Or at least before they win a Rhodes scholarship…
Or even fake vaccination cards:
I do think essays CAN be a window into the soul, but only where it is the student’s own work product. That’s hard to control for.
I know this won’t be popular in a TO environment and with the changes in the standardized tests, and with colleges phasing out requiring the tests. But I do like the idea of reinstating the SAT essay, since it is done in a seemingly controlled environment. While it is rapid and some applicants don’t do well, it least gives some sense of what the applicant can do themselves.
I especially also like the idea of submitting a graded paper as part of the application. This can give the colleges some additional insight into the applicant, what the high school (or at least that teacher) thinks of the student, and also about the high school itself.
3 Likes
Dishonesty and corruption are always the byproduct of an opaque system everywhere throughout the history. It isn’t surprising, is it?
10 Likes
Thanks. To say that her accomplishments have to be considered in context is an understatement. And though she happened to be a high stats kid with HS rigor and a recruited athlete, and we were full pay, so the proverbial kid with advantages, to reduce her worth to those isolated metrics would be a mistake. That’s why I support, say, my hometown LS admitting a woman with 25th percentile grades and LSAT who also as a young girl watched with her siblings as their father was shot dead in the front yard of their “home” (field house) in Yakima Wa. The fact that they were migrant farmworkers wasn’t enough; life had to throw at her. So, as to the kid who truly overcomes, I say, hell yes it ought to be considered. Her 3.4 GPA or whatever it was in Sociology at UW is nothing short of remarkable, and of course as predicted she took her law degree and has gone on to do truly great things.
So I am firmly in the “other circumstances” and holistic admissions camp. Christ how boring it would be to fill schools like Brown full of the same people. But because I take this so personally, I also think it the height of hubris for people to falsely wrap themselves in the clothing of the oppressed.
So, I take your point, but I think you try anyway. I may be naively optimistic - and that has been said of me - but some % of the lying population will think twice about doing it. Especially if the school makes clear that if the truth ever surfaces, no matter when, the credential is pulled.
I’m not saying every school should go out and find a Columbo. But just try a little.
The ability to avoid the military draft was based on income.
1 Like
That may be. But you can still try and catch it, and no system ever made anybody do anything.
People have to be held to account for their actions. “But but the system” is not an argument for which I have much sympathy.
1 Like
On the flip side, applicants with exceptional activities should consider pro-actively submitting objective documentation of their acts whenever possible: every newspaper article about them, every op-ed they wrote, the press release about notable awards or competitions won. Links to lists of winners. It is always helpful for the school to address such issues in the counselor report, but more proof can’t hurt.
2 Likes
Sure, you can catch a few bad actors. But if the problem is systemic, they’ll just be replaced by new bad actors.
2 Likes
Seems like you are happy with the current system. You have mentioned before that you like the “holistic” process. It’s likely that some are happy being able to check a box and feel they deserve the advantage. Others see the system for what it is.
Why should a kid with near perfect scores and grades want to attend any of the schools you suggested? They would likely not be interested. Yet, the kids who are writing good essays and thereby demonstrating their thinking skills thru a simple essay (which could easily be written by anyone)according to you should land a place in the most esteemed schools.
The thing is, everyone on CC knows that there are thousands of schools. Most want to go to the top 50 and therein lies the issue. Too many kids and not enough slots.
Your argumentative statements usually rely on statements like people being born into wealth and that’s not fair, or kids who have better school systems and that’s not fair. Most of your statements have to do with your perceived “fairness” Yet, strangely, you are not giving any fairness to those kids who did their best and are “unfairly” penalized. My conversation with you is done because you see the world in a check the box scheme and the OP asked where did college admissions go wrong.
In my opinion, it went wrong when holistic and check the box categories became more important than actual measurable stats. You disagree but will have to take your argument elsewhere as I certainly am not in agreement with ANY of your statements.
2 Likes
“Their model that controlled for certain individual student characteristics in addition to a division of 4 Barron’s selectivity values only explained 16% of variance in earnings. The other 84% of variance in earnings seems to depend on other factors that were not evaluated in the study.”
16% is probably enough for people to think that it matters. Which was the originial quesiton sparking this discussion - why do people care about getting into elite colleges.
Any thoughts on this study?
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0276562421000676
Scholars generally agree that college selectivity has a strong association with eventual labor market outcomes. Where scholarly disagreement exists surrounding selectivity, however, is in the specific mechanism that brings about this association. Part of the college selectivity effect reflects the selection of high-achieving students into highly selective colleges. Graduates of selective colleges may experience a wage premium not because of the degree itself, but because their admission to the college is a reflection of their ability and other advantages (Brand and Halaby, 2006; Dale and Krueger, 2002). This is an important consideration that we build into the analysis plan, as described in detail in the methods section. But even after accounting for selection, studies show that a degree from an elite college carries substantial economic returns, over and above the economic returns associated with less selective institutions (Black and Smith, 2006; Brewer et al., 1999; Witteveen and Attewell, 2017).
…
The right panel repeats these same comparisons, but this time with the matched sample. The overall comparison remains significant ($5,800/year gap; p < .001), indicating that the median earnings premium for graduates of highly selective institutions is not due solely to selection effects. A selectivity premium also persists for those who majored in business ($12,100/year gap; p < .001) and the social sciences ($5,500/year gap; p < .001).
1 Like
Yes, yes, all one has to do is check the “I had a hard life” box and the world opens up for them.
Might it be that you are exaggerating the benefits that holistic admissions offers to those who are not academically up to snuff? All three of my kids attend/attended highly selective schools that are/were diverse. All three schools say they practice holistic admissions. None of them ever complained about the dumb diversity admits.
There is also a flip side to vetting exclusively on GPA and test scores. I wrestle with it in my work life.
5 Likes
Note that that 16% of variance explained was for the combination of the controlled individual characteristics, demographics, and the college selectivity major. They did not specify how much variance was explained with just individual characteristics + demographics, without college selectivity. I suspect it would be the bulk of that 16%.
All 3 of the referenced studies are using a similar sample group of the longitudinal survey, but this one uses a different year – 2002 grad and 2012 earnings. The controls are similar to previous study you referenced, but not exactly the same. They have a different control for selectivity. This study splits colleges in 2 to groups based on selectivity and compares outcomes for those groups – either highly selective or not highly selective – based on SAT scores. The other study had 4 divisions of college selectivity, based on Barron’s listing. This study also some more major related controls, which led to some different major related conclusions. The abstract states,
“After accounting for selection bias using propensity score matching techniques, we find that recent college graduates in only two majors—business and the social sciences—experience a selectivity premium.”
In addition to the business and social science majors quoted above, they also found a statistically significant difference in earnings for CS majors, but not for other non-CS STEM majors like engineering, math, or science. This fits with why they concluded that STEM was only statistically significant for males. Back in 2002 when these students graduated college, CS majors were primarily male, so female STEM majors who were far more likely to pursue biology showed a different pattern. Whether CS earnings benefits with college selectivity is a separate issue, which depends on some other relevant controls. A key one is cost of living (high earnings associated with high cost of living areas, particularly Silicon Valley).
Given the similarities of the studies, I’d have similar comments about missing key controls, leading to only a very small portion of variance being explained, and some misleading conclusions. However, that said, I do think that college name is far more likely to be influential in a small subgroup of fields that are concentrated among specific majors. One example is economics. Economics majors at highly selective colleges often target “elite” banking/consulting type jobs, some of which may emphasize college reputation. So I would not at all be surprised if economics majors do show a statistically significant increase in earnings with college selectivity, after good controls in a model with good explanatory power.
However, this study groups all social sciences majors together which makes the conclusions far less clear. For example, earnings for a highly selective college where most social science majors are economics majors (Ivies often are similar to this description) would be compared to earnings for a less selective colleges where most social science majors are mostly psychology. Psychology majors and economics majors tend to target different employment fields and have different average earnings. A finer division in major would have been more meaningful.
3 Likes
It’s not only an indicator of talent, but of the advantages that a person has. It stands to reason that a person who is born in the top 10% by income will do better than average. More than that, these are people who are born with extensive advantages, spend four years networking with other people of wealthy and influence, AND have a colleges degree which is, supposedly, and indication that they are some sort of intellectual superhero.
I mean, your parents are wealthy, you had an expensive excellent academic upbringing, you are being given internships at top companies, and you end up with a name brand education. Even some of the dumbest people in the country have been able to do well in life with those advantages, so a students who is also more than average, academically, is most likely going to succeed.
As for the 30% who did not grow up in wealthy families? Well, if they managed to do much better than the kids of the very wealthy with only a small fraction of the resources that the very wealthy kids have, that means that they are REALLY talented, and it is hardly surprising that they do well in life.
Bottom line is that kids attending the so-called “tippy-top” colleges are either super set up for life by virtue of being born wealthy, or super talented and/or super smart.
Unfortunately, the branding of these “tippy-top” colleges has managed to convince most of the country that ALL of the students who attend these places l are as smart and talented as the low and middle income students who attend these places.
Well there is this:
“When I moved from teaching at Oxford to Harvard, I was puzzled. Based on my reading of midterm exam papers, a substantial proportion of my new students wouldn’t have got an interview at Oxford, never mind a place. It was explained to me that a substantial chunk of undergraduates were “legacies” — there because their parents were alumni, especially generous alumni — and another chunk were the beneficiaries of affirmative action or athletics programs. The admissions system was managed by professional administrators, not professors.
I soon learned how to deter the academically weaker brethren. By assigning a lot of reading and awarding some C grades, I was soon rid of them.”
7 Likes
Haven’t we been told countless times here on CC that if a student is admitted, particularly to an elite school, s/he is qualified?
Largely, but with the exception of parents of kids who didn’t get in and claim it is a horribly corrupt and unfair system.
2 Likes
You don’t mean Niall Ferguson is holding a grudge because his kid was rejected by an elite American university, do you?
1 Like
I typically don’t extrapolate a universal view based on one editorial opinion nor would I value it greater then “countless” CC commentators. I think it better to recognize nuance and degree.
In my personal experience gross generalizations are typically as inaccurate as they are intellectually convenient.
3 Likes
When was this mythical time when checking boxes didn’t matter? At elite schools, admissions has long been about checking boxes. Things like . . .
white
male
protestant (or at least not jewish)
legacy
wealthy
connected
attended preferred prep school (which required a similar set of boxes)
Some of the boxes have changed, but some of these boxes continue to give many a leg up in admission.
13 Likes