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

161–170 of 227 posts

Re: Princeton admits record-low 3.98% of applicants

#161

Post by granshaw »

jean-malo wrote: post #152

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 m…

It’s also 100% based on academic and test taking skill - would be good if a more well rounded assessment could be used instead

Re: Princeton admits record-low 3.98% of applicants

#162

Post by amznthrowaway5 »

granshaw wrote: post #161
jean-malo wrote: post #152

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 m…

It’s also 100% based on academic and test taking skill - would be good if a more well rounded assessment could be used instead

Can you name a "well-rounded" assessment that doesn't just end up being a measure of privilege?

Re: Princeton admits record-low 3.98% of applicants

#163

Post by slibhb »

endisneigh wrote: post #125
slibhb wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 j…

Why would an employer hire someone for their "good" job that wasn't a "good" student? No matter what criteria you use to define a good job, all things being equal the better students would go to college and therefore employers are incentivized to only select those who went to college to begin with. Why do you think college is a requirement now to begin with? Is it some sort of conspiracy? What I'm describing has alre…

> Why would an employer hire someone for their "good" job that wasn't a "good" student? No matter what criteria you use to define a good job, all things being equal the better students would go to college and therefore employers are incentivized to only select those who went to college to begin with.

The number of good jobs is not a function of the number of college grads. If there are fewer college grads, employers will have to broaden the search. Let high school graduates apply to entry level positions that aren't manual labor.

> Why do you think college is a requirement now to begin with? Is it some sort of conspiracy? What I'm describing has already occurred. Sorry, but you're living in a fantasy - the vast majority of people who go to college couldn't care less about working in academia nor would there be room for all of them to be academics to begin with.

I'm saying that people who are going to college to get a degree so they can get an entry level job should not be in college. They should just be able to apply to those jobs out of high school.

The people left over, the people who actually want to go to college for the sake of knowledge, will be academically talented (or at least interested).

Re: Princeton admits record-low 3.98% of applicants

#164

Post by hooande »

slibhb wrote: post #115
endisneigh wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 j…

Academia isn't financially self sustaining. Rich parents pay for the prestige of sending their children to certain schools. If college is only for future academics, they'll quickly run out of money.

The general pursuit of academic science could be funded by other means. but it will be hard to match the amount of revenue generated from wealthy parents and alumni

Re: Princeton admits record-low 3.98% of applicants

#165

Post by whimsicalism »

amznthrowaway5 wrote: post #159
whimsicalism wrote: post #154

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. 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.

LOL and you got mad at me for saying that you were "dogwhistling" earlier.

I call it as I see it, and I'm generally not wrong.

Re: Princeton admits record-low 3.98% of applicants

#166

Post by chakerb »

jean-malo wrote: post #152

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 m…

I went through program like this (french-speaking country). My concern after doing those two years are:

1- You learn a lot of useless subjects!! I'm a software engineer now but I studied organic chemistry for two freaking years!! And I don't plan to use that knowledge (most of which I totally forgot) anywhere in the future. Something that I wouldn't have picked if I was studying CS in the US.

2- You're using the same filter for everyone, and people can have different type of intelligence which can go unnoticed via such program.

3- You don't get to chose the thing you love if you don't rank well! Actually you may end up with something that you hate, because that's what's left! And you only know this after you spent two years of your life!

4- It's mostly about hard work and luck!!

5- You get out with almost only theoretical skills in the first two years. A good thing if you're looking to continue in the research track afterword but a bit of disadvantage (compared to people who used those two years to master the required skill for the job market).

Re: Princeton admits record-low 3.98% of applicants

#167

Post by HDMI_Cable »

wkoury wrote: post #104

Last year I made an app for a professor that tells you your chances of getting into Harvard based on your high school circumstances. The results are pretty crazy: https://wkoury.github.io/harvard-admissions/

Wow, if you have a perfect SAT, perfect grades, and are of a race which is more likely to get in, you still only have a ~50% chance. It really seems like a lot of these admissions are purely random, unless you're a legacy kid or football player.

I'm not American (Canada), and I beat myself up over not applying in the US, because of intangibles like "networking" and "small class sizes". Now I'm glad I didn't, this seems fucked up.

Re: Princeton admits record-low 3.98% of applicants

#168

Post by slibhb »

hooande wrote: post #164
slibhb wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 j…

Academia isn't financially self sustaining. Rich parents pay for the prestige of sending their children to certain schools. If college is only for future academics, they'll quickly run out of money. The general pursuit of academic science could be funded by other means. but it will be hard to match the amount of revenue generated from wealthy parents and alumni

Colleges are obscenely bloated mini-empires. They have grown their own legal systems and police forces. They should have far, far less money.

Re: Princeton admits record-low 3.98% of applicants

#169

Post by dolni »

gugagore wrote: post #142
dolni wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 th…

> 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?

Seems like a bit of a bad faith take here. Of course I didn't mean that there "are kids who are good at school and kids who suck" and that's it. Some kids are really strong in a particular subject. Some kids really struggle in a particular subject.

Growing up, we have all observed peers who are in say, math class, and kids seem to grasp every new concept that is taught intuitively. There are others who seem to struggle with everything. There is also the wide range in between.

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

It does mention differences, and then follows up with something to the effect of "well if we only didn't take note of their differences, and try to give them appropriately challenging coursework, they would do better!" As if to imply that really they're not that different. They are just as capable and the difference is mostly a result of reinforcing their ability by track placement.

It's flowery language. Some people are dumb, some people are geniuses, and most people are just mediocre. It's not fair, but that is the way life is.

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

No need to assume my emotional state here now. No ill-will was intended -- that text just rang my bullshit alarm and was woefully unconvincing to me, that's all. Sorry if I offended you.

Any time somebody writes things that presume to understand the myriad factors in someone's psyche, and how particular words are impacting them or not, need to show up with a mountain of evidence. There are way too many factors at play, and way too little evidence for such a bold claim to stand up to any scrutiny.

Re: Princeton admits record-low 3.98% of applicants

#170

Post by outlace »

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…

Pros and cons like anything but one big pro of corralling all the most productive and intelligent people together is the network effect that can have. Big things can happen when you get a bunch of really smart people together that wouldn’t have happened if they were all dispersed.
Post reply on HN