment. There are people within the government that I know would have been promoted, but they didn’t have the right level of degree.
Yes, I know several such “donut hole” families with highly accomplished kids who could be at an Ivy+ but simply can’t afford to attend, so they don’t apply. These kids are pretty much shut out of certain career paths, but the parents had to make that choice and it was certainly very hard for them.
I do worry about America’s grade inflation --not in a curmudgeonly way where I rail against gold stars and participation trophies, but rather because I have seen it paradoxically put pressure on students. Back in my day, not a single student graduated from my suburban high school class with a 4.0, not even our valedictorian who went to Stanford and is now a prominent astrophysicist. It was just a given that nobody was perfect. Now over 40% of the graduating class has a 4.0 or better, and I hear kids making stressed out comments about “keeping their 4.0.” It’s sort of like there are only 2 grades anymore: “perfect” and “not perfect.” And since “perfect” is so common and readily attainable, “not perfect” is regarded as pretty shameful.
So yes, this is an aspect of the education/admissions process that I think is broken.
The “prevailing sentiment” on a campus can go a long way to define students’ experiences regardless of what individuals are doing. There’s a reason why humanities majors don’t gravitate towards MIT even if the school itself is exceedingly strong in those programs, for instance.
I go to a SLAC, so I feel as if I’d have noticed by now given that I’m familiar with a very large proportion of my classmates.
I agree! I see it more as a symptom of the college admissions process rewarding a very risk-averse, generic type of “excellence,” however. When I was at Penn last month, a former classmate of mine who was involved in the startup scene there was telling me about how much talent he saw among his classmates that could be put to good use there, but almost all of them instead gravitated towards generic banking and consultant tracks because they were “safe.”
That’s another major thing I heard from former classmates at both Harvard and Penn, which I found fairly surprising in all honesty. We all attended a top prep school that would, in theory, disproportionately attract people like that, but I guess we got humbled earlier on in our lives?
I mean, my own friends who go there are not like that, but given that it’s one of the top “issues” they discuss, I can’t just handwave it away like that.
He is, but I am too and am also on the finance/consulting track. My experience has been completely different from theirs despite that.
I totally agree with this. Look at Harvard average GPA over time, has moved from a 3.3 to a 3.8 over past 50 years. I don’t even know how to calibrate when I interview kids now. Even on this thread, I am shocked at how many parents describe their kids as 4.0 students. We maybe had one 4.0 student in my HS graduating class. In our area, it is the most pronounced at private schools. A friend of mine told me his son had a 88 and somehow ended up with an A-. In our public HS where my kids go, sadly there is no grade inflation (unless not programmatically, I am sure it happens with different teachers).
Grade inflation happen because no child can be left behind . Everyone has to graduate to the next grade and from the high school. When I graduated the graduation rate was much lower and students who couldn’t cut it chose vocational trades after 10 th grade.
Somehow this thread devolved from “Is the college admissions process broken” to is my kid’s life over if they don’t get into an Ivy Plus and do kids at Ivy plus schools fare better than non-Ivy plus schools Going back to the original topic, here’s what I do think is broken about the system 1) the pressure for kids to ED I or ED II (which only benefits the schools) and forces their hand early in process 2) how enrollment management (pushing down your admit rate as far as possible) somehow has become the arbitor of whether a school is good or not. This started with the Common App and accelerated with schools going TO and waiving admit fees. Today, kids regularly apply to 20 schools, screwing up the process for everyone. IMO, this could be fixed by limiting the number of schools kids can apply to on the common app (if they want to apply to more, they can but have to do extra leg work). I only applied to 5 schools, each with their own essays, and it was alot of time and effort! This would fix alot of what ails the system, notably schools gaming admissions to try and appear to be exclusive.
I would not say it’s screwing up the process, but it does add to application volume.
Regardless, and for example…families who are merit hunting have to put in relatively more apps because it is unknowable before applying to many schools what one’s merit/discount will be. The proportion of merit hunters is not insignificant. I don’t think it would be appropriate to limit families that are merit hunting.
Another situation that has driven up apps is EA schools having notification dates well after RD apps are due.
The plight (or better blight) of poor infrastructure in areas of low economic success (particularly inner cities has been well documented. Combine that with weaker than average administrations and teachers along with economically struggling families and you have a complete recipe for underperformance.
It isn’t broken, it just feels that way to people who weren’t successful in getting what they thought that their child ‘deserved’ and they are upset and frustrated by the outcome of the or the process. People need to approach this from the POV of the institutions. I will repeat from 600 or so posts earlier:
You’re kind of making my point here… Why throw good money after bad and continue to invest in this horrible infrastructure of public schools in these large communities… It’s like a public service announcement for charter schools…… now somebody please feed me the teachers union narrative about why I am wrong that is supported by the mainstream media
I am no expert on this field, but it seems clear that educational outcomes are affected by who the parents are as well as the quality of leadership, the quality of teachers, resources available to kids/teachers etc… Only some of these are affected by funding, but some are. As a result, the relationship between educational outcomes and funding is not as simple as the schools that spend the most get the best outcomes. But, I think it is pretty clear that schools that are dramatically underfunded get worse outcomes (edge case: zero funding).
It is also clear that not all school funding goes to instruction. Urban schools often have a large bureaucracy that siphons funds from education and poorer schools will have programs related to poverty. Perhaps more importantly, teachers’ pensions and medical insurance costs have risen dramatically since 2001 and this siphons funds away from classroom instruction.
Generally (and all other things equal), less money spent on instruction matters. First, rural areas are poorer and are often poorly funded and offer fewer courses etc. Second, I would guess that if you control for COL in urban areas (i.e., you have to pay teachers more and other expenses are higher) and if you strip out expenses for security etc., the funding levels for Chicago schools would be lower.
It’s tricky, but I think the implication of that one data point (Chicago), which I suspect is not unique, would not suggest to me that we should fund schools at a lower level. My instinct is that Chicago schools are not efficient at all. My second instinct is that public schools in affluent suburbs like Winnetka and Hinsdale offer better educations than the Chicago Public Schools.
I think poorer to middle class families are far more obsessed with rankings. If you include small liberal arts, there are probably at least 60-70 colleges that many at my fancy school would be fine going to. I’ve never heard any of my friends mention rankings bc our parents have known these schools forever.
Charter schools have equally dismal records in the inner city. When you don’t cherry pick results many Charter schools actually perform worse than the dismal publics. Teachers Unions are part of the problem but far from a major source.
But we are getting off topic so happy to discuss via PM.