

The New College Try - robg
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/24/opinion/24karabel.html?ex=1348286400&en=b506c5cdf070dc51&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

======
pg
It may be that the solution to this problem is not to reform the elite
colleges, but to go around them, so that they are no longer the gatekeepers
they once were.

That's what happens with technology, anyway. You don't beat the incumbents;
you make them irrelevant.

~~~
Alex3917
Admissions have broad implications beyond just who gets admitted. For example,
the curriculum of primary schools can't change because of high school
admissions, high schools can't change because of college admissions, and
colleges can't change because of U.S. News & World Report.

There a couple of solutions. First, as you suggest, the system could be
completely circumvented. Second, the system as a whole could become less
tightly coupled so that, for example, high school grades and SATs have much
less influence on college admissions. There have been a couple of proposals
along these lines.

To me though it seems like the system isn't going away and there is no
practical way to make it less tightly coupled.

I think the most practical is to add a new layer to the top of the stack that
will pull on everything underneath. My money has been on digital identity for
a while.

------
jimbokun
I like this idea:

"This could take the form of reserving a modest number of places in the
freshman class -- say 5 percent to 10 percent -- for applicants who, having
met a high academic threshold, would be selected at random. While the
admissions office would know the identities of the students admitted by
lottery, no one else -- not faculty, not employers and not the students
themselves -- would."

I agree with the author that it would be a good way to assess if the more
involved admissions process selected higher quality students.

------
danteembermage
In the spirit of "When you've got a hammer" as a business school guy I'm
always thinking what's best from a discounted present value sense. It's hard
for me to believe that the difference between decent performance at Harvard
and better performance at a slightly less selective school is worth the
enormous up front cost of the former.unless your marginal utility of a dollar
really low.

Another way to look at this is perhaps "Rich families transfer wealth between
the generations in a tax-advantaged, inefficient, socially acceptable way" I
went to a perfectly good college on academic scholarship (and therefore almost
certainly could have gone somewhere better (well, more selective) not on
scholarship) and my friends were going to UChicago and Yale for econ PhDs
right out of undergrad, so I don't really feel slighted in terms of
opportunity.

The big advantage as I see it would be being surrounded by really smart people
all the time and sneaking something ridiculous to the top of the dome would do
wonders for self confidence later in life.

------
mynameishere
_The paucity of students from poor and working-class backgrounds at the
nation's selective colleges should be a national scandal._

If you solve this problem, one generation later you have re-created it, as the
children of previously poor families have gained the wealth associated with
Harvard diplomas. The truth is--the _problem_ such as it is, genuinely existed
through almost all of history up until the middle of the 20th century. The
problem was solved, and It's all but gone now.

The poor are largely poor because of themselves and not circumstances. Where
exceptions to this exist, they will be quickly eradicated by individuals who
partake the widely available financial aid for college.

~~~
robg
I can't disagree more. Social mobility exists but poverty is nowhere as easy
to escape nor self-created nor eradicated as you suggest. And the income gap
appears to only be getting worse. The median household income is somewhere
around 50k. Good luck trying to raise a family (food, car, rent/mortgage) and
save for their education on that. And the financial aid you point to is
usually loans that are paid off over a decade - add that cost to the next
generation.

Selection could always be biased to uplift rather than simply advance. The
debate has been dominated by racial inequities. By addressing socioeconomic
discrepancies in education across the color spectrum it's possible to
redistribute wealth through a Horatio Alger ethos generation after generation.
Problem is, those differences are exacerbated by local school districts and so
the best hope of focused change is through college. But fewer than 50% of the
American populace goes on to attend.

See:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_States)

~~~
mynameishere
_nowhere as easy to escape nor self-created nor eradicated as you suggest_

Um, yes it is. 100 years ago almost everyone was "poor" by absolute standards.
Today, almost no one is. Poverty has been all-but eradicated and it's
something you almost have to aim for now.

 _And the income gap appears to only be getting worse_

This is a make-believe problem. If I get a raise, the income gap has just
increased (or decreased, depending). Whichever might occur doesn't change the
basic advantage of getting a raise.

 _around 50k. Good luck trying to raise a family (food, car, rent/mortgage)
and save for their education on that_

Um, let's see...90 percent of the people I new growing up (actually much less
than 50K), including my family, would fall in this category. So, you may have
a very pampered sense of what is required to survive in this world, because
it's totally foreign to me.

 _it's possible to redistribute wealth through a Horatio Alger ethos
generation after generation_

If that is your goal by itself, then a good mugging will do the job with much,
much less in the way of administrative costs than redistributing money through
a school system or some other structure. At any rate, the prices for schools
are strictly nominal and are invariably lower for low-income students. This is
just how schools segment the marketplace, and the fallacious sticker-price of
schooling shouldn't distort one's view of society.

 _But fewer than 50% of the American populace goes on to attend_

And fewer than 25 percent _should_ attend. Your average person should enter
vocational training rather than pretending to become a professional by
spending 1000s of dollars on art history classes.

~~~
robg
"Um, yes it is. 100 years ago almost everyone was "poor" by absolute
standards. Today, almost no one is. Poverty has been all-but eradicated and
it's something you almost have to aim for now."

Depends on what your standards are. Me, I think we can do much better at
redistributing wealth. And that need not be in the form of social programs but
simply in more level playing fields.

"This is a make-believe problem. If I get a raise, the income gap has just
increased (or decreased, depending). Whichever might occur doesn't change the
basic advantage of getting a raise."

I don't see your point. The poor are staying poor while the rich are getting
richer, relative to today's standards. That's a fact.

"Um, let's see...90 percent of the people I new growing up (actually much less
than 50K), including my family, would fall in this category. So, you may have
a very pampered sense of what is required to survive in this world, because
it's totally foreign to me."

When you were growing up twenty years ago (or so) this median was much lower.
And you merely want people to "survive"? I want everyone to have the
opportunity to thrive while advancing society. Where it might be less true for
the US today, poverty still runs rampant. To take it to an extreme in today's
world, how would you feel about carrying your daily water 3 miles (even as
I've seen kids do so with the biggest smile you'll ever see)? Those folks
might "survive" (for thirty or forty years) but humanity can do much, much,
better.

"If that is your goal by itself..."

Take a moment to look at reading and writing scores in impoverished areas.
Whereas our government assures a free education it is far from equal. That's
really all I care about. The achievement gap is real and will be because
wealthier kids get to school already better prepared. Further, they live in
neighborhoods where the differences cascade. Fixing divergent school districts
is a very hard problem so I see the best hope at the college level, so long as
the opportunities are there (i.e. the point of this op-ed).

"And fewer than 25 percent should attend. Your average person should enter
vocational training rather than pretending to become a professional by
spending 1000s of dollars on art history classes."

That's a different argument (and one where we are probably on the same side).
The point, for me, is equal opportunities. And too many start off too far
behind. Just because one person can fight the tide, doesn't mean everyone has
that capacity or the support necessary.

~~~
mynameishere
_When you were growing up twenty years ago_

Not quite, but for what it's worth, I've spent a long time in the category of
which you speak (quote poor endquote people). I've known people who did
perfectly well with respect to economics on much less money than you think
necessary _within the last few years_.

 _I want everyone to have the opportunity to thrive while advancing society_

They do. You get your wish. Outside of people under the thumb of re-
distributive regimes like the one in Zimbabwe, we are all pretty much free
agents (and even Zimbabweans are as well, if they flee their country.)

~~~
robg
Let me get this straight: You're saying the playing field is even for almost
everyone on the planet? Or that it's even enough?

And "perfectly well" defined how? Working diamond or coal mines? Or cleaning
deep fryers or hotel rooms? It's their fault they work those jobs?

