<p>Derrick, you're right. I triple-checked the address. It links correctly when typed into the browser, but for some reason not when linked on cC. Hmm.</p>
<p>Ramaswami,
Are you saying that because many Congressional leaders, and others in gov't, graduated from H & other Ivies <em>before</em> these schools selected very much for character or leadership, that now we're in a mess in Iraq?</p>
<p>And on the one hand you talk about test scores; on another, Ted Kazycinski, all stemming from the same supposedly flawed admissions policy. Admissions policies are not responsible for all ills in the world, nor is any perceived trend toward social engineering.</p>
<p>Some of us see many perverse priorities in our society, by those in power, but we see them much more operative in <em>pre-college</em> education and in <em>local</em> government and local employment: areas touched more by large numbers of people's everyday lives than events like the Unambomber.</p>
<p>Kaczynski is not a great example, considering the brutal psychological experiments he was subjected to at Harvard may have contributed to what he became.</p>
<p>From the Atlantic Monthly
<a href="http://www.unabombers.com/MKUltraInvoices.htm%5B/url%5D">http://www.unabombers.com/MKUltraInvoices.htm</a>
"In the fall of 1958 Theodore Kaczynski, a brilliant but vulnerable boy of sixteen, entered Harvard College. There he encountered a prevailing intellectual atmosphere of anti-technological despair. There, also, he was deceived into subjecting himself to a series of purposely brutalizing psychological experiments -- experiments that may have confirmed his still-forming belief in the evil of science. Was the Unabomber born at Harvard? A look inside the files ..."</p>
<p>epiphany, I am saying that Harvard etc have always claimed they selected for character. In Karabel's book The Chosen, there are examples of how candidates were rejected because they lacked character. All factors used to measure character, whether in the 20s, 30s or 90s, have been subjective and very imprecise. There were Jewish characteristcs, good WASP characteristics, now Asian characteristics, etc. We get beguiled , generation after generation, into believing that we know how to select for character better than previous generations but we keep making the same mistakes. Earlier, it was the athlete, the well rounded Yankee or the boarding school type or those from established families that supposedly passed character down the family tree. Today, it is judged by the essay, the save Darfur campaign, overcoming adversity, etc etc. Character is impossible to predict or control for. I am a forensic psychologist and even with extensive history of violence and psych test data, future violence is nearly impossible to predict. Also, the ad coms are not filled with people who have spent a lifetime in psychometics and psych assessment. There are severe problems with teacher recs, essays, and participation in clubs etc, too cumbersome to go into here. There has been no correlation between ethics classes in business school and business fraud for example. We will be better off selecting based on more valid but also weak and unreliable predictors such as IQ, SAT, GPA, etc etc. By the way, intelligence alone is not a good predictor of happiness or life success but I repeat it is the best of all available measures on leadership.</p>
<p>^^ramiswaami, maybe you need to write your own book about how college admissions is flawed from the perspective of a forensic psychologist.</p>
<p>yeah, actually, he should, bc he knows his sh1t</p>
<p>collegalum, go ahead, make fun of me but please pay attention to my perspective. Re Kacynski, I am aware of Murray's experiments. Leary and Alpert were also doing experiments. But TK was and is a paranoid schizophrenic, had his first break at age 21.</p>
<p>i am not making fun of you, ramaswami.</p>
<p>i am totally serious.</p>
<p>b4nnd20, go on, pull my leg!</p>
<p>ramaswami,
I am aware of Karabel's book, and also separately done a fair amount of reading about <em>current</em> vs. previous trends in leadership selection. You yourself hinted at this when you mentioned e.c.'s, which while always somewhat important at Ivies, had not the stature when our current senators were schooled there, that they do now. </p>
<p>Of course character is "impossible to predict or control for" in an absolute sense. Nor is there any guarantee that a person of fine character upon entrance will maintain that, after graduation & into private life. However, first of all, I don't think that admissions committees are picking character from some psychometric assessment. It's more like a subjective evaluation based on a series of indicators, separating someone who may sound highly self-involved from someone who may be more balanced. Second, people change. Angels turn into demons, in many walks of life - from the energy industry to politics to the fields of education and religion.</p>
<p>Now admissions policies should be trashed because their graduating products are as imperfect 4 yrs later as they were upon entrance? I don't think H pretends to be a monastery.</p>
<p>ephiphany, all your points are valid. All I am saying is 1) intelligence correlates best with leadership 2) selecting for leadership is not the same as selecting for character because the two are not the same 3) you can select for leadership with better validity and reliability than for character 4) selecting for character is not only nearly impossible but fraught with problems. For example, a charming and gregarious persona with a sense of genuineness can be an indicator for a psychopathic personality (see Ted Bundy). That is because of a defense mechanism called reaction formation. Ad coms may read more meaning into what they think are predictors and indicators when they are not. 5) The very fact that ad coms seem to convince themselves they are doing a good job is ominous. They may be too arrogant for everyone's good.</p>
<p>i dont understand why you are defending harvards admission policies epiphany. im curious what your pt is?</p>
<p>re: character evaluation in admissions
i dont think harvard is recruiting sinister future murderers ;)...but i do think "character" becomes extremely superficial, subjective, and irrelevant in the context of 20,000 applications in front of a hurried committee. character in admissions is NOT this great higher standard, epiphany...it too is extremely limited. at least numbers are numbers. you can't boil them down any further, or extrapolate them. but character? do you really think character is somehow a golden standard/criterion as represented on 1 piece of paper, looked over for 30 mins? absolutely not. if harvard REALLY judged people's characters, which I wish it somehow could, then interviews would actually matter, and the application would be much much longer. sadly, logistically that is not possible...and that's why i think intelligence and essays should hold greater sway. not to mention the fact that this is college, which is supposedly "higher learning," not "higher political BS."</p>
<p>i see your point to an extent epiphany...just because subjective standards are difficult to implement doesn't mean we should trash them completely. but i think we should draw a line somewhere...and admitting a questionably qualified person with a 1980 when well-rounded 2400s are sitting on the waitlist...it's a little too much. i hope u see what im getting at?</p>
<p>I cannot vouch for epiphany, but on a far more basic and principled level, I find it disturbing when intelligence, which one has even less control over than attractiveness, trumps demonstrated character, which is evidenced by choices and actions. </p>
<p>This nonsense about unqualified 1980's versus qualified 2400's is mere conjecture when we don't have complete case studies in front of us- complete essays, transcripts of interviews, background, culture, socioeconomic status, etc.</p>
<p>I know it is impractical to request that information, but the fact that we are attaching spurious labels of "qualified" and "well-rounded" leads me to speculate on what people are basing these labels on. SAT scores? I thought it was the general consensus on these boards that SAT scores are not necessarily indicative of future success or potential, and that they do not have desirable levels of predictive validity.</p>
<p>Or are we simply relaxing the facts in favor of fictional arguments based on fictional claims?</p>
<p>
[quote]
I find it disturbing when intelligence, which one has even less control over than attractiveness, trumps demonstrated character, which is evidenced by choices and actions.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>So do I. I don't think anyone here is saying that we must admit only 1600s, and screw character standards completely. Here's what I said earlier in this thread which I believe pertains to your point:</p>
<p>
[quote]
so, basically, my point is: if you want to be a real top college, don't seek out people who just have high test scores...look for smart and intellectually curious, well rounded students...but also, don't seek out people who are accomplished/have good character but just, bottom line, are not smart. i worry that harvard is just admitting these people to make a point--i mean, how else can you justify brilliant, motivated, well-rounded 2400s getting denied, and people like this girl getting in? (all due respect.)
[/quote]
</p>
<p>i'm only saying this because i see a LOT of wonderful, well-rounded 2300-2400 kids with great character being turned down because of stupid arbitrary things (too asian, their application makes them look textureless, they're not from maine, etc.) and that's why i get mad when i see people get in who aren't as qualified. you say these less intelligent people are getting in because the 2400s can't compete in terms of character? please. there is no dearth of honest, good smart kids. but they do get screwed in college admissions and that is whats sad to me.</p>
<p>oh, and if you want proof that there is character discrimination against good hardworking (but also interesting, well-rounded) kids, read this. if you are not outraged, you clearly have an axe to grind here and i can't do anything more to persuade you. this is an article from this years crimson talking about one instance of unfairness in admissions standards at harvard; that case is that of asian american applicants:</p>
<p>
[quote]
In fact, in response to public pressure about discrimination and quotas in 1988, Harvard’s Dean of Admissions and Financial Aid William R. Fitzsimmons ’67 asserted that “while Asian Americans are slightly stronger than whites on academic criteria, they are slightly less strong on extracurricular criteria.” These comments are eerily reminiscent of the stereotyping of Jews in attempts to limit their enrollment in the early 20th century. </p>
<p>Daniel Golden reveals in “The Price of Admission” that Harvard admissions officers rank “Asian American candidates on average below whites in ‘personal qualities,’” as well as frequently comment that they are “‘quiet/shy” and “hard workers.” Without evidence to substantiate these generalizations, these comments smack of a self-fulfilling stereotype: Admissions officers expect Asian applicants to have such qualities, and therefore see these in them more so than they would in a non-Asian applicant. Besides the intrinsically problematic nature of such generalizations, since when did shy, quiet, and hardworking somehow become “below average personal qualities?”
[/quote]
</p>
<p>this is why character talk bothers me. in admissions, i WISH it was about finding character. more often, character is used as an excuse to hide politics and gamesplaying--often discriminatory.</p>
<p>can you believe this? i can't believe you defend it.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Official after official went on the record for Golden on the matter. The reasons for the rejections? One Korean student, applying from a top prep school, got pegged at MIT as “yet another textureless math grind.” At Vanderbilt, a former admissions staffer offered that Asians “are very good students, but don’t provide the kind of intellectual environment” that colleges are looking for.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>The meat of my post was really that we keep using SATs as some arbitrary scale of intelligence, vapidly assuming that Mr. 2400 is smarter than Mr. 1900. And yet we turn around and in a different topic about inflated GPA's and coachable SATs do not accurately guage intelligence. Then why are we determining that applicants are on "bottom line, are not smart". Based on their SATs. What I'm saying is that I want some hard evidence, not one test.</p>
<p>From the original post:</p>
<p>
[quote]
This person got a 29 on her ACTS and a 1980-ish on her SAT I.
Her SAT IIs were around 720 history, 680 math, and 590 literature.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That's 5 tests, not 1.</p>
<p>Look...it's not my mission in life to prove that a couple admitted students were "stupid." But come on...you really believe that someone who took 5 different standardized tests (and was wealthy enough to afford the US Senate Youth program) wasn't privileged enough to get coaching or prep too? I don't understand why you're making excuses for people like this. 1900 < 2300, plain and simple.</p>
<p>Even if you're right that SATs are flawed...is that a good enough reason to actively choose a person scoring 1980 with a 4.0 over a person scoring a 2400 with a 4.0? You still haven't resolved that issue for me.</p>
<p>b4,
I'm kind of tired of repeating myself. Please see my post #65 on the thread entitled "Must-See Video." It expresses why the phrase "a questionably qualified person with a 1980" is without substantiation. You don't know what the qualifications are, other than a score -- which is one of the many, many "very important" factors in Column One of "considered in admission" on the published Common Data Sets of many Universities.</p>
<p>No, you actually took off from a debate I was having with ramaswami about H admissions policies being supposedly the source of society's evils today. I maintain that one institution is hardly to blame for multiple categories of ills. I don't see <em>your</em> point, since now I'm suddenly to blame for perhaps creating H admissions policies, which I did not. I defend holistic admissions in general. Particular decisions, should I have been on a particular committee, might have nevertheless offended me. But I've not been on such an admissions committee. The process for the decision making varies somewhat, college to college. (It's quite different at Penn than at Duke.) In general, though, I believe that holistic admissions, which looks at varieties of measures of potential & accomplishment & promise, is more supportable than admissions based on wealth & name (the old days), or pure numbers.</p>
<p>That's all. Quit banging on my teakettle, as they say in Yiddish.</p>
<p>actually, it's great, the extent to which we agree.</p>
<p>ramaswami, regarding your post 50:</p>
<p>Yes, I also was going to make the point that character & leadership are 2 diff. things. I didn't assume they were identical, but your earlier post implied they were. However, there are situations where they do overlap, & some U's do in fact mean leadership-with-character when they say "leadership." There are categories of scholarships at both public & private U's, which are targeted for such combined qualities. </p>
<p>Some institutions place a premium on the extroversion (social) aspect of leadership, others on the business-management skills to manage other people, still others on the essential personal sacrifices which characterize the selfless leader. Leadership is variously defined morally, socially, or practically, depending on the values of the institution or the grantor/founder of the scholarship.</p>
<p>But speaking of people asking What is the Point?, I do not see how a non-statistically-quantifiable admissions methodology equates to creating evils in society & abroad. Quite a leap.</p>
<p>Well, um, as an aside from all the intense debate here, congrats to your friend TC</p>