Princeton admits record-low 3.98% of applicants • Hacker News Board

Re: Princeton admits record-low 3.98% of applicants

#11

Post by warkdarrior » Fri, Apr 16, 2021, 3:33 PM UTC

endisneigh wrote: post #7

It's a shame that we're here in 2021 and the best we can do is basically just "selection bias." Basically all universities have no statistical proof that they can educate people beyond this. This is not to say that the schools are bad, but most of the education is simply due to the types of peers you have, not really due to the school itself. Princeton and Harvard admit, for the most part, people who already excelled…

We do not need to find this randomized-admission institution for your analysis. Just take an Ivy and several state universities of different rankings, and pick students with similar high-school backgrounds (top grades, similar family net worth, etc.). Such students of similar capability must exist, unless we think top universities admit all the top students and there is no one left for lower-rank schools.

Then analyze their careers after college -- this should tell you whether the education of that specific university contributed or not to the student's prospects.

Re: Princeton admits record-low 3.98% of applicants

#12

Post by endisneigh » Fri, Apr 16, 2021, 3:34 PM UTC

warkdarrior wrote: post #11

endisneigh wrote: post #7

It's a shame that we're here in 2021 and the best we can do is basically just "selection bias." Basically all universities have no statistical proof that they can educate people beyond this. This is not to say that the schools are bad, but most of the education is simply due to the types of peers you have, not really due to the school itself. Princeton and Harvard admit, for the most part, people who already excelled…

We do not need to find this randomized-admission institution for your analysis. Just take an Ivy and several state universities of different rankings, and pick students with similar high-school backgrounds (top grades, similar family net worth, etc.). Such students of similar capability must exist, unless we think top universities admit all the top students and there is no one left for lower-rank schools. Then analyz…

What you're describing wouldn't work because the interactions between the students would influence the things you're measuring. Students don't exist in a vacuum. It would only be possible if the school's students were entirely random.

Not to mention that as you go lower in rank, yes, there are fewer good students. This is pretty much inherently true (not to say that lower ranked schools don't have good students, which is not true at all, but as a percentage yes it will decrease drastically).

Re: Princeton admits record-low 3.98% of applicants

#13

Post by zkid18 » Fri, Apr 16, 2021, 3:34 PM UTC

endisneigh wrote: post #7

It's a shame that we're here in 2021 and the best we can do is basically just "selection bias." Basically all universities have no statistical proof that they can educate people beyond this. This is not to say that the schools are bad, but most of the education is simply due to the types of peers you have, not really due to the school itself. Princeton and Harvard admit, for the most part, people who already excelled…

As a non-US citizen I was always surprised US universities doesn't require any examination test for the admission.

Re: Princeton admits record-low 3.98% of applicants

#14

Post by csa » Fri, Apr 16, 2021, 3:34 PM UTC

In this particular year, the low number is due to the deferrals from last year and (most likely) reduced requirements in the admissions process.

That said, over the long term, the number of Hail Mary applications is most likely the bulk of the gradual increase in applications. There are a very large number of applications to elite schools that effectively zero chance of being accepted, and that number seems to be increasing over time.

To be fair, I do think that the overall quality of admitted student is increasing as well, but the improvements are largely seen in the marginal admits rather than the core admits.

Re: Princeton admits record-low 3.98% of applicants

#15

Post by ModernMech » Fri, Apr 16, 2021, 3:35 PM UTC

When looking at acceptance rates of Ivies, it's good to remember that the concept of a "reach school" that counselors push on students means that almost every kid is applying to some school they are not really qualified to get into. These disproportionately end up being top schools like Princeton and Harvard. If you're going to reach, why not really reach? Is the chance of getting into Princeton 4%? No, if you're well qualified to get in, the chance is much higher. If you're not qualified to get in, the chance is 0%. Average it out and you get the 4%-8%.

I think PG said something similar with respect to the chance of getting accepted to YC. Or maybe it wasn't PG and I'm thinking of this: https://medium.com/@robhunter/your-chances-of-getting-into-y...

Re: Princeton admits record-low 3.98% of applicants

#16

Post by blue6 » Fri, Apr 16, 2021, 3:35 PM UTC

1cvmask wrote: post #4

So when we remove the legacies and school fund donators (roughly half) - about 40 to 50 percent of the class, athletes (affirmative action for rich whites with relatively lower credentials and scores) - about 10-20 percent of the class, and regular affirmative action ( about 15 percent of the class and mainly affluent politically connected blacks and latinos). The remainder is the group based on traditional credentia…

(((rich whites)))

Re: Princeton admits record-low 3.98% of applicants

#17

Post by [deleted] » Fri, Apr 16, 2021, 3:35 PM UTC

warkdarrior wrote: post #11

endisneigh wrote: post #7

It's a shame that we're here in 2021 and the best we can do is basically just "selection bias." Basically all universities have no statistical proof that they can educate people beyond this. This is not to say that the schools are bad, but most of the education is simply due to the types of peers you have, not really due to the school itself. Princeton and Harvard admit, for the most part, people who already excelled…

We do not need to find this randomized-admission institution for your analysis. Just take an Ivy and several state universities of different rankings, and pick students with similar high-school backgrounds (top grades, similar family net worth, etc.). Such students of similar capability must exist, unless we think top universities admit all the top students and there is no one left for lower-rank schools. Then analyz…

[deleted]

Re: Princeton admits record-low 3.98% of applicants

#18

Post by dolni » Fri, Apr 16, 2021, 3:36 PM UTC

endisneigh wrote: post #7

It's a shame that we're here in 2021 and the best we can do is basically just "selection bias." Basically all universities have no statistical proof that they can educate people beyond this. This is not to say that the schools are bad, but most of the education is simply due to the types of peers you have, not really due to the school itself. Princeton and Harvard admit, for the most part, people who already excelled…

It makes sense to group people for education based on ability. If a low performer is in a class of high performers, one of two things will likely happen:

* the low performer will be left behind, because the course moves too quickly or sets the bar beyond their abilities

* the class will have to be dumbed down so that the low performer can participate, which means that the high performers haven't realized their full potential

That said, I take your general point about Ivy Leagues and I am curious to know if we can come up with an objective way of comparing them to other schools. As a prerequisite, you would need a way to measure someone's ability before and after admission.

Re: Princeton admits record-low 3.98% of applicants

#19

Post by debacle » Fri, Apr 16, 2021, 3:36 PM UTC

endisneigh wrote: post #7

It's a shame that we're here in 2021 and the best we can do is basically just "selection bias." Basically all universities have no statistical proof that they can educate people beyond this. This is not to say that the schools are bad, but most of the education is simply due to the types of peers you have, not really due to the school itself. Princeton and Harvard admit, for the most part, people who already excelled…

We have too many smart people for capitalism in its current form to support. If you look for them, you will see artificial barriers erected throughout society to stymie real meritocracy.

Re: Princeton admits record-low 3.98% of applicants

#20

Post by ep103 » Fri, Apr 16, 2021, 3:36 PM UTC

warkdarrior wrote: post #11

endisneigh wrote: post #7

It's a shame that we're here in 2021 and the best we can do is basically just "selection bias." Basically all universities have no statistical proof that they can educate people beyond this. This is not to say that the schools are bad, but most of the education is simply due to the types of peers you have, not really due to the school itself. Princeton and Harvard admit, for the most part, people who already excelled…

We do not need to find this randomized-admission institution for your analysis. Just take an Ivy and several state universities of different rankings, and pick students with similar high-school backgrounds (top grades, similar family net worth, etc.). Such students of similar capability must exist, unless we think top universities admit all the top students and there is no one left for lower-rank schools. Then analyz…

Better yet, solve two birds with one stone. Pass a law that caps the maximum percentage of a person's income that can be paid to college loan (minimum) payments. Just like that you would have stopped the primary source of collegiate tuition inflation (the fact that students believe they need college to enter the workplace, but cannot discharge loans due to bankruptcy, and loans are guaranteed by the gov). And you would have created a free-market solution tying actual college value added to collegiate tuition prices.

Its not a flawless proposition. But it does mean that those students who spend years and go heavily into debt pursuing higher education wouldn't then be force to compete only for the highest paying jobs that will cover their loans. Upset that the greatest minds in our generation work in advertising? Wondering why more highly education people aren't willing to take teaching positions or devote themselves to societal service? Here's your fix.