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

How college became a ruthless competition divorced from learning

theatlantic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 247 posts

Re: How college became a ruthless competition divorced from learning

#101

Post by gryn »

jollybean wrote: post #19
sashavegas wrote: post #13

Consider old Russian system After 8 years of school there were exams (written and spoken) where person would be selected to go to 2 more years of school (equivalent of hi school) or if he performs poorly on exam, he can go to professional school for associated degree. The person who goes to 2 more years of hi school, take exam again, and receive diploma. Then the person can apply to any university, but to get there i…

It's a little bit of a desperate attempt at meritocracy however. Affluent parents will still be able to generate systems where their kids get better scores. And 'better scores on exams' might be a very crude predictor of future skills, it's not remotely all encompassing. So 'selecting' for your elite on the basis of a few exams at age 18 is probably a bad idea. Macron just announced the closure of the 'Grand Ecole' o…

what macron announced was just PR speak.

ENA will be closed, a new school with a different name (ESP) serving the same function and doing exactly the same as before will be opened in 2022.

Re: How college became a ruthless competition divorced from learning

#102

Post by Bukhmanizer »

ggm wrote: post #78
HenryKissinger wrote: post #14

In some countries, like France and the United kingdom, the educational pyramid is even more skewed. In the United kingdom, graduates of Oxford University and Cambridge University are in a class of their own. Oxbridge alumni are overrepresented in politics, business, and the media. In France, the same phenomenon is at work with the École Polytechnique, the Écoles Normales Supérieures, and a few others. This creates sh…

I am not an Oxbridge or ENS graduate but I felt compelled to point out both had a competitive entry exam. I am unsure Oxbridge still does. The ecole normale system presupposes a national baccalaureate with ranking. The French took this seriously for decades. It was wafer thin egalitarianism because poor smart kids had a path in. I have little doubt nepotism also plays its part, but the fundamental underpinning is ran…

I don’t think the issue is that Oxbridge students aren’t on average, smart. It’s more that the implicit assumption of smart people can only come from Oxbridge.

Branding is powerful, and it’s easy to fall into the trap in thinking that the smartest person from UCL isn’t as smart as the dumbest person from Cambridge. Being in America, I’ve seen lots of people just throw out resumes just because they’ve never heard of their school, or they didn’t go to a prestigious school.

Re: How college became a ruthless competition divorced from learning

#103

Post by usaar333 »

light_hue_1 wrote: post #86
flowerlad wrote: post #43

College admissions in the US are messed up. There is no way for a student to be in control of their destiny through hard work, because there are far too many variables and randomness in college admissions. Ideally what colleges should do is to use a standardized test and go strictly by the results of the standardized test. Standardized tests are not perfect, but if there are flaws in standardized tests then fix them,…

> Ideally what colleges should do is to use a standardized test and go strictly by the results of the standardized test. Standardized tests are not perfect, but if there are flaws in standardized tests then fix them, because it is better than the alternatives Standardized tests are terrible. Predicting the outcomes of standardized tests is very simple, it's a function of your parents income. https://economix.blogs.ny…

> With a 0.95 R^2.

That's not the R^2 of your SAT based on income; that's the R^2 of average scores within an income bucket. Predictability based on income is far, far lower with other factors more significant (https://escholarship.org/uc/item/9gs5v3pv).

> The idea of standardized tests exists because of racism. It was recognized by its inventor to be a tool for racism and classism.

Huh? Prior to tests, schools were even more classist. Standardized tests have also been used in all sorts of societies historically explicitly to break class lines. i.e. the Chinese Imperial Examinations (created over 2,000 years ago) intentionally were created so that candidates were not just merely young aristocrats recommended by other aristocrats (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_examination).

And yes, the institution of holistic review (ironically, not relying as much on tests) was absolutely driven by anti-semitism. See https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2018/6/21/holistic-admiss....

Of course, neither the history of testing or holistic admissions says anything about the actual value of them today.

Re: How college became a ruthless competition divorced from learning

#104

Post by bawolff »

HenryKissinger wrote: post #14

In some countries, like France and the United kingdom, the educational pyramid is even more skewed. In the United kingdom, graduates of Oxford University and Cambridge University are in a class of their own. Oxbridge alumni are overrepresented in politics, business, and the media. In France, the same phenomenon is at work with the École Polytechnique, the Écoles Normales Supérieures, and a few others. This creates sh…

As a canadian, are we really that much more equal than the USA? Sure, maybe we have less of the extremes on both sides (Less billionairs, and i suspect less hopelessly poor, although i don't know the number on that), but we still have rich people and poor people, a good uni still gives you a major step up.

Re: How college became a ruthless competition divorced from learning

#105

Post by ryandrake »

WalterBright wrote: post #100
hardwaregeek wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The in person interview has little to no bearing on your application. It can provide a minor positive boost but no negative value. Besides, the interviewers I had were all nice enough people but definitely possible to trick or BS.

Even if one asks probing questions about the project the candidate lied about doing?

So, the technical interviewer says “no hire.” But the VP (who went to the candidate’s alma mater) says yes. And the Director who knows the candidate’s uncle from the country club says yes. And the candidate really laid it on thick for the hiring manager who has the final say. What did the tech nerd say, again?

It increasingly feels like the world’s reward systems have been captured by and saturated with these charming phonies who only know how to game the system. Put all your skill points into charisma and people will just hand you money and opportunities. I’ve spent my whole career perpetually a couple of rungs down the totem pole from these well-pedigreed charmers, and hear them talk their smooth, but ultimately empty talk over and over.

Whether it’s college applications or job applications, the longer I go at it, the more convinced I am that the ability to “seem like the right kind of successful sort of person” gives you the best results. Better than track record, better than demonstrable skills, better than potential and willingness to do hard work.

Re: How college became a ruthless competition divorced from learning

#106

Post by 1vuio0pswjnm7 »

Maybe someone on HN can answer this for me. Why are these articles about the American system written as if they are new developments. Nothing in this article sounds any different from how things were 50 years ago, and probably earlier. I am guessing that 1. more kids are going to college today than 50 years ago (that should be a good thing) and competing for spots at top schools (thus more competition) and 2. the American economy has not expanded to make use of this increased number of college graduates. I have no idea if that is true, though. Articles like these make it sound like the author is reporting on some great, newly discovered unfairness. But things have been this way in America for over at least half a century. The only obvious difference between then and now is perhaps that there's more people competing.

EDIT: Cheers for the answers. I am going to do some research on tuition increases at state universities, as well as the historical numbers on student borrowing. Any pointers to where I can find such data already compiled would be appreciated.

Re: How college became a ruthless competition divorced from learning

#107

Post by hardwaregeek »

WalterBright wrote: post #100
hardwaregeek wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The in person interview has little to no bearing on your application. It can provide a minor positive boost but no negative value. Besides, the interviewers I had were all nice enough people but definitely possible to trick or BS.

Even if one asks probing questions about the project the candidate lied about doing?

Oh lemme clarify. I thought you were talking about college interviews. If we're talking about job interviews then certainly they can cut through someone's BS.

Re: How college became a ruthless competition divorced from learning

#108

Post by bawolff »

jollybean wrote: post #47
Dah00n wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Elite schools are worthwhile if it isn't in it for the money like most (all?) elite schools in the US. In that regard the Soviet system were far superior.

No, the Soviet System was a complete failure from top to bottom, producing some great scientists is nice but a side show. Using standardized tests from 14-21 to select leadership feels very meritocratic, but it's also very crude. Also there is the ugly notion that maybe the best way to lead a nation is not purely meritocratic. American Ivy League, despite their follies, produce a ton of very high calibre people. So d…

Producing great scientists is a failure? Maybe we should aim to fail more.

Re: How college became a ruthless competition divorced from learning

#109

Post by AussieWog93 »

bourgwaletariat wrote: post #91
throwawayboise wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'll accept the premise that it's possible to fake your way into a school like that. I think it would be much harder to fake your way to a diploma though. Am I wrong?

Yes. You think Harvard is going to fail the son of a senator or legacy donor? A lot of folks I went to college with did nothing but party, drink, hang out. Education didn't matter to them at all. They were going to get a job at their family's firm, company, etc anyway. Didn't matter what their grades were. Professors know who they can't fail.

When I was at university, there was a "blind examination policy" in place.

The people marking the exams did not know whose exams they were marking.

It's possible that corrupt professors worked around this, but there was never any scandals related to this policy.

Re: How college became a ruthless competition divorced from learning

#110

Post by refurb »

light_hue_1 wrote: post #81
HenryKissinger wrote: post #14

In some countries, like France and the United kingdom, the educational pyramid is even more skewed. In the United kingdom, graduates of Oxford University and Cambridge University are in a class of their own. Oxbridge alumni are overrepresented in politics, business, and the media. In France, the same phenomenon is at work with the École Polytechnique, the Écoles Normales Supérieures, and a few others. This creates sh…

> Donald Trump's election in 2016 has been dissected and explained hundred different ways. But it is undeniable that his victory (despite the fact that he lost the popular vote by approximately three million) is attributable in part to popular resentment against political and business elites It's very deniable. This simply cannot be the explanation. Trump is an elite. He inherited vast amounts of money and vastly und…

As others have mentioned, plenty of revolutions have been led by the elites of society.

With Trump the appeal wasn’t because he wasn’t elite, it was because he was perceived as an “out group” of the elite.

Whenever he trashed the existing institutions that just further reinforced it.

Post reply on HN