Headline and article content don't line up very well. Actual (short) body of article makes the point that when people in positions of power don't have significant training in statistics, it isn't surprising that they don't understand statistics. But that they do need to understand how much they don't understand. The article says next to nothing about gaming of professional achievement in academia.
I can offer one small anecdote that maybe reinforces some of the criticisms of academic circles.
A long while ago, I worked in IT in the admissions department of a top-5 ivy league school. While there I became good friends with many of the admissions officers for the undergraduate and MBA programs.
It's an open secret that admissions are highly influenced by who you know, but what I was stunned by was the overwhelming percentage of each incoming class owes its entry to the connections of their parents.
I had always assumed it was some small single digit percentage, but the first time I saw "the list", I was dumbfounded. There is a list of students each year that is sent from the Dean of admissions to admissions department containing the students that must be admitted. The process for rejecting one of those students required the admissions officer to submit a report outlining why - an incredibly rare occurrence.
The admissions officers rationalize this as a necessary evil, and cover themselves by pointing to the special attention they pay to diversity candidates. "If I see one more white, indian or asian kid from the upper-east side with a perfect GPA, I'm just going to throw the app out the window" was a quote that stuck in my mind.
The list was a collection of applicants who were the children of staff, professors, administrators, and financial or political benefactors. Surprisingly, children of alumni (even those who donated regularly) were not in the group unless they really made an effort over the years and had someone at the school who could call the Dean personally.
It sort of bothered me because it made me realize that someone like myself - a good student, non-diversity, with good EC activities was competing for a tiny tiny portion of the admissions slots for any top school.
Is it really so much to ask to have a transparent and level playing field in college admissions?
