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

Top colleges should select randomly from a pool of ‘good enough’ (2005)

chronicle.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 307 posts

Re: Top colleges should select randomly from a pool of ‘good enough’ (2005)

#191

Post by tyingq »

huevosabio wrote: post #183
tyingq wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"they accept the top 10% of each high school's class into all UT schools" Sort of. Most of them that want to go to UT want UT Austin. There's not enough room there for all of them.

It used to be the case (when I was in High School) that 10% meant ticket to UT Austin, in fact a huge fraction of students at UT Austin were 10% students. I found this policy excellent, it meant I had a bunch of colleagues from really small towns with no resources and this was clearly life changing for those attending college. It felt like everything college is supposed to be (even if imperfect).

A lot do make it in, but some of the programs are limited in how many they can take. Which sucks, because some of the alternatives don't offer much of a campus experience...like UT Arlington.

Re: Top colleges should select randomly from a pool of ‘good enough’ (2005)

#193

Post by samatman »

tyingq wrote: post #172
samatman wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm curious how the Montgomery GI Bill changes that calculus. My distant understanding is that a not-insignificant number of people join the military because this will give them a full ride in college. They can't make much more than the Army pays with a high school diploma, and they can't afford college without either crippling debt or something like the GI Bill. But I don't have any facts here, just going off what a…

Sure. It's just those scores (or the implied intelligence) could probably get you into programs like the one where the Navy pays you a stipend while at college, and pays for college...before you join the military, as an officer. The other branches have similar programs. There's quite a lot of crap to go through before you get to use that GI bill money :)

Ah, that makes sense, thank you!

Re: Top colleges should select randomly from a pool of ‘good enough’ (2005)

#194

Post by murgindrag »

ausbah wrote: post #110
murgindrag wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The only difference between top colleges and not-so-top colleges is admissions and endowment.

and research output, the academic quality of the average student, class sizes, and more

> and research output

(1) Which has no impact on student learning (what nominally is what the undergrads are there for)

(2) And where there's a lot more academic malpractice at the elites. Most people don't get to be an MIT professor without cheating at least a little bit to get that extra edge.

Quality of faculty, which IS important, is identical until you get into really lower tiers.

> the academic quality of the average student

Indeed. So the question is to you want to segregate or integrate? Would the world be better off with all the smart kids and rich kids at one institution, and everyone else at another, or with everyone together? Remember at universities, kids can take different classes, so a freshman can take grad-level courses if they're so inclined.

Elite schools give you elite brand stamps and elite networks coming out. That's their key value-add. And it's totally worth it.

> class sizes

Ummm... No. Student:faculty ratios, usually. But a 4:1 faculty ratio with a 1:1 teaching load versus an 8:1 faculty ratio with a 2:2 teaching load leads to the same class size.

For the most part, elite schools don't have the best teaching. The best teaching happens at the more teaching-focused schools, unsurprisingly (which isn't the same as "small liberal arts..." which are mostly horrible).

> and more

... and again, no.

Re: Top colleges should select randomly from a pool of ‘good enough’ (2005)

#195

Post by stale2002 »

rjkennedy98 wrote: post #122
murgindrag wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't that exactly what I wrote? The whole point of elite schools is to give rich people appearance of intelligence by association. If you take 2000 valedictorians and 500 rich douchebags, have the 500 rich douchebags pay to educate the whole lot, and everyone comes out with a common brand stamp, who benefits? Answer: Everyone involved! Taking away federal funding (as if that were politically possible) would slow it…

> Answer: Everyone involved! What about the rest of us? Did we benefit that George Bush (who claimed never to read a book at Yale) got the certification of an elite degree? What you are saying is the equivalent of saying everyone in the mafia benefited by being part of the mafia. And btw before anyone talks about how Yale (or any other elite school) is private and can make their own decisions - no - they receive MASS…

> What about the rest of us?

The rest would have significantly less spots in college, if this funding method was gotten rid of. So less people would be educated.

If rich people going to an elite college results in significantly more spots at that college being funded, then that is a benefit.

Re: Top colleges should select randomly from a pool of ‘good enough’ (2005)

#196

Post by murgindrag »

stale2002 wrote: post #195
rjkennedy98 wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Answer: Everyone involved! What about the rest of us? Did we benefit that George Bush (who claimed never to read a book at Yale) got the certification of an elite degree? What you are saying is the equivalent of saying everyone in the mafia benefited by being part of the mafia. And btw before anyone talks about how Yale (or any other elite school) is private and can make their own decisions - no - they receive MASS…

> What about the rest of us? The rest would have significantly less spots in college, if this funding method was gotten rid of. So less people would be educated. If rich people going to an elite college results in significantly more spots at that college being funded, then that is a benefit.

It's not significantly more people. The US has 5000 universities and colleges, and perhaps a dozen really elite schools, depending on where you draw the line. Those schools have more money. No one else does.

And only some of that money comes from donations. Much of it are your taxpayer dollars at work. The direct way is to donate money. The indirect way is to swing government funds.

Re: Top colleges should select randomly from a pool of ‘good enough’ (2005)

#197

Post by chrisseaton »

emddudley wrote: post #170
hardwaregeek wrote: post #130

One interesting example is the UT system. Because affirmative action was banned in Hopwood v. Texas, the UT system resorted to a program where they accept the top 10% of each high school's class into all UT schools. It's an interesting way of doing admissions, albeit not perfect. One critique that I'm anticipating seeing is that this encourages going to a mediocre high school. Except...getting good students to go to…

> One critique that I'm anticipating seeing is that this encourages going to a mediocre high school. Where I live students don't have any choice in which high school to go to. You go to your local high school, unless your family is wealthy and you can afford private schools. I would assume this is the case for 95% of Americans. You must have had a different experience? My family was not wealthy so I did not get a cho…

> Where I live students don't have any choice in which high school to go to.

People choose schools by moving house.

Re: Top colleges should select randomly from a pool of ‘good enough’ (2005)

#198

Post by chrisseaton »

tyingq wrote: post #163
dhosek wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Really? I took the ASVAB when I was looking for ways to fund my college education and considered doing Army Reserve. The only question I had to pause on was one about manual transmissions (I'd never driven stick before and couldn't remember how the gears were numbered on my Schwinn). The recruiter claimed to be blown away by the fact that I scored so high on the test. I was never actually given my score. I wonder if…

They weren't claiming. Your scores are all posted on the wall in basic training. I walked the dorms and saw ~5 aces or very near aces out of maybe 200ish total people's scores. It's just somewhat odd because starting out as an E1 isn't terribly lucrative. It doesn't surprise me that 5 of 200 do that well. It surprises me that 5 of 200 that do so well actually enlist.

> It surprises me that 5 of 200 that do so well actually enlist.

Can't be that surprising that intelligent people value the experience of being in the military?

Re: Top colleges should select randomly from a pool of ‘good enough’ (2005)

#199

Post by abeppu »

mikeyouse wrote: post #138
abeppu wrote: post #126

A bunch of commenters here have gotten fixated on two questions: (a) "meritocracy" and what it means or should mean and (b) whether the value of top colleges derives mainly from being exclusive. I think an interesting / illustrative case is the AMA as the credentialing authority for medical schools. An association of people in the profession, who have a clear interest in the supply of doctors being low, has a clear l…

The AMA doesn't restrict the number of people in medical school, you're thinking of residency slots, and they don't restrict that either. They're in favor of expanding the number of residencies available since everyone knows there is a shortage of doctors. The restriction comes from funding since it's all Federal dollars to pay for the training. https://www.ama-assn.org/press-center/press-releases/ama-bui... Congress…

My mistake. After reading your response, I tried to go back and find where I had originally heard that the AMA contributed to a bottleneck at the med school level. While it is true that the AMA (one side of the LCME partnership) has a role direct role in accreditation of medical schools (which does restrict the number of medical students, albeit not at the level of stipulating a number of seats), it does seem like residencies are the more important bottleneck. However, a meaningful fraction of those residencies are filled by people (including Americans) who did medical school overseas. I read this as suggesting that there are still not enough seats in American med schools, but that foreign institutions have stepped up to provide that training.

Re: Top colleges should select randomly from a pool of ‘good enough’ (2005)

#200

Post by paconbork »

hardwaregeek wrote: post #130

One interesting example is the UT system. Because affirmative action was banned in Hopwood v. Texas, the UT system resorted to a program where they accept the top 10% of each high school's class into all UT schools. It's an interesting way of doing admissions, albeit not perfect. One critique that I'm anticipating seeing is that this encourages going to a mediocre high school. Except...getting good students to go to…

>getting good students to go to mediocre high schools sounds like an excellent way to improve the average quality of schools

I think there's also a lot of value in giving the local students some peers that are more serious about education too. Ideally every school should offer a non-distracting environment for motivated students

Post reply on HN