Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

YC at Columbia, Harvard, MIT, Stanford, UPenn

blog.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 98 posts

Re: YC at Columbia, Harvard, MIT, Stanford, UPenn

#71

Post by xapata »

morgante wrote: post #54
pitt1980 wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Columbia has 8,410 undergraduates University of Illinois has 32,878 undergraduates the 75% SAT score for the college of engineering at University of Illinois was 1530 (no writing, so out of 1600) https://admissions.illinois.edu/Apply/Freshman/profile the 75% SAT score at Columbia was 2330 (including writing so 2330 * 2/3 = 1553.33333333 https://undergrad.admissions.columbia.edu/classprofile/2019 ----------------- the…

> University of Illinois has 32,878 undergraduates That's a fair point. It'd be interesting if YC could do some sort of data analysis on attendance for their events at a big state school vs. an elite school. > Illinois students aren't filtered by exactly how generous a discount the financial aid office Most elite universities are need-blind. Spreading these myths does a disservice to smart, poor kids. Thinking they c…

> need-blind

Only goes so far. They don't offer aid to students wishing to take SAT prep courses. Admissions criteria include vague things like oddball extracurriculars. It's an interesting coincidence that wealthy people tend to engage in the same activities that top schools consider signals of a "well-rounded" applicant.

Re: YC at Columbia, Harvard, MIT, Stanford, UPenn

#72

Post by davidf18 »

Kat Manalac, (Kate), I tried to sign up for Columbia (alum here in NYC) and it said all sold out. Other universities have spots. I'm on Columbia Entrepreneur email list and didn't see notification of the event.

(Tried to pm katm but could not).

Columbia University closed for snowstorm today.

Any way I can sign up?

Re: YC at Columbia, Harvard, MIT, Stanford, UPenn

#73

Post by morgante »

xapata wrote: post #71
morgante wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> University of Illinois has 32,878 undergraduates That's a fair point. It'd be interesting if YC could do some sort of data analysis on attendance for their events at a big state school vs. an elite school. > Illinois students aren't filtered by exactly how generous a discount the financial aid office Most elite universities are need-blind. Spreading these myths does a disservice to smart, poor kids. Thinking they c…

> need-blind Only goes so far. They don't offer aid to students wishing to take SAT prep courses. Admissions criteria include vague things like oddball extracurriculars. It's an interesting coincidence that wealthy people tend to engage in the same activities that top schools consider signals of a "well-rounded" applicant.

Oh please. You can do plenty of SAT prep at the library. My parents certainly couldn't afford an SAT prep course for me. The effect of such courses is vastly overblown—they mostly just sit you down with the same books you can get for free at the library (or for $20 on Amazon).

There are plenty of "oddball" extracurriculars that rural poor students can engage in. My admissions essay was literally about hiking with an ancient backpack covered in duct tape.

Re: YC at Columbia, Harvard, MIT, Stanford, UPenn

#74

Post by sokoloff »

gist wrote: post #69
katm wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No requirement. But why not try something different if the first version doesn't work well?

Why can't a 'super user' just pin something at the top?

They could, but I'm glad they don't by policy.

I can't imagine the amount of crying from the community if the hosts of the site would take special privilege to pin their posts at the top. (I'd be fine with it, as it's their house, but I think they actually are better served to only take a small privilege with the jobs and show posts and otherwise leave the site to the users to vote/curate.)

Re: YC at Columbia, Harvard, MIT, Stanford, UPenn

#75

Post by sokoloff »

John23832 wrote: post #62
morgante wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> SO being at that tier of school doesn't guarantee intelligence, just being outside of the tier doesn't exclude intelligence. You continue to argue against straw men. I never said everyone at top schools is smart, nor did I claim that everyone who is smart is at a top school. Just that the average IQ at a top university is higher than at a random one. Do you have any evidence to disprove that the average IQ at elite…

The argument that I was making is that the determining factor for getting into this tier of school (aside from luck) is your hard work and determination. Intelligence comes after that. Sure, there is a minimum level of competency. The world's best ditch digger isn't getting into Harvard, all they know how to do is dig ditches. If you want to make the argument that there is a concentration of intelligence around top t…

> The argument that I was making is that the determining factor for getting into this tier of school (aside from luck) is your hard work and determination. Intelligence comes after that.

It seems fairly clear to me that YC would be well served to select for hard work and determination, probably before intelligence, but if they can find all three, why wouldn't they stack the deck in their (and the applicant's) favor?

Re: YC at Columbia, Harvard, MIT, Stanford, UPenn

#76

Post by sokoloff »

John23832 wrote: post #52
paulsmith34 wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>These schools are actually some of the most affordable in the country due to their extremely generous financial aid. Poor families pay nothing and even middle class families have minimal contributions. Except they do not lower the admissions requirements for poor kid that attended sub-par secondary schools. These are the exact kids that would be excluded admissions (in most cases) because third rate secondary school…

I don't know if we should advocate lowering standards of admissions.

I attended MIT during a time of perceived reduced standards of admissions (IMO; I'm not sure it was an overt and public thing) for some under-represented populations.

I saw some good outcomes from that (friends I met there graduated and became successful who might not have gotten in otherwise), but I also some people come in un or under prepared and wash out, which in my mind is undoubtedly a worse outcome for them than "merely" not being accepted, attending another school and succeeding there.

Re: YC at Columbia, Harvard, MIT, Stanford, UPenn

#77

Post by sokoloff »

nitrogen wrote: post #55
Kephael wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly, less than 125k in assets is absolutely nothing. The reality is that a married couple consisting of two working professionals will not qualify for any of these reduced tuition schemes.

It would help if they also considered whether that income was from one or two people, and divided it by the number of kids so larger families with parents working multiple jobs aren't penalized.

assets and income are two different things.

Re: YC at Columbia, Harvard, MIT, Stanford, UPenn

#78

Post by xiaosun »

morgante wrote: post #15
John23832 wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was just going to ask this. Silicon valley would be better served (and better serve others) when they stop giving hand service to the same schools they they went to and the people who think and act exactly like them.

Top schools attract a disproportionate of intelligent young people. Ignoring that would be stupid.

Top schools attract a disproportionate demographic of wealthy students. Of the 5 schools on the list, students from wealthy families are substantially over-represented in the student body (with MIT being a relative outlier). Nearly half of the student body at each university comes from the top 5-10% by income tier.

% of students from top 1% by income ($630K) UPenn - 18.7% Stanford - 17.5% Harvard - 15.1% Columbia - 13.4% MIT - 5.7%

% of students from the bottom 60% by income ($65K) UPenn - 16.5% Stanford - 18.6% Harvard - 20.4% Columbia - 21.1% MIT - 23.4%

Source: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/01/18/upshot/some-c...

Re: YC at Columbia, Harvard, MIT, Stanford, UPenn

#79

Post by muninn_ »

paulsmith34 wrote: post #66
John23832 wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know if we should advocate lowering standards of admissions.

Which supports my point poor kids getting into Harvard are at a disavagantage. These poor rural secondary schools don't give excellent college prep for their students, even bright ones. So these bright students risk having lower SAT scores (not matching their potential) & thus would not be admitted. Offering free tuition sound great until you realize these poor kids would have to have access to the same resources as…

Yes. Neither of my parents went to college, and my mother dropped out of high school. I didn't know what the SAT or ACT really was, and never studied in high school because I didn't know how. My family did ok, but I had 0 chance of ever going to a great school. I ended up going to a mid-tier university and have a good job (I got in because I transferred) but getting into a great school would have changed my life so much more. It makes me sad to think about it. Had I had parents who knew what was going on, they could have pushed me toward after school activities, or knew that I actually needed to buy an instrument to be part of the school band, or that I should take the ACT/SAT prep courses. But of course I didn't. Being a white male doesn't help either.

Re: YC at Columbia, Harvard, MIT, Stanford, UPenn

#80

Post by John23832 »

paulsmith34 wrote: post #67
John23832 wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not about paying to pad the application. There are legit methods of expanding your kid's world/mind. Those method generally cost more money than sitting in the house all summer watching tv.

Poor kids may not have a house to sit in and watch tv all day. They are at a major disadvantage and Ivies and other elite schools don't do a good job incorporating them into their schools due to their low sat scores and poor educational training, which is due to their poor socioeconomic status. You speak as if everyone is privileged and have the same opportunities but lazy.

I think we were actually agreeing. My point was that money can convey an educational advantage.
Post reply on HN