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

Re: Princeton admits record-low 3.98% of applicants

#141

Post by honkycat » Fri, Apr 16, 2021, 4:44 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…

No, montecarl, higher education should only be for kids who get the most obedience points in child jail.

Please ignore the vast gulf of quality between child jails, if they were gifted students they would have risen to the top anyway.

Re: Princeton admits record-low 3.98% of applicants

#142

Post by gugagore » Fri, Apr 16, 2021, 4:45 PM UTC

dolni wrote: post #134

gugagore wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it's more interesting not to take for granted that this grouping (often called "tracking" in K-12) makes obvious sense. http://www.ascd.org/publications/books/108013/chapters/What-... > Do students differ in talents and achievement? They do. But when those observed differences are reinforced by track placement and grouping practices, and children then internalize those differences, learning opportunities beco…

To be blunt, this sounds like a lot of flowery-language bullshit that isn't backed by anything. Anybody who has been through education has observed that there are the people who "get it" and the people who struggle. And similarly, if you take an expert in some field and have them start explaining concepts to a random person that are at the very edge of the expert's knowledge, said person will be completely lost. This…

> Anybody who has been through education has observed that there are the people who "get it" and the people who struggle.

I've been through education, and my take-away is that it's quite a bit more nuanced than that dichotomy. Get what? Struggle with what?

> The idea that "we all can do it" because "we're all equals" is doing a disservice to the kids who struggle. You better prepare them by putting them in courses that are matched to their level and challenge them appropriately.

Strawman. The idea isn't simply "everyone is equal". The literal first thing I quote mentions differences.

> To be blunt

> But all this "not sorting" kids stuff? That's just nonsense.

Careful not to confuse being blunt with being upset and stubborn! Or maybe you just really like the hat in Harry Potter!

Re: Princeton admits record-low 3.98% of applicants

#143

Post by tomp » Fri, Apr 16, 2021, 4:46 PM UTC

adamhp wrote: post #96

nine_k wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ability (not innate, but current) to learn a particular set of things. How well you are prepared, motivated, and maybe even have some innate bonus points. This ability may vary wildly across subjects (maths vs biology vs history), and with time (acute cases of interest / commitment, or distracting factors like romance or gaming). In any case, batching people by the level of current ability is helpful. This is a compl…

> Ability (not innate, but current) to learn a particular set of things. How well you are prepared, motivated, and maybe even have some innate bonus points. Again, you have kind of a chicken-and-egg problem here. Ability is typically measured by standardized testing, which is a poor proxy. The same way engineering interviews are a poor proxy for actually measuring engineering ability or ability to add value as an SDE…

Noone said that you need to forcefully segregate people based on ability. You don't even need to measure it!

Just offer different classes, with different difficulties. Some people will be bored and go to more advanced classes, others will struggle and move to less advanced classes.

There's actually a well-organised system that almost does this - primary school! Except that there, people are forcefully grouped by age, when there's really no need for that. That's (one of the reasons) why I advocate for mixed-age education.

Re: Princeton admits record-low 3.98% of applicants

#144

Post by kiba » Fri, Apr 16, 2021, 4:46 PM UTC

brightball wrote: post #97

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…

The way to get there, IMO, is a lot more freedom to experiment. Not just charters, but something closer to a startup culture. A) Innovative teacher decides to go out on his own B) 20 parents like what he has to say and want to enroll their kids C) Existing tax money pay the per-student rate for the 20 enrolled to participate D) Program is successful, more parents and students want to enroll. New teachers are hired an…

Program fails, and parents are mad/furious about their kids not learning anything and years wasted.

Re: Princeton admits record-low 3.98% of applicants

#145

Post by rajin444 » Fri, Apr 16, 2021, 4:46 PM UTC

adamhp wrote: post #42

dolni wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 p…

> It makes sense to group people for education based on ability Ability to do what exactly? Your premise is based on this idea of "performance" as if it that is easily measurable or is some innate quality of a person. Performance is a function of the system itself though. Speaking from the perspective of someone in the United States: I didn't "perform well enough" in middle school and so got ignored by staff and coun…

How do you know you wouldn't have ended up where you are without a mentor? There's no control here. AFAIK twin studies provide the best insight we can get within ethical means.

Re: Princeton admits record-low 3.98% of applicants

#146

Post by amznthrowaway5 » Fri, Apr 16, 2021, 4:46 PM UTC

csa wrote: post #130

amznthrowaway5 wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

First, I am discussing low-SES schools in the US. It can be very different in other countries, especially Asian countries (first hand experience seeing this). That said, in the US, many people (Asians included) can go to shitty schools and still succeed. Their success is despite the formal education they got at a low SES school, not because of it. Generally when you see elite school success from students from low-SES…

There are lots of Asians that grow up poor in the US and excel at far higher rates than poor African-Americans. There isn't really much evidence that SES has a large impact on things like SAT scores, I doubt it would affect being able to do well at Harvard (which I've heard is actually very easy once you get in).

Re: Princeton admits record-low 3.98% of applicants

#147

Post by finexplained » Fri, Apr 16, 2021, 4:46 PM UTC

It blows my mind that a record-low acceptance rate is held up as an achievement, and not a structural failure. Why is the metric not "we are able to educate X% of students who meet this well-defined bar"? There are some departments in institutions (think CS) who, in the face of exploding enrollments, have made every effort to scale their courses to accommodate as many students who are capable as possible. And they do that with substantially fewer resources than many of these Ivies. Why, as a society, do we tolerate universities selling "exclusivity" instead of education?

Re: Princeton admits record-low 3.98% of applicants

#148

Post by whimsicalism » Fri, Apr 16, 2021, 4:48 PM UTC

disgruntledphd2 wrote: post #135

Kevin_S wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I finished at near the bottom of my undergrad. Got a PhD and a job that uses those skills, which puts me in the top 10% of graduates in my field. So yeah, study and research are very different.

What the hell are you all getting PhDs in where it is a doable path if you are near the bottom of your undergrad?

I've explored a PhD in CS, and reading what people write I've gotten the impression that it is extremely difficult to get into programs.

Re: Princeton admits record-low 3.98% of applicants

#149

Post by bko » Fri, Apr 16, 2021, 4:48 PM UTC

bumby wrote: post #73

beforeolives wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> beyond a reasonable doubt the school itself has improved the persons educational prospects. How many people do genuinely care about this? People go to top schools in order to improve their life prospects, not necessarily to get the best education (but they get that too anyway).

I believe there’s research that shows elite schools do not improve ones life prospects, with the exception of those from lower income households. They looked at those who were accepted to elite schools and went to “lesser” schools. Those people did not have worse outcomes, indicating the elite schools are selecting those who would have done well regardless. I do think this makes an interesting case for admitting more…

It appears the opposite may be true

> But it turns out that the proportional increase for those who grew up poor is much less than for those who did not. College graduates from families with an income below 185 percent of the federal poverty level (the eligibility threshold for the federal assisted lunch program) earn 91 percent more over their careers than high school graduates from the same income group. By comparison, college graduates from families with incomes above 185 percent of the FPL earned 162 percent more over their careers (between the ages of 25 and 62) than those with just a high school diploma:

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/social-mobility-memos/2016/02...

Re: Princeton admits record-low 3.98% of applicants

#150

Post by robertoandred » Fri, Apr 16, 2021, 4:49 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.

There's no reason a standardized test's worth should hinge on what a student might focus on in college. There's no reason any college student shouldn't arrive without a basic grasp of English or math.