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

41–50 of 227 posts

Re: Princeton admits record-low 3.98% of applicants

#41

Post by endisneigh »

beforeolives wrote: post #36
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…

> 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 agree with you. I went to a top school in order to improve my life prospects as well.

However as a civilization it's important that a school like the one I'm hypothesizing exists because selection bias is not really sustainable, nor does it help those who genuinely want to improve but are otherwise not particularly able.

I also imagine if a "performance school" actually existed its influence would extend far beyond traditional education. It would prove that there's some means in which people can learn optimally. Presumably that mechanism would spread to all industries and we all would be better for it.

Re: Princeton admits record-low 3.98% of applicants

#42

Post by adamhp »

dolni wrote: post #18
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…

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 counselors in high school, so then "underperformed" there as well.

I got lucky and had a peer mentor me and help me figure out the importance of education. I went to community college and transferred to a top tier public university and went on to get a Master's degree, and now I am a high earning, tax paying, productive member of society. Could just be another "underperformer", but I lucked out and received someone else's empathy.

We should be seeking to build a system that works for a variety of learner's, a variety of life situations, and a variety of subjects. We certainly have the technology and we understand that it isn't as simple as "high performers" and "low performers".

Re: Princeton admits record-low 3.98% of applicants

#43

Post by exyi »

debacle wrote: post #19
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…

We have too many smart people for capitalism in its current form to support. If you look for them, you will see artificial barriers erected throughout society to stymie real meritocracy.

Do you think there is not enough demand for software engineering? I find it more likely that these barriers are in place because of political incompetence (expensive US schools) or as a legacy (stupid high school system, no support and motivation for above average students).

Re: Princeton admits record-low 3.98% of applicants

#44

Post by tw8345 »

beforeolives wrote: post #36
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…

> 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).

Yeah the best schools education wise are not the best schools for like prospects. Thats just how it is and most folks dont care about the education bit

Re: Princeton admits record-low 3.98% of applicants

#45

Post by fireattack »

hkmurakami wrote: post #9
happytoexplain wrote: post #2

Context: It's because the students admitted last year requested to defer starting until this year due to COVID, limiting the available space for new applicants. Edit: Also exacerbated by more applicants this year, I suppose due to reduced entry requirements, again due to COVID.

re: admittance rate trends. Low admittance rate is a plus for most college rankings so institutions are incentivized to engage in efforts to increase the size at the top of the funnel. Disclaimer: Princeton alumnus.

Personally I think absolute number of admitted students is a more useful metric, since you can't really control how many people apply, and your capacity is more or less fixed.

From the graph in the article, that is also in decline, but not as sharp (except the outlier of this year, which is caused by other factors).

Re: Princeton admits record-low 3.98% of applicants

#46

Post by whimsicalism »

huitzitziltzin wrote: post #10
1cvmask wrote: post #4

So when we remove the legacies and school fund donators (roughly half) - about 40 to 50 percent of the class, athletes (affirmative action for rich whites with relatively lower credentials and scores) - about 10-20 percent of the class, and regular affirmative action ( about 15 percent of the class and mainly affluent politically connected blacks and latinos). The remainder is the group based on traditional credentia…

>> and mainly affluent politically connected blacks and latinos Where in the world do you get that idea? I challenge you to provide a good source for the claim that the AA students are either affluent OR politically connected.

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 where I grew up, this seems to be true.

I think they worry that Black students from actually Black, and often poor, school districts will not jive well with so many silver spoon swallowers. They want people more accustomed to bougie New England & NYC culture.

Re: Princeton admits record-low 3.98% of applicants

#47

Post by akvadrako »

debacle wrote: post #19
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…

We have too many smart people for capitalism in its current form to support. If you look for them, you will see artificial barriers erected throughout society to stymie real meritocracy.

Capitalism has lots of opportunities for smart people to create wealth. It's hard to just be a "worker" or "researcher", but if you are smart and determined you should be able to create a business that makes the whole world richer.

I do agree though there is a lot of wasted talent and effort.

Re: Princeton admits record-low 3.98% of applicants

#48

Post by busyant »

purple_ferret wrote: post #21

Parsing through 37,601 (and accepting only 1500) applications without standardized testing sounds incredibly difficult. If I were a teenager trying to get into a top school these days, my anxiety would be through the roof. Can't imagine the extracurricular work you have to put in now.

> If I were a teenager trying to get into a top school these days, my anxiety would be through the roof.

If I knew a teenager in this situation, I'd emphasize that there is a large "quasi-random" component to admission to these types of school.

What I mean is that the number of incredibly talented applicants _rejected_ by Princeton and Harvard is probably as large as the number of admissions.

I know someone who is _tenured_ in the physics department @ a HYPS school. He was an undergrad (and grad student) @ Harvard. He once told me that if he applied as an undergraduate today, he'd probably have a 50/50 shot at getting in.

Re: Princeton admits record-low 3.98% of applicants

#49

Post by ghaff »

scarmig wrote: post #33
gnicholas wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Huh? In general they do — either the SAT or the ACT. Only a few big universities don't require them (though COVID has led many/most to change their policies at least temporarily).

In other countries, though, the admissions exams are much more heavily weighted. Here they play a minor role. No one is getting into Harvard on the basis of a perfect SAT score, and plenty of people get in on more than a standard deviation below a perfect score.

Minor role is unfair. It's more like a good score is necessary but not sufficient. Basically, you can have a perfect SAT score and GPA from high school but you have no hobbies or other interests than studying and your essays are unimaginative, you're probably not getting admitted.

But you do need to demonstrate some base level of academic ability.

Re: Princeton admits record-low 3.98% of applicants

#50

Post by pratik661 »

Scott Galloway once proposed taxing the endowments of universities that don’t expand their accepted admissions pool in accordance with population growth at a higher rate.

The logic being that these universities are essentially providers of a “Veblen Good” (elite, exclusive status in society) and should be taxed as such.

Post reply on HN