I've recently thought another interesting study would be to look at admittance rates for NYC prep schools. I have friends right now paying crazy amounts of money for even pre-school. Part of the argument is the acceptance rates into elite colleges. I recently wondered how many of these kids are going because of large donations, which artificially inflates the stats for prospective parents who plan to get their kids into college on merit.
There are tons of universities, but it's hard to say anyone "deserves" a spot over someone's family who helped build it.
Given that in most European countries (I think, it'd definitely the case in Germany) tuition isn't a thing either, one can reasonably conclude that admission to an elite university is linked to academic prowess, at least to a higher degree than American universities.
I went to an elite university (can't deny that I'm a bit proud of that), and except maybe for the possible of highly limited stipendia, neither I nor my parents would have had any money to make that happen otherwise.
I didn't pick contemporary names because the closer you get to today, the less likely you are to know such names unless you are specifically interested into their specific field. You can look them up, though.
No doubt American universities are not less prestigious, but to think that nothing of relevance happens outside of the US, well... You might have heard of CERN at least. ;)
I think another factor is that the admission system is different. I only know about Germany, but you don't have to apply in the same way at a university and your grades from school are what matters there isn't some additional test like GRE or SAT. So it plays less of a role culturally and has thus less opportunity to be a topic at all in shows and movies even if Americans were to drown in European media.
* edit: on second thought i suppose I am not adequately equipped to talk about global brand awareness as it originally stated. Curious how other countries see collegiate prestige outside of their own or if US colleges have some extra factor?
 In the sense that they're not academically or athletically at the top of the heap.
Most of the prestigious people I can name aren't prestigious because of their academic achievement, that is for sure - so it isn't obvious why an academic institution should be prestigious full stop. They all teach a similar syllabus, and most professors are remarkably talented. Harvard is prestigious because the students that go to Harvard are well connected, not because Harvard is imparting some superior secret sauce to its students. The selling point is the network of other people who are important, eg, the children of the sort of people who went to Harvard.
We don't give people standing or estimation from academic or athletic ability except in extreme edge cases (much more extreme than college admission). There is a strong correlation between intelligence and prestige, but that is because smart people make decisions that earn them prestige more than because academic ability is prestigious.
Not saying it's a morally correct, but that's 's how (American) society works. We aren't good at predicting a child's success so we fall back on historical (familial) data.
Freckles almost certainly has additional stressors in his life, since he maintains his scholarship(s), works outside of class, frets over his student loans, and has to be careful how he spends what little cash he has.
In contrast, Richie has a pretty carefree existence which he likely spends developing relationships with other rich kids. He can study if he needs to, pay for private tutors, etc.
Plus, from the perspective of University The Business™, Richie is more likely to inherit wealth and business opportunities that make him more likely to donate to the school in the future; he's a better investment than Freckles.
Right. But that's part of the point, is it not? Those factors were almost a non-issue for me in Germany. Having no tuition, I had to work part-time to pay for rent, food, and recreational activities, but that wasn't nearly stressful or time consuming enough to impact my studies (or even my social life).
As such, "student loans" are also not really a thing in Germany. I did take a loan of a few thousand Euros towards the end of my studies, in order to be able to focus on my degree without a job and still have a roof over my head, but I was able to repay all of it very quickly as soon as I entered the workforce.
Meaning, those disadvantages for non-affluent people at ivy league universities are entirely self-created, and very likely have the net effect of promoting students who are innately worse but financially better off to success.
It isn't an active policy of any of Ivy League schools anymore ..
The 1% are very disproportionately represented in the Ivy League, too.
1. Is being Jewish a race or a religion?
2. Being Jewish is also strongly correlated to class. 44% of Jews earn 100K+. Thats compared to ~20% for Christian, 19% Catholic, 20% Islam. (Interestingly Hindus are close at 36%).
That's definitely false. Most universities tie annual endowment spending to total endowment size. Just because you can't directly tie the dollars to a specific project, doesn't mean it didn't contribute to the general student body's quality of education.
Yes, it would. That wouldn't make it ethical or legal of course.
As for a "license to do anything", it's not clear what exactly you're complaining about here? They get some money through non-merit based admissions, sure, and then use the money to build nice things for students, and to help cover most students' tuitions. The point of this thread is that there's a difference between private schools accepting donations for this purpose, vs. corrupt individuals accepting bribes. The latter case benefits only the unmeritious student and the corrupt individual, and not the university has a whole.
No names, no race, no age, etc. Just raw test scores. Test them against problem solving skills objectively, etc.
You're get a roll number, you write a test, a list gets published that ranks all the roll numbers, sometimes with scores. Colleges offer admissions to anyone who scored between ranks 1-N.
At more elite schools N is small (e.g. 100), but in lower ranking schools N is large (e.g. 100000+).
Affirmative action is practiced by having different Ns for different disadvantaged groups (i.e if you are a lower caste, N=1000, but for general admissions, N=100)
The downsides of this system are that it still fails to eliminate economic biases (i.e a student from a well to do family can hire tutors who help them test prep better) and that it's impossible for the school to control the makeup of a class - e.g in a year I was in school, a new test prep school opened up in a city and students from that school scored significantly higher than others in the admissions test. So, about 50% of the incoming class were students who went to that test prep school.
Besides what employer wants to hire someone based just on their intelligence scores? If someone is an uncooperative egoist prick I don't think many companies will want to hire them no matter their test scores.
People want the prestige and connections of a legacy/endowment driven school, but don't seem to realize that it comes with legacy admissions.
As the upper echelons continue to cordon off segments of the economy and education for just themselves, will the "Bootstraps and Personal Responsibility" mythology finally start to die out?
This scandal tells me is that a bunch of rich people are sad that the ordinary methods of a gamed system already highly in their favor isn't good enough for them. The privilege they have isn't enough, they needed different and additional ladders to get even more, as if this is innovation and is itself merit, that's how brazen it was.
Bill McGlashan, CEO of TPG private equity, was indicted in this scandal, charged with both the college entrance exam cheating scheme and recruitment scheme. As reported, even his son's exam answers would be changed (corrected) without his knowledge. How would meritocracy before this scandal have evaluated McGlashan? I think rather highly considering his actions and work with Bono, etc. And yet here he is saying that system isn't good enough for him and his son, he had to corrupt it, to get what he really wanted. It's a stunning indictment of the meritocracy we actually have.
Now, if only we could agree on what the "regular citizen's" life looks like.
a) It's probably a woman, since they're the majority of the population and have a distinctly different life experience to men
b) It's probably someone who lives in a city, since that was 80% of Americans in the 2010 census.
An additional twist is that some of those who make it are the ones helping extant powers maintain their grip. WhatsApp and Oracle come to mind.
We asked them for an 'in kind' license to OpenNLP and were basically completely rebuffed. They're taking in money hand over fist.
We need to stop thinking of these as universities anymore. They're cash cows...
Why would you expect them to relicense GPL libre software to you? What does "in kind" mean?
in-kind (adj): consisting of something (such as goods or commodities) other than money
It's like asking for an "in kind" license to the Declaration of Independence, it just makes no sense.
The SATs are also stupidly easy compared to entrance exams in any other place on the planet. If you are gifted and study seriously for a week you can get yourself a very good score no problem
I’m sure that there are cheaters, but if your reference is “bad spoken English” that’s not at all conclusive
On a side note, the notion that a private company conducts all these tests for profit in order for students to get admission into schools quite bizarre and laughable to say the least.
Anecdotally, I have heard of places that refuse to hire Harvard grads for this reason.
What do you conclude from this?
> Anecdotally, I have heard of places that refuse to hire Harvard grads for this reason.
That does sound anecdotal.
Or that they went to high schools that prepared them well.
Much easier to get into then the ivy leagues though.
This seems really pointless.
Specialty rankings of doctoral science programs are based solely on nominations by department heads and directors of graduate studies at peer schools. These respondents ranked up to 10 programs in each area. Those with the most votes appear in the rankings tables.
This biases the result towards top regional schools, whose peers rate them highly over well-known schools that are otherwise great, but have weaker CS programs than its best peers. Either way, this has no real relevance in terms of comparing the quality of those who complete their undergraduate programs. The selection effect dominates all other factors here and almost no school has separate admissions for computer science (not aware of any in fact other than CMU) which means to the extent most people rank them, it is roughly in order of the overall prestige of the undergraduate program in general. I mean University of Wisconsin - Madison is a great school, but on average, you won't find their graduates to be quite as good as Harvard or Yale grads.
Can any recruiter comment here on school/GPA importance on resumes for newly grads?
And what if like, you end up with a difference between A and B being 2%.
Basically every class I had in college was graded amongst your cohort. Is that odd?
The dynamics are a lot more complicated than you make it seem.
> Basically every class I had in college was graded amongst your cohort. Is that odd?
I've also had classes that were graded on a curve. But that doesn't fully capture the dynamics.
However: I have worked with a handful of Harvard MBA graduates and . . . they were the smartest people I have ever worked with, and I have worked with a lot of people.
"Contributing" to a congressman is literally giving them money so they make decisions favorable to you. That is identical to me giving a policeman $50 to look the other way.
Unlimited campaign contributions is just newspeak for "legal bribery".
You do it for your name, your legacy, and to guarantee spots for your family.
This is only slightly different classes of bribes. They both are bribes.
This is ridiculous. One benefits lots of students, one benefits just your kid.