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

Princeton admits record-low 3.98% of applicants

dailyprincetonian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 227 posts

Re: Princeton admits record-low 3.98% of applicants

#151

Post by whimsicalism »

analog31 wrote: post #90
supernova87a wrote: post #51

First of all, a major issue here is that we don't have enough good universities to accept all the talented kids applying. That holds true for high schools, etc. wherever there is contentious debate over "equity" or merit-based admissions. Just increase the number of good schools (which has not been done in proportion to population growth) and many things are solved. Just like how you never hear people in countries wi…

Indeed, I don't think there's a social or economic reason why higher education should be a scarce good. Likewise health care. There was a recent article suggesting that Stanford should just replicate itself in multiple states. My own preferred route would be bottom-up: Start by bolstering the community and technical colleges, then the regional public colleges, and finally large state universities. The "elite" private…

Princeton != Higher education writ large.

Exclusive educational institutions like Princeton are inherently a scarce good.

Re: Princeton admits record-low 3.98% of applicants

#152

Post by jean-malo »

I've always thought that the French model for top-tier engineering schools was cruel but it might have some merits.

You essentially study for two years post high-school to take a competitive exam, your ranking in this exam determines where you can go (first place chooses, then the second place gets to pick etc.) You suffer for two years but at the end it's based mostly on merit.

Obviously it's not entirely based on merit as privileged kids have a huge head start but you at least get a chance to catch up during those two years.

Re: Princeton admits record-low 3.98% of applicants

#153

Post by kiba »

supernova87a wrote: post #51

First of all, a major issue here is that we don't have enough good universities to accept all the talented kids applying. That holds true for high schools, etc. wherever there is contentious debate over "equity" or merit-based admissions. Just increase the number of good schools (which has not been done in proportion to population growth) and many things are solved. Just like how you never hear people in countries wi…

If you judge people only on skills and talent, you will surely further stratify society.

Who has the most advantages to succeed in that kind of environment? The rich. Because they have the most resources and likely the most well raised and educated kids.

Re: Princeton admits record-low 3.98% of applicants

#154

Post by whimsicalism »

amznthrowaway5 wrote: post #146
csa wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

> There are lots of Asians that grow up poor in the US and excel at far higher rates than poor African-Americans.

What do you think explains the difference?

> which I've heard is actually very easy once you get in

Very dependent on what classes you take.

Re: Princeton admits record-low 3.98% of applicants

#155

Post by amznthrowaway5 »

ggjjjttt wrote: post #140
ryan93 wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are lying. You know most students at top schools aren't capable of doing serious scholarly work or engineering. There are more than enough spots for every good student. State schools like UT Austin have 20,000 students who can barely handle freshman level science and math.

In my experience at Princeton, this rings true. I was surprised by the amount of cheating taking place.

Shouldn't come as a surprise, given the types of people admitted and admissions process being a game of lying and cheating.

Re: Princeton admits record-low 3.98% of applicants

#156

Post by kiba »

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…

The higher classes are probably where the best resources and teachers are available.

Winners tend to win more.

Re: Princeton admits record-low 3.98% of applicants

#157

Post by csa »

supernova87a wrote: post #51

First of all, a major issue here is that we don't have enough good universities to accept all the talented kids applying. That holds true for high schools, etc. wherever there is contentious debate over "equity" or merit-based admissions. Just increase the number of good schools (which has not been done in proportion to population growth) and many things are solved. Just like how you never hear people in countries wi…

> First of all, a major issue here is that we don't have enough good universities to accept all the talented kids applying.

Yes, we do. We really do.

There are a surprisingly high number of marginal admits at elite schools who slow down the education of the really smart students (at times).

Some of these marginal admits are there for what is deemed a good reason (e.g., recruited athlete), but others are just filling in the class. These folks are what I call “look alikes”, because they all look alike academically/intellectually — they study hard, jump through hoops skillfully, but are largely incapable of individual initiative or independent thought. A very small number of these folks transition into interesting thinkers while at school, but most don’t.

The really smart kids often go into the smart majors that have early hard courses that weed out the weaker students, and these weaker students find themselves in majors that cater to students who are not at the top of the intellectual ladder at their given school.

As a simple example, how many math departments at elite schools are complaining that they have too many really good students such that they can’t handle the load in upper division classes. The answer rounds to zero.

> Contorted rules and processes incentivize people to do stupid things. Like having 17 year olds compete in an essay contest to see who is the most disadvantaged

If you think this is how the vast majority of elite school admits get in, then you are woefully mistaken.

Re: Princeton admits record-low 3.98% of applicants

#158

Post by pradn »

ryan93 wrote: post #101
supernova87a wrote: post #51

First of all, a major issue here is that we don't have enough good universities to accept all the talented kids applying. That holds true for high schools, etc. wherever there is contentious debate over "equity" or merit-based admissions. Just increase the number of good schools (which has not been done in proportion to population growth) and many things are solved. Just like how you never hear people in countries wi…

You are lying. You know most students at top schools aren't capable of doing serious scholarly work or engineering. There are more than enough spots for every good student. State schools like UT Austin have 20,000 students who can barely handle freshman level science and math.

Bio 101 at UT gets like 500 students per class, with 3-4 sections for the fall semester. If students fail then, is it because they are not capable of learning the material, or is it because they've been thrown into a totally new environment, where some extra guidance and close attention from TAs would help? There are a commensurately higher number of TAs for these classes, but the quality of teaching and energy they bring varies dramatically.

Re: Princeton admits record-low 3.98% of applicants

#159

Post by amznthrowaway5 »

whimsicalism wrote: post #154
amznthrowaway5 wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

> There are lots of Asians that grow up poor in the US and excel at far higher rates than poor African-Americans. What do you think explains the difference? > which I've heard is actually very easy once you get in Very dependent on what classes you take.

> What do you think explains the difference?

The Asians, at least the ones who come to the US, being a far more elite group in terms of genes for academic success.

Re: Princeton admits record-low 3.98% of applicants

#160

Post by andy9775 »

bko wrote: post #149
bumby wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 compari…

Are you accounting for family connections? High income families tend to have connections which can help. If your parents are good friends with a lawyer at a top law firm you no longer have to apply on your own merit. Poor families lack these connections and students have to apply on their own. Something to consider.
Post reply on HN