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

We Don’t Do Legacy (2012)

mitadmissions.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 87 posts

Re: We Don’t Do Legacy (2012)

#61

Post by JoeAltmaier »

BinaryIdiot wrote: post #27
assface wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Not to mention that MIT and other 'elite schools' barely teach well anyways. Ignore this person, they don't know what they are talking about. For better or worse, the 'elite' schools have money. That means they can hire teaching-track professors. These are professors whose sole job is to teach and advise (i.e., they don't spend all their time doing research). And they do a really good job at it. Much better than ov…

>> Not to mention that MIT and other 'elite schools' barely teach well anyways. > Ignore this person, they don't know what they are talking about. I'm not sure that that's fair. Granted I didn't go to a great school; I went to community college because it was what I could afford. But I know many who have attended other, "elite" schools and most of them, barring a few exceptions, told me they basically learned out of…

That's a lot of conclusion from one data point. I went to Stanford, the teaching was top-notch and the students motivated and upbeat. Had guest lectures from Silicon Valley stars, had Stanford facilities to visit (they have their own particle accelerator!) and clubs everywhere.

However my youngest tried to attend Cleveland Institute of Music (a well-respected conservatory). Depressed and burnt out in 1 year. They forgot somewhere that young people are actually living there. The only thing on the online student calendar was Weight Watcher's meetings. No karaoke nights, no community visits (students were instructed to never leave campus), dark dormitory like a submarine. He lost weight and ultimately gave up on the career that led him there.

So I guess that's just 2 data points. Anybody else got a story?

Re: We Don’t Do Legacy (2012)

#62

Post by chayesfss »

zeroer wrote: post #55
chayesfss wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do you leave out the entire administration of the schools who receive the majority of the hard dollars? They have the sure bet, the money up front tied to people who will be dragged down by huge loan amounts I would imagine (not everyone receives a scholarship.). To everyone else it's more of a wager in my mind, maybe the kid will do something in the field of study, most of the time they won't.

I left them out because the purpose of schooling is not to serve the administrators. In any event, MIT grads may graduate with debt, but I think (as a whole) they'll probably manage just fine.

I agree, that's the purpose, sadly many don't feel that's the reality

Re: We Don’t Do Legacy (2012)

#63

Post by userbinator »

jordigh wrote: post #52

I am so used to "legacy" being a disparaging term that I forgot that there were contexts in which it was something someone could find desirable.

I think that's only in the tech world, because I once came upon a "legacy senior home" and none of my (non-tech) friends found it as amusing. Apparently there are plenty of senior homes with legacy in their names.

Re: We Don’t Do Legacy (2012)

#64

Post by uiri »

ocschwar wrote: post #25
_m8fo wrote: post #10

This is the reality: 1. High schools that tend to send high numbers of people to schools with acceptance rates less than 20% tend to be dis-proportionally represented. [1] 2. High schools that send kids to good college are more expensive (either inherently, or because they're in an expensive area). Combine these two and you see the perpetual unfairness of education. Not to mention that MIT and other 'elite schools' b…

>1. High schools that tend to send high numbers of people to schools with acceptance rates less than 20% tend to be dis-proportionally represented. [1] > 2. High schools that send kids to good college are more expensive (either inherently, or because they're in an expensive area). True, but there's nothing MIT can do about it except stop being MIT. At MIT, freshman calculus (if you didn't AP out of it - which you nee…

At my University, there were Calc I, II and III - roughly AB, BC and Multivariate. Calc I is a review of the high school curriculum (at least for local students). I think having a quick review of the chain rule and proceeding from there would be much less of a waste of time. I can't imagine anyone who got through HS Calc failing the first calculus course (although I'm sure it happens) and I think passing the Calc II course on the first try is a good test of the kind of intelligence needed for CS/Engineering. Doing Calculus at MIT's pace doesn't seem unfair at all.

That said, plenty of people repeat Calc II and go on to graduate (often in 5 years instead of 4). My University has a strict rule where if you fail a required course twice, you get kicked out of your program.

Re: We Don’t Do Legacy (2012)

#65

Post by 4258HzG »

assface wrote: post #15
_m8fo wrote: post #10

This is the reality: 1. High schools that tend to send high numbers of people to schools with acceptance rates less than 20% tend to be dis-proportionally represented. [1] 2. High schools that send kids to good college are more expensive (either inherently, or because they're in an expensive area). Combine these two and you see the perpetual unfairness of education. Not to mention that MIT and other 'elite schools' b…

> Not to mention that MIT and other 'elite schools' barely teach well anyways. Ignore this person, they don't know what they are talking about. For better or worse, the 'elite' schools have money. That means they can hire teaching-track professors. These are professors whose sole job is to teach and advise (i.e., they don't spend all their time doing research). And they do a really good job at it. Much better than ov…

>> Not to mention that MIT and other 'elite schools' barely teach well anyways.

> Ignore this person, they don't know what they are talking about.

On the mean these schools have more knowledgeable professors, and regardless of teaching talent will push a course as far as the class can take. So, I found that when reaching grad school students coming from the Ivy's simply covered more in their courses (though not necessarily with more effort or better technique).

State schools aren't always better teaching wise: at many research universities a teaching award can be a kiss of death for gaining tenure, and gaining it tends afflicts professors in the same way.

Re: We Don’t Do Legacy (2012)

#66

Post by pmart123 »

pesenti wrote: post #4

Compare that to most of the Ivy League: " In 2009, Princeton admitted 41.7% of legacy applicants—more than 4.5 times the 9.2% rate of non-legacies. Similarly, in 2006, Brown University admitted 33.5% of alumni children, significantly higher than the 13.8% overall admissions rate. In 2003, Harvard admitted 40% of legacy applicants, compared to the overall 11% acceptance rate. In short, Ivy League and other top schools…

I think there are a few more factors to consider to accurately account for any discrepancy. Early admission candidates have a 3 times greater acceptance rate generally. My guess is more legacy candidates apply early. 2. How many of these legacy candidates have buildings named after their family? Generally, for these families, 3-4 siblings will attend the same college. If 8% of the class is a legacy, would it be fair to assume 1% of these students have had families who have made large donations?

Re: We Don’t Do Legacy (2012)

#67

Post by joshvm »

_m8fo wrote: post #10

This is the reality: 1. High schools that tend to send high numbers of people to schools with acceptance rates less than 20% tend to be dis-proportionally represented. [1] 2. High schools that send kids to good college are more expensive (either inherently, or because they're in an expensive area). Combine these two and you see the perpetual unfairness of education. Not to mention that MIT and other 'elite schools' b…

Really the reason you want to go to an "elite" university is for two things: networking and opportunity. Teaching quality will average out over any reasonably good university. Research quality is totally different, but doesn't matter much as an undergrad unless you get lucky with your dissertation supervisor. At my university our dissertation choices were essentially random, though you could specify your top three.

Opportunity? The best universities can afford to ship in TED-class speakers every week, you get an instant boost in job applications and some companies directly headhunt the best students. Shedloads of funding means world class sports facilities, heavily subsidised student societies and entertainment. Depending where you go, you can hobnob with people who are highly likely to be successful [1] if that's an area you want to go into.

This is, I think, subtly different from top high schools. The difference there is that often the teaching is significantly better than at state/public funded schools. On top of that you have the opportunities that those schools can afford.

I'm not disagreeing that this is elitism, but that teaching quality should probably be a middling priority for most people.

[1] The classic example is PPE at Oxford: https://www.theguardian.com/education/2017/feb/23/ppe-oxford...

Re: We Don’t Do Legacy (2012)

#68

Post by nsp »

watwut wrote: post #48

Is there a stigma associated with being legacy? As in, do people tend to assume you would not make it in otherwise? Or is it unknown who is legacy to teachers and other students?

Speaking based on my experience at Columbia, it's not broadcasted and I don't think the instructors tend to know, but snarky comments will definitely be made if you're doing badly and a legacy

Re: We Don’t Do Legacy (2012)

#69

Post by BeetleB »

zeroer wrote: post #14
_m8fo wrote: post #10

This is the reality: 1. High schools that tend to send high numbers of people to schools with acceptance rates less than 20% tend to be dis-proportionally represented. [1] 2. High schools that send kids to good college are more expensive (either inherently, or because they're in an expensive area). Combine these two and you see the perpetual unfairness of education. Not to mention that MIT and other 'elite schools' b…

> MIT and other 'elite schools' barely teach well anyways. This is true, but there's a lot of value in being surrounded by peers who are at your level or a little better who push you to become better than you would otherwise.

>This is true, but there's a lot of value in being surrounded by peers who are at your level or a little better who push you to become better than you would otherwise.

Totally this. I went to a mediocre undergrad and a top 5 school for grad. The only thing the undergrad was missing were those kinds of peers. Everything else was either better or the same in my undergrad university.

Re: We Don’t Do Legacy (2012)

#70

Post by amyjess »

aplummer wrote: post #24
mirceam wrote: post #9

School admissions should be reviewed like (some) conference papers, i.e. single-blind review. The name of the student is never known when considering him/her.

It's a weird system, in Australia we all get a standard score on leaving high school and if your score is higher than the next person choosing your degree preference you win the spot. Different for medicine only AFAIK.

I'm fond of the system in Texas. If you graduate in the top 10% of your class, you get automatically accepted to any public university in the state (well, any one you apply to).

I had zero interest in extracurriculars or anything of the like, so I was never going to get into a competitive university. But I'm smart, and I have a near-photographic memory, so I aced most of my classes without having to study too much, so I was able to graduate in the top 10% and then went to UT Dallas, which is possibly the best tech school in the southwest. I'm really, really glad I went to UTD; I made lifelong friends there, the people I hung out with really helped shape my interests, I'm still running into UTD alumni everywhere I go, etc.

Post reply on HN