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

Top colleges should select randomly from a pool of ‘good enough’ (2005)

chronicle.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 307 posts

Re: Top colleges should select randomly from a pool of ‘good enough’ (2005)

#181

Post by crazygringo »

> Should Select Randomly From a Pool of ‘Good Enough’

But... they already do.

I can't find links right now, but deans of admissions from Harvard, Yale, Princeton, etc. all talk about how they could admit 10x the students and they'd all be equally good.

And that their selections aren't exactly "random" but are focused on diversity: that there are enough players for each instrument in the orchestra, athletes for each sport, varied extracurriculars in general, students for each major, with a diversity of race, ethnicity, nationality, geography, and so on. That early-decision candidates obviously have a bigger chance, etc.

But for a student who gets into Harvard and Princeton but not Yale or Columbia, it is essentially random -- e.g. Harvard and Princeton hadn't allotted all their trumpet players already but Yale and Columbia did.

Re: Top colleges should select randomly from a pool of ‘good enough’ (2005)

#182

Post by tzs »

eindiran wrote: post #157
tyingq wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"they accept the top 10% of each high school's class into all UT schools" Sort of. Most of them that want to go to UT want UT Austin. There's not enough room there for all of them.

This is also how the UC system works: the top 9% (IIRC) students are eligible for guaranteed admission, but they are not necessarily admitted to the campus or program of their choice, so you might not get to go to eg Berkeley.

Do they take into account what you intend to major in? Not all UC campuses offer all degrees. If you are in that 9% and want to major in, say, mathematics, will they try to make sure that you get into one of the campuses that offers that?

Re: Top colleges should select randomly from a pool of ‘good enough’ (2005)

#183

Post by huevosabio »

tyingq wrote: post #134
hardwaregeek wrote: post #130

One interesting example is the UT system. Because affirmative action was banned in Hopwood v. Texas, the UT system resorted to a program where they accept the top 10% of each high school's class into all UT schools. It's an interesting way of doing admissions, albeit not perfect. One critique that I'm anticipating seeing is that this encourages going to a mediocre high school. Except...getting good students to go to…

"they accept the top 10% of each high school's class into all UT schools" Sort of. Most of them that want to go to UT want UT Austin. There's not enough room there for all of them.

It used to be the case (when I was in High School) that 10% meant ticket to UT Austin, in fact a huge fraction of students at UT Austin were 10% students.

I found this policy excellent, it meant I had a bunch of colleagues from really small towns with no resources and this was clearly life changing for those attending college.

It felt like everything college is supposed to be (even if imperfect).

Re: Top colleges should select randomly from a pool of ‘good enough’ (2005)

#184

Post by tyingq »

docbrown wrote: post #178
tyingq wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They weren't claiming. Your scores are all posted on the wall in basic training. I walked the dorms and saw ~5 aces or very near aces out of maybe 200ish total people's scores. It's just somewhat odd because starting out as an E1 isn't terribly lucrative. It doesn't surprise me that 5 of 200 do that well. It surprises me that 5 of 200 that do so well actually enlist.

> It surprises me that 5 of 200 that do so well actually enlist. I’m generalizing here, but: No matter what their score was (high or low), most people are going to take the ASVAB because they want to join the military and reap the benefits of it (i.e. TRICARE, GI bill). We can’t forget that military granted health insurance covers around 3-4% of the total insured (US Census, 2019, p.3)[1]. It is also a heavily road t…

Those programs were one example. There are other paths, like trade schools, journeyman programs, etc. I'm not missing the point, I talked to some of them. They mostly just didn't know what else to do.

Basically all of it to confirm the notion (in the comment I replied to) that there is talent to be scooped up. Don't let a military recruiter be the only person that offers them something.

Re: Top colleges should select randomly from a pool of ‘good enough’ (2005)

#185

Post by gizmo686 »

emddudley wrote: post #170
hardwaregeek wrote: post #130

One interesting example is the UT system. Because affirmative action was banned in Hopwood v. Texas, the UT system resorted to a program where they accept the top 10% of each high school's class into all UT schools. It's an interesting way of doing admissions, albeit not perfect. One critique that I'm anticipating seeing is that this encourages going to a mediocre high school. Except...getting good students to go to…

> One critique that I'm anticipating seeing is that this encourages going to a mediocre high school. Where I live students don't have any choice in which high school to go to. You go to your local high school, unless your family is wealthy and you can afford private schools. I would assume this is the case for 95% of Americans. You must have had a different experience? My family was not wealthy so I did not get a cho…

My city had a school choice program. Your local school was required to accept you, but out of dustrict schools were free to impose additional restrictions. Most used a lottery, but a few (at least 1 I waa considering) would look at at an applicants grade and test scores and make an admission decision based on that.

Re: Top colleges should select randomly from a pool of ‘good enough’ (2005)

#186

Post by shajznnckfke »

tzs wrote: post #182
eindiran wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is also how the UC system works: the top 9% (IIRC) students are eligible for guaranteed admission, but they are not necessarily admitted to the campus or program of their choice, so you might not get to go to eg Berkeley.

Do they take into account what you intend to major in? Not all UC campuses offer all degrees. If you are in that 9% and want to major in, say, mathematics, will they try to make sure that you get into one of the campuses that offers that?

I feel like this policy would be too easy to hack - just find out which majors are only offered at UCB or UCLA or whatever school you want to go to.

Re: Top colleges should select randomly from a pool of ‘good enough’ (2005)

#187

Post by hardwaregeek »

emddudley wrote: post #170
hardwaregeek wrote: post #130

One interesting example is the UT system. Because affirmative action was banned in Hopwood v. Texas, the UT system resorted to a program where they accept the top 10% of each high school's class into all UT schools. It's an interesting way of doing admissions, albeit not perfect. One critique that I'm anticipating seeing is that this encourages going to a mediocre high school. Except...getting good students to go to…

> One critique that I'm anticipating seeing is that this encourages going to a mediocre high school. Where I live students don't have any choice in which high school to go to. You go to your local high school, unless your family is wealthy and you can afford private schools. I would assume this is the case for 95% of Americans. You must have had a different experience? My family was not wealthy so I did not get a cho…

The game is the game: https://youtu.be/mSXm4FUmE5g?t=59

The game I'm referring to is whatever game you need to play to gain capital, social, economic or otherwise. Whether that's applying to colleges and all of the requisite application fluff; the technical interview game or the optimal high school game. And while these games are significantly easier to play if you come from means, I know plenty of low income students who play the game far better than your elite private school types.

Re: Top colleges should select randomly from a pool of ‘good enough’ (2005)

#188

Post by scythe »

emddudley wrote: post #170
hardwaregeek wrote: post #130

One interesting example is the UT system. Because affirmative action was banned in Hopwood v. Texas, the UT system resorted to a program where they accept the top 10% of each high school's class into all UT schools. It's an interesting way of doing admissions, albeit not perfect. One critique that I'm anticipating seeing is that this encourages going to a mediocre high school. Except...getting good students to go to…

> One critique that I'm anticipating seeing is that this encourages going to a mediocre high school. Where I live students don't have any choice in which high school to go to. You go to your local high school, unless your family is wealthy and you can afford private schools. I would assume this is the case for 95% of Americans. You must have had a different experience? My family was not wealthy so I did not get a cho…

>Where I live students don't have any choice in which high school to go to. You go to your local high school, unless your family is wealthy and you can afford private schools.

You must never have bought a house. If you look on any real estate website, you'll find the ratings for local schools. Some towns grow or shrink on the quality of their schools. School districts are as important as cars in explaining the geometry of modern suburbia.

Re: Top colleges should select randomly from a pool of ‘good enough’ (2005)

#189

Post by samatman »

commandlinefan wrote: post #115
ForHackernews wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're assuming that standardized testing procedures, high school grading, and college admissions officers have the precision necessary to correctly distinguish between the 99.9997% perfect candidate and the 99.9998% perfect candidate. All I can say is that's nuts. I got a perfect score on my ACT, and I know for a fact that I guessed on some questions. Am I really a stronger applicant than somebody else who made less…

> Am I really a stronger applicant than somebody else who made less-lucky guesses? Well, what you seem to be saying is that the selection process is basically randomized among the top candidates already, per the linked article... so, no change needed?

It's actually an argument for making the SAT harder.

You can see on the Asian curve for the SAT, that cohort saturates the high end. The SAT should be so difficult that no one gets a perfect score without being lucky.

And lucky guesses on an entrance exam is a better filter than a lottery, because it feels like merit. For an MIT degree to mean "I'm reasonably smart and very lucky" would be a disaster, for society and for MIT students both. The illusion of agency simply must be maintained.

Re: Top colleges should select randomly from a pool of ‘good enough’ (2005)

#190

Post by shajznnckfke »

newen wrote: post #131
bilbo0s wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point he's making is that if the funding is removed, Princeton or Yale would no longer need to put up the façade. So the only thing that would matter is whether or not the Bush-type families of the US benefit from the system that is in place. The commenter is positing that the answer is "Yes". I agree with that assessment.

The other side of the argument is that if the facade is not there, if they only admit rich people, the university will lose its reputation and become irrelevant overnight. The thing that gives elite universities their reputation both their academic reputation and the elites that attend them. If they lose the academic reputation, the unis become irrelevant and might as well be a party house for rich people; no one wil…

Most of the financial aid given out by these schools isn’t federal aid. They even give full rides to international students who aren’t eligible for federal at all, and middle-class kids whose families have too much income to be eligible. This aid is funded by the endowment which is donations from rich people.

I think when people say Princeton receives a lot of federal money, they are talking about research grants, and possibly the effective subsidy that comes from the tax deductible status of donations from rich people. Each of these adds up to a lot more money than the Pell grants.

If you take away the rich people, the school won’t be able to afford to operate this way.

Post reply on HN