41–50 of 171 posts
I used to think that the “holistic” criteria elite US colleges use to select students was a failure of meritocracy. My view was that the non-objective metrics were excuses for colleges to let in students who wouldn’t grind but wanted prestige and had rich parents. But if you tie a person’s social status to performance on a single test, you suffocate all the useful things people could be doing if they didn’t have to s…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I get it, and I actually agree that the culture you describe isn't a good look. What I'm going for is more the idea that if you consider the best alternative I can think of to the "holistic" approach, you get selecting applicants purely based on entrance exam scores. In such a world you'd be punishing a kid who plays with Arduino out of interest. Any energy devoted towards something other than test prep is energy was…
Yes... It's a balance. I don't think tests-only admissions are the panacea either to be clear. The key problem is how to introduce some level of subjectivity in the admission process without creating doors wide open for corruption or cottage industries to "prep your application" with semi-fake accomplishments demonstrating your "soft skills".
There is an argument to be made that to be the best at something you have to commit like that. You could write a similar story about pro athletes probably, although team sports would include some level of socialization by default, not all sports are team sports. And I imagine a lot of other sacrifices (friendships outside the team or sport, hobbies, education) are made in pursuit of a pro athlete dream too. And of co…
That's my question too. When it comes to studying, "toil" is a four-letter word for American people. Oh, you study too hard. Oh you have a lost childhood. Oh solving math problems is not FaIr to other kids, for it shadows the true talent.
But when it comes to sports? Oh man, the tone totally changes. "Toil" is da word! Mileage matters! If you train hard, you get better results! Have you seen LA of 4am in the morning? Do you know the kid next door trains 5 hours every day, and breaks his bones at least 3 times and still does not give up? Mommy wants you to know the story of whoever practicing free throws a thousand times a day. Daddy will use all the retirement savings to hire a coach of this bullshit sport that you would never make it to the top of, but hey don't be like that Asian family who spend all their money hiring science tutors even though their kids will have a decent chance of becoming a good engineer.
What a nation of hypocrisy
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In other words, let our population continue to shrink. Perfect for the "elite" who get to coast on trust funds while the unemployed poors die off. Not so perfect when an outside force decides to declare war.
Falling population leads to cheaper housing, higher wages, less congestion for government services and infrastructure. More affordable housing is a major factor in fertility rates, so eventually the population just finds a stable equilibrium. Increasing population leads to the opposite - the elites are the ones pushing for mass-immigration, since they benefit from rising land prices and lower wages.
How do you suppose we incentive competition in stagnation?
I used to think that the “holistic” criteria elite US colleges use to select students was a failure of meritocracy. My view was that the non-objective metrics were excuses for colleges to let in students who wouldn’t grind but wanted prestige and had rich parents. But if you tie a person’s social status to performance on a single test, you suffocate all the useful things people could be doing if they didn’t have to s…
elite colleges basically have to have positive sentiment. a purely meritocratic admissions process wouldn't be conducive to this, because "rich" people generally do things that increase the sentiment of their schools, like become president or start famous companies. This is why Stanford and Harvard are far more popular and recognizable compared to Caltech and MIT even though the quality of the students is virtually i…
Oxford, Cambridge, Imperial, the LSE, Sciences Pos, X, ÉNA are all counter examples. You can select purely on academics just fine.
I know a couple of them personally, and a fair number of other IIT graduates besides, and while many of them did work hard, all of them did/do have hobbies and all that, not quite fitting the "No life, no hobbies, burnout, lost childhood" headline or the rest of the picture painted here.
I would love to see really elite schools lowering the threshold for the quantitative measurements like the JEE to say, 85% percentile, and just randomly selectively students who meet it. In my experience there's definitely a point in which better scores on things such as the JEE stop being correlated with both college performance, life satisfaction or even career earnings.
Why throw merit out the window? There's already a zillion legacy, sports, and diversity admits to Ivy/Pac12. Let those with the most merit and aptitude win rather than random chance or born attributes. If that means deemphasizing tests as much and looking for accomplishments like genuine leadership, projects, and other works, this would be fantastic.
I used to think that the “holistic” criteria elite US colleges use to select students was a failure of meritocracy. My view was that the non-objective metrics were excuses for colleges to let in students who wouldn’t grind but wanted prestige and had rich parents. But if you tie a person’s social status to performance on a single test, you suffocate all the useful things people could be doing if they didn’t have to s…
The IIT (Indian Institutes of Technology) system is almost an order of magnitude more competitive than the average Ivy League University in the US. About 0.9% of IIT applicants will be admitted. Compare to Ivy League Universities, which range from 4.5% (Harvard) to 10.6% (Cornell). That said, I spoke with one IIT graduate who tried to downplay the experience. I could never tell if he was being humble or polite, or if…
4.5% for Harvard honestly seems high to me. Do you have a source? (Not doubting, moreso curious about other Ivys).
[0]https://qz.com/1584304/acceptances-rates-at-top-us-colleges-...