Children of alumni no longer have admissions edge at Carnegie Mellon, Pitt

Post by selimthegrim » Wed, Jul 19, 2023, 6:38 PM UTC

philwelch wrote: post #348

kelipso wrote: post #317

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Universities shouldn't have side businesses, don't they have some non-profit status that's specific to education? They should be heavily restricted to education and research alone.

I’m not a huge fan of the NCAA system myself. A lot of universities don’t have major sports programs, and that’s a respectable choice on their part. But NCAA sports are tremendously profitable for the universities that invest in them. No Division I school would actually save money, in the long run, by defunding their football and basketball teams. And when it comes to side businesses, sports pale in comparison to end…

Post by [deleted] » Wed, Jul 19, 2023, 6:42 PM UTC

chmod600 wrote: post #337

julienchastang wrote: post #187

Good. With the end of affirmative action, legacy status in admissions becomes much harder to justify. [0] The number of kids entering elite universities via non-meritocratic avenues is incredible. > "[The researchers] examined four kinds of nonracial preferences—for recruited athletes, and for children of Harvard graduates, financial donors and members of faculty and staff. The researchers found that more than 43% of…

“for recruited athletes, and for children of Harvard graduates, financial donors and members of faculty and staff“ Athletes have merit. Arguably more than some academic departments.

Post by importantbrian » Wed, Jul 19, 2023, 6:42 PM UTC

tekla wrote: post #346

importantbrian wrote: post #330

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, I think part of the problem is that people don't really understand this. I have taken classes at a community college, a directional state school, an R1 and my master's degree is from a highly selective school. My n=1 experience is that the coursework from any accredited program is largely the same. The professors at the state school were actually better than at any of the other schools from a pure teaching pers…

Not necessarily true. The more prestigious schools have more budget to hire better professors, but more importantly, can fund top class research that costs ALOT of money. Your random college probably can't afford a research nuclear reactor, but MIT sure as hell can if they want. Getting a position as a undergrad on those research projects is incredibly competitive.

Post by chmod600 » Wed, Jul 19, 2023, 6:47 PM UTC

Larrikin wrote: post #359

chmod600 wrote: post #337

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“for recruited athletes, and for children of Harvard graduates, financial donors and members of faculty and staff“ Athletes have merit. Arguably more than some academic departments.

Why should a top high school baseball prospect take up a spot at a college instead of a spot on a local A league team?

Post by kneebonian » Wed, Jul 19, 2023, 6:54 PM UTC

thebradbain wrote: post #227

Brusco_RF wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They use it because it allows them to ignore standardized test scores and just do admissions based on their own preferences. They used less merit-based metrics because they don't WANT a meritocracy. Question. Which tells you more about a student: 1. An essay that was probably written by chatGPT then edited by the students parents 2. A test taken in a supervised, controlled, timed environment

1. Would absolutely not get you in anywhere selective 2. Would absolutely not either I believe the whole concept of “meritocracy” for purpose of admissions is a lie— choosing the criteria to measure against is itself a subjective act.