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

Re: Princeton admits record-low 3.98% of applicants

#111

Post by Aunche » Fri, Apr 16, 2021, 4:19 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…

At my selective university, the vast majority of the value came from the students paying to attend rather than college itself. Some professors were brilliant, but others were completely useless and you basically had to learn by yourself or from your peers. Meanwhile, a large chunk of tuition dollars was going towards the construction of new buildings that end up being very underutilized.

Princeton spends roughly $270,000 per student (see footnote). I'm sure some of that goes into research as well, but it's a relatively small fraction, since Princeton prides itself as being a teaching university. I suspect that you can build a more successful university by paying students $100,000 a year, hiring grad students to teach, and paying for modest facilities.

(742,123,000/.33)/ 8,374 = 268552 https://profile.princeton.edu/finances https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Princeton_University

Re: Princeton admits record-low 3.98% of applicants

#112

Post by montecarl » Fri, Apr 16, 2021, 4:20 PM UTC

slibhb wrote: post #94

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…

> Princeton and Harvard admit, for the most part, people who already excelled significantly in high school. Such excellence is already indicative of ability. > Ideally our fixation would be on a hypothetical institution that admits people entirely at random, and through some means (whether authoritarian, or montessori, waldorf, immersion, etc.) shows that beyond a reasonable doubt the school itself has improved the p…

You may not have meant it this way, but "College should be for academically gifted high school graduates" is not what I would have in mind for who should attend college. I think college should be for those who want to learn.

For example, I had very poor grades in high school (would not have been described as academically gifted) and used state funds to go to undergrad to study science. Ended up just being a late bloomer, graduated summa cum laude with a degree in chemistry and went on to get a PhD in theoretical chemistry. Higher education shouldn't be restricted to just students who appear gifted, but should be available to anyone who wants to put in the work.

I agree that college should not be a requirement for good entry-level jobs, however, I don't think that college admission in general (there will always be elite private institutions) should be heavily restricted based on my personal experience.

Edit due to sibling comment: I did poorly on the math placement test for college as well and had to take remedial math courses. I ended up minoring in math and taking some graduate level courses in numerical analysis during undergrad. So the idea that colleges shouldn't have remedial classes is ridiculous.

Re: Princeton admits record-low 3.98% of applicants

#113

Post by dolni » Fri, Apr 16, 2021, 4:20 PM UTC

dheera wrote: post #66

dolni wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most universities require either an ACT or SAT test score to prove your ability. These are not administered by universities, though.

They don't really prove anything though. For engineering degrees the math section is too easy; for arts degrees it's irrelevant. The English section is all about memorizing a bunch of words you'll never use. It's not a good test.

Whether it is a good test depends on what you're trying to measure and what you want a college degree to convey. If a college degree in photography should state _only_ that a person has some knowledge and competence in photography, then I agree.

I think the conferral of a degree is supposed to symbolize more than that, though. An institution's degree asserts some minimum level of education broadly, with an emphasis in the field of study you chose.

Re: Princeton admits record-low 3.98% of applicants

#114

Post by amznthrowaway5 » Fri, Apr 16, 2021, 4:21 PM UTC

csa wrote: post #110

whimsicalism wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not entirely inaccurate. There is a trend for top tier universities to pick Black students mostly from prep & private schools for some reason. https://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674976894 Excerpt: "tiny fraction" of low-income black American teenagers who attend private schools "produces about half of low-income black students at Ivy League colleges." Anecdotally, looking at who attended Ivies wher…

> There is a trend for top tier universities to pick Black students mostly from prep & private schools for some reason. My guess is that this “tiny fraction of low income black American teenagers” are mostly, if not entirely, recruited athletes doing a 13th year to fix grades, SAT scores, and (maybe) study skills. While folks (of any race) from low income areas can theoretically succeed at elite schools via their own…

Why is it a handicap? I've seen poor Asians who go to the same types of schools tend to do just fine.

Re: Princeton admits record-low 3.98% of applicants

#115

Post by slibhb » Fri, Apr 16, 2021, 4:23 PM UTC

endisneigh wrote: post #106

slibhb wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Princeton and Harvard admit, for the most part, people who already excelled significantly in high school. Such excellence is already indicative of ability. > Ideally our fixation would be on a hypothetical institution that admits people entirely at random, and through some means (whether authoritarian, or montessori, waldorf, immersion, etc.) shows that beyond a reasonable doubt the school itself has improved the p…

I didn't mention anything about increasing socioeconomic prospects of students. The things you're saying are contradictory. If all the good people go to college then college will always be required to get a good entry level job by definition. Why would any employer give someone a "good" job if they didn't go to a "good" college that has all of the "good" students?

It's not contradictory at all.

> If all the good people go to college then college will always be required to get a good entry level job by definition. Why would any employer give someone a "good" job if they didn't go to a "good" college that has all of the "good" students?

I did not equate "academically gifted high school graduates" with "good people". You did! What an insane idea. It's very clear to me that most jobs do not require a 4 year degree. The fact that we only give good entry-level positions (that aren't manual labor) to college graduates is an absurdity.

College should be for the most promising, academically interested students. Students who have a good shot at a career in academia. Employers won't be able to only hire from that pool because it will be a very small pool.

Re: Princeton admits record-low 3.98% of applicants

#116

Post by amznthrowaway5 » Fri, Apr 16, 2021, 4:24 PM UTC

throwawayboise wrote: post #71

whimsicalism wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not entirely inaccurate. There is a trend for top tier universities to pick Black students mostly from prep & private schools for some reason. https://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674976894 Excerpt: "tiny fraction" of low-income black American teenagers who attend private schools "produces about half of low-income black students at Ivy League colleges." Anecdotally, looking at who attended Ivies wher…

I think the worry is more that kids from terrible urban public school districts will be woefully unprepared to do the academic work expected at an Ivy. Wealthy kids (regardless of skin color) who have attended private prep school are a much safer bet. The mission of Harvard, Princeton, or any university is not to remediate the poor education some kid received in K-12.

I've seem smart Asian kids from poor public schools do far better than the wealthy corrupt kids. It's not about "poor education".

Re: Princeton admits record-low 3.98% of applicants

#117

Post by jnwatson » Fri, Apr 16, 2021, 4:25 PM UTC

I wonder how this impacts lower-tier schools. My n=1 data point: my child just received a rejection notice from a middle-tier out-of-state university. Top test scores, top of her class, International Baccalaureate (IB). Obviously not a lot of activities.

I am curious what kind of students are getting accepted.

Re: Princeton admits record-low 3.98% of applicants

#118

Post by Kevin_S » Fri, Apr 16, 2021, 4:25 PM UTC

montecarl wrote: post #112

slibhb wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Princeton and Harvard admit, for the most part, people who already excelled significantly in high school. Such excellence is already indicative of ability. > Ideally our fixation would be on a hypothetical institution that admits people entirely at random, and through some means (whether authoritarian, or montessori, waldorf, immersion, etc.) shows that beyond a reasonable doubt the school itself has improved the p…

You may not have meant it this way, but "College should be for academically gifted high school graduates" is not what I would have in mind for who should attend college. I think college should be for those who want to learn. For example, I had very poor grades in high school (would not have been described as academically gifted) and used state funds to go to undergrad to study science. Ended up just being a late bloo…

Just to extend your point, some of my stats:

3.0 high school GPA 3.0 undergraduate GPA

Now in year 3 of a PhD program. I wasn't even considered academically gifted in undergrad! Yet I think I am a pretty good researcher.

Re: Princeton admits record-low 3.98% of applicants

#119

Post by dolni » Fri, Apr 16, 2021, 4:25 PM UTC

endisneigh wrote: post #95

dolni wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Good K-12 schools _do_ batch people by ability, though. The inner city schools -- the ones that are struggling, they do a poor job putting underperforming students into remedial courses. They similarly do a poor job putting high performing students into honors and AP/IB courses. Measuring ability is tricky, which is why schools rely on grades for prerequisite courses. As a simple, contrived example: you can't really…

Which good schools are you thinking of? Most schools don't really do any analysis to show that they're good or not. The others are either exam schools or schools in areas that are expensive. Given the correlation between socioeconomic status and school performance, that's also just selection bias. I'm not necessarily against tracking (which is what we're describing) - but when you have a fixed number of resources and…

> Which good schools are you thinking of? Most schools don't really do any analysis to show that they're good or not. The others are either exam schools or schools in areas that are expensive. Given the correlation between socioeconomic status and school performance, that's also just selection bias.

This isn't really a scientific analysis, just basing that on my own lived experience and what I've learned from other people over the years.

I went to an inner city school. Inner city schools here offer fewer honors courses as compared to their suburban counterparts. My experience generally is that people who went to suburban schools are better educated. Suburban schools have higher graduation rates and kids get into college with more college credits than their urban peers.

> I'm not necessarily against tracking (which is what we're describing) - but when you have a fixed number of resources and a mentality that the best should get more resources all you really end up with is a situation where the poor students are setup to fail.

Well yeah, I think we're in complete agreement that some schools just don't have enough resources to do what they need to do. The goal should be for every child to realize their full potential. For some kids, that means you need to move a little slower. For others, that means you need to challenge them.

> Grades pretty much exist because we decided that they need to be out of the traditional school system by 20 or so (in most school systems you can only be held back a couple of times). I disagree with grades in general but that's another discussion.

I dunno, I think they are a useful metric for gauging ability in general terms. Not perfect. But I've yet to really see anything better.

Re: Princeton admits record-low 3.98% of applicants

#120

Post by titzer » Fri, Apr 16, 2021, 4:25 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…

So, you think that top schools having top faculty and educators has zero effect on educational outcomes? And somehow they only produce good outcomes because they select good students and that "most of the education is simply due to the types of peers you have".

It's all "selection bias"? Now that's a hot take.

You seem to be laboring under the assumption that elite schools exist as some kind of public service to improve the prospects of average, or randomly selected students. They aren't. They are elite schools, in both good and bad senses. You might as well start comparing the luggage compartments of top fuel dragsters with sedans.