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

Solution to Harvard’s admissions problem is simple: run a lottery

qz.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 110 posts

Re: Solution to Harvard’s admissions problem is simple: run a lottery

#101

Post by karmajunkie »

trowawee wrote: post #46
karmajunkie wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All of those criteria are quantifiable and can be part of a threshold calculation.

Not really. Is it more impressive to climb the seven summits, or write an original work and have it performed by the New York Philharmonic? These aren't cleanly comparable things (which was always the point, of course; the focus on "more well-rounded students" appeared when elite institutions were worried that academically successful Jewish students were becoming too big a proportion of the student body.[1]) 1: http:…

You don't have to decide which is more impressive. What you have to decide is how much you want either impression to count for in your threshold score. Does high achievement count for 30%? 50%? 80%? Does it outweigh an utter lack of academic achievement (i.e. could a high achiever in the "soft" achievements hack it in the "hard" subjects, or vice versa?)

Once you've decided the proportions of things like that, this article proposes that it should be purely up to chance via lottery (an assertion I personally agree with.)

Re: Solution to Harvard’s admissions problem is simple: run a lottery

#102

Post by siruncledrew »

crazygringo wrote: post #44

So here's the thing: a student body is more than the sum of its parts, which a lottery ignores. To use just one example: a lottery could easily wind up admitting 40 violin players and zero bassoon players, or 8 percussionists but not a single oboe player. In which case a viable university orchestra becomes impossible, and every potential orchestra player suffers. (These are not exaggerated either -- for an incoming c…

Harvard using a true lottery would be a self-inflicted wound. A lot of Harvard's value is because it's Harvard. Harvard lowering their perception/brand/prestige is a lose-lose for themselves and the students/alumni (note: actual students, not prospective students).

Think about it this way: the nature of the game is like investing - it's about Harvard picking winners. Harvard is like the well-known VC that can say they funded unicorns, and being a part of Harvard means being associated with success. Harvard may take some waivers on higher-risk/less-fortunate students for diversifying investments, but it's only one piece of the portfolio. Selectivity is a key ingredient to their ROI, endowment fund, and social capital. Harvard is a private university and cares about their private equity and capital in a way that is different from public universities.

Re: Solution to Harvard’s admissions problem is simple: run a lottery

#103

Post by rland »

siruncledrew wrote: post #102
crazygringo wrote: post #44

So here's the thing: a student body is more than the sum of its parts, which a lottery ignores. To use just one example: a lottery could easily wind up admitting 40 violin players and zero bassoon players, or 8 percussionists but not a single oboe player. In which case a viable university orchestra becomes impossible, and every potential orchestra player suffers. (These are not exaggerated either -- for an incoming c…

Harvard using a true lottery would be a self-inflicted wound. A lot of Harvard's value is because it's Harvard. Harvard lowering their perception/brand/prestige is a lose-lose for themselves and the students/alumni (note: actual students, not prospective students). Think about it this way: the nature of the game is like investing - it's about Harvard picking winners. Harvard is like the well-known VC that can say the…

This is the problem I have with higher education. It is not about the effectiveness of the education, but the signal of effectiveness. "Social Capital" is a zero sum game. If someone gains social capital, another must lose. Actual education, on the other hand, is not.

It's really a shame.

Re: Solution to Harvard’s admissions problem is simple: run a lottery

#104

Post by nybble41 »

subjectHarold wrote: post #63
crazygringo wrote: post #44

So here's the thing: a student body is more than the sum of its parts, which a lottery ignores. To use just one example: a lottery could easily wind up admitting 40 violin players and zero bassoon players, or 8 percussionists but not a single oboe player. In which case a viable university orchestra becomes impossible, and every potential orchestra player suffers. (These are not exaggerated either -- for an incoming c…

The idea of lotteries is not new. This problem is addressed in most solutions by weighting for factors. The issue with the current system is that it produces the lack of diversity that you are describing because it optimises for things that only rich people have access to. If you go to a shit school, something that no child really has control over, you won't have extracurriculars, you might not have sports, there are…

It sounds like you want to destroy exactly those things which make Harvard a desirable school in the name of making sure everyone has a equal chance to go there. The strict admissions requirements are really the whole point; that's how they preserve their culture and their reputation. Do away with all that and Harvard becomes just another school. There are already plenty of schools you can go to that don't care about extracurriculars; we don't to turn Harvard into yet another one.

Re: Solution to Harvard’s admissions problem is simple: run a lottery

#105

Post by subjectHarold »

nybble41 wrote: post #104
subjectHarold wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The idea of lotteries is not new. This problem is addressed in most solutions by weighting for factors. The issue with the current system is that it produces the lack of diversity that you are describing because it optimises for things that only rich people have access to. If you go to a shit school, something that no child really has control over, you won't have extracurriculars, you might not have sports, there are…

It sounds like you want to destroy exactly those things which make Harvard a desirable school in the name of making sure everyone has a equal chance to go there. The strict admissions requirements are really the whole point; that's how they preserve their culture and their reputation. Do away with all that and Harvard becomes just another school. There are already plenty of schools you can go to that don't care about…

The reason that extracurriculars are valuable is because they are worth doing in and of themselves. You play an instrument because you enjoy it and to give enjoyment to others...not because it will get you into college. By devaluing those experiences, you achieve the banality that you appear to fear so much. In fact, it is really quite tragic that you think that way. Life is to be enjoyed, you can do things as ends in themselves, for their own sake...not because Harvard thinks it is important. Do you make friends based on their extracurricular activities? Do you have to check with Harvard to see if a certain kind of music is enjoyable? It is a ludicrous and quite empty way to look at life.

Re: Solution to Harvard’s admissions problem is simple: run a lottery

#106

Post by agent008t »

Someone1234 wrote: post #97
agent008t wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fair enough. I wrongly assumed that they would have very similar approaches to admissions, but maybe not. If the extracurriculars don't have anything to do with the degree in question, it seems wrong for Harvard to be putting weight on them. Luckily, there are other Universities in the world to choose from.

> If the extracurriculars don't have anything to do with the degree in question, it seems wrong for Harvard to be putting weight on them. Harvard ran out of other measures. When all of the applicants are capping out every academic measure, you have to start to look beyond.

But do they not interview applicants in person? You can usually tell a lot more about a candidate from an in-person interview than from a written test. For example, how genuinely interested they are in the subject - it is usually hard to fake enthusiasm. How they respond to hints during problem-solving. How excited they are when they get to a solution. How teachable and creative they are. How they think when faced with a kind of problem they (hopefully) had not seen before. Do they actually understand the subject, or do they just have a good memory.

On all these metrics I would be seriously surprised if they have many more amazing applicants than places. If that is in fact the case, they should make more places available. It almost never happens that you get someone that is 10/10/10 on all metrics.

Re: Solution to Harvard’s admissions problem is simple: run a lottery

#107

Post by nybble41 »

subjectHarold wrote: post #105
nybble41 wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It sounds like you want to destroy exactly those things which make Harvard a desirable school in the name of making sure everyone has a equal chance to go there. The strict admissions requirements are really the whole point; that's how they preserve their culture and their reputation. Do away with all that and Harvard becomes just another school. There are already plenty of schools you can go to that don't care about…

The reason that extracurriculars are valuable is because they are worth doing in and of themselves. You play an instrument because you enjoy it and to give enjoyment to others...not because it will get you into college. By devaluing those experiences, you achieve the banality that you appear to fear so much. In fact, it is really quite tragic that you think that way. Life is to be enjoyed, you can do things as ends i…

> Do you make friends based on their extracurricular activities?

Actually, people very frequently become friends through shared extracurricular activities; existing friendships are also a significant factor in choosing activities to participate in. This is all perfectly normal, and choosing extracurriculars for their own sake is the exception, not the rule. It's important to enjoy the activity yourself, of course, but don't dismiss the value that shared interests and backgrounds bring to any relationship.

> Do you have to check with Harvard to see if a certain kind of music is enjoyable?

I don't particularly care what Harvard thinks because I'm not trying to get into Harvard. I don't think it's out of line, however, for them to reinforce both the academic and social aspects of their culture by selecting for prospective students who already share these values—or at least demonstrate both ability and willingness to make an effort to fit in.

Re: Solution to Harvard’s admissions problem is simple: run a lottery

#108

Post by spdionis »

dontreact wrote: post #99
taylodl wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was trying to convey that race and class are factors of diversity, but not the only ones. Sorry if that was unclear.

It's very hard to interpret "This is true student diversity, it's not just race and class" as saying that race and class are factors of so-called "true" diversity, even with when trying to interpret things charitably. Thanks for clarifying

"just" in this case means "not only"

Re: Solution to Harvard’s admissions problem is simple: run a lottery

#109

Post by babyslothzoo »

trowawee wrote: post #96
babyslothzoo wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why? Is this not supposed to be an elite university for elite students?

Well, that's certainly what Harvard would argue, although a lot of people might disagree, but even if we accept their/your framing, that doesn't solve the issue. You're throwing around "most qualified" and "elite students" like those are settled terms of art, rather than the heart of contention in an argument that's more than a century old. Imagine two hypothetical students. One student graduated with a 4.3 by taking…

> There isn't a clean metric for most qualified or most elite, and there really can't be

For an academic institution or an athletic endeavor, I completely disagree. Performance in these environments is measurable. Elite performance is obvious, observable, and measurable.

Should a theoretical elite university basketball team sign and start a 4'11 80lbs person who makes 1% of shots and has only played basketball maybe a half dozen times before total but they happen to be the very best player from their school? What if they're technically the best basketball player in their schools history? Are they therefore an elite basketball player, and an elite performer? I would say no, observably and measurably not.

Re: Solution to Harvard’s admissions problem is simple: run a lottery

#110

Post by kurtisc »

agent008t wrote: post #67
subjectHarold wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is that the same university that admits more from eight private schools than from 3/4 of the state school system? Yep, sounds like a fair system. Cool story bro.

I doubt this is because of a biased admissions process. It could be a variety of factors: 1. Differences in encouragement from parents, teachers etc. Differences in how much emphasis is put on education. 2. Related to #1 - state school kids may think they are not good enough and not apply. 3. Actual quality of education may be significantly better at those schools, especially in certain subjects. 4. Genetic potential…

>2. Related to #1 - state school kids may think they are not good enough and not apply.

To back this up, nobody else at my college applied. After I did on a whim, I discovered there was an aptitude test to pass, which I didn't. I blame my negligence for failing but I imagine people from more prestigious colleges & sixth forms would have been aware earlier and had help studying for it. Or even had private tutoring specifically for it.

Post reply on HN