A new (and larger) Chetty study on elite college admissions is released today

[ucbalumnus]

@1NJParent

Not only LoRs can be very subjective (especially if the teacher had little or infrequent interaction with the student), but they can also unconsciously convey personal biases.

Another issue with LoRs is that an elite high school with a dedicated college counseling staff can help each student choose the optimal LoR writers as well as coach LoR writers on how to write LoRs that impress college admission readers. In contrast, a student at a typical public school probably has no idea which teachers are good LoR writers, their overloaded general counselor has no idea or no time to help in this respect, and the student may get rationed out of getting LoRs from the teachers whose classes they did best in.

[worriedmomucb]

@Mwfan1921

This is really sad. It denies students an opportunity to earn merit scholarships, and frankly is unethical, IMO of course.

Maybe it’s a Bay Area thing? I don’t know anyone from D’s high school who took the PSAT. It is never mentioned by counselors (or teachers) at all. I’m sure there are some who do take it, but it is not the norm. The other part of this is that it is extremely hard to get NMSF in California, as I understand, so maybe little point. No idea. But it’s not really much of a thing here.

[Mwfan1921]

@worriedmomucb

Maybe it’s a Bay Area thing? I don’t know anyone from D’s high school who took the PSAT. It is never mentioned by counselors (or teachers) at all. I’m sure there are some who do take it, but it is not the norm. The other part of this is that it is extremely hard to get NMSF in California, as I understand, so maybe little point. No idea. But it’s not really much of a thing here.

CA does have one of the highest average selection index scores National Merit Semifinalist Cutoffs Class of 2025

I don’t know why all public schools don’t offer the PSAT-NMSQT in CA, but suffice it to say that for the students who become NMSF/NMF, having a full ride to college could be life changing. Why limit students’ access to this test?

[citivas]

It sounds like your kids school doesn’t but I wouldn’t generalize that to the Bay Area as a whole. There are plenty of schools in the Bay Area administering the PSAT, as is also evidenced by all the NMSFs from there. My wife even took it decades ago in the Bay Area.

[worriedmomucb]

@citivas

It sounds like your kids school doesn’t but I wouldn’t generalize that to the Bay Area as a whole.

I was just guessing based on tamagotchi’s post (I know they’re in a neighboring district here in the East Bay).

[skieurope]

Might I remind members of the forum rules: “Our forum is expected to be a friendly and welcoming place, and one in which members can post without their motives, intelligence, or other personal characteristics being questioned by others."

and

“College Confidential forums exist to discuss college admission and other topics of interest. It is not a place for contentious debate. If you find yourself repeating talking points, it might be time to step away and do something else… If a thread starts to get heated, it might be closed or heavily moderated.”

Since I’ve had to delete several snarky posts, I think we’d be well served to pause the thread.

http://talk.qa.collegeconfidential.com/guidelines

[Aimlesscat1]

Interesting, it was required by my kids Bay Area private school.

[1NJParent]

@ucbalumnus

Another issue with LoRs is that an elite high school with a dedicated college counseling staff can help each student choose the optimal LoR writers as well as coach LoR writers on how to write LoRs that impress college admission readers. In contrast, a student at a typical public school probably has no idea which teachers are good LoR writers, their overloaded general counselor has no idea or no time to help in this respect, and the student may get rationed out of getting LoRs from the teachers whose classes they did best in.

Absolutely. AOs, however, would almost certainly claim that they look at LoRs, like everything else in the application, “in-context”. How well they can fulfill their claims is something else entirely.

[ColdWombat]

Yep, my department has just decided to drop our standardized testing requirement for graduate admissions. It doesn’t predict success in the program, and there are bias issues as well. That is where things are headed for many grad programs, I suspect.

[Hanna]

@gwnorth

Actually GRE scores at least became optional during the pandemic the same time as SAT/ACT

I was responding to the data in @DarkMatter565’s post, which is not post-pandemic data.

[mtmind]

@1NJParent

Absolutely. AOs, however, would almost certainly claim that they look at LoRs, like everything else in the application, “in-context”. How well they can fulfill their claims is something else entirely.

Given that LoRs are written by teachers/principals/GCs in the student’s particular school, I don’t understand your implication that AO’s could not view them “in-context.”

[Zrt42]

@1NJParent

The focus on these colleges is warranted, the researchers say, because they provide paths to power and influence — and diversifying who attends has the potential to change who makes decisions in America.

This is interesting.

The consensus on this site seems to be that “it is the student, and not the school.”

Do these researchers have valid credentials? Are they respected in their fields? If the answer to these questions are “Yes,” what is the foundation of the belief that attending an Ivy + school does not offer the potential for any advantages by so many?

[Hanna]

@Zrt42

the belief that attending an Ivy + school does not offer the potential for any advantages by so many?

This is a straw man. Who are the “many” people who have said there is no “potential for any advantages” at any Ivy+? That’s a very different position from “It’s the student, not the school,” which many people do believe (including me).

[Zrt42]

My apologies. I am confused by what you said. If it is the student, and not the school…how does that not contradict the referenced study? If an Ivy+ school does offer advantages, then it is the student AND the school, correct?

[Data10]

@Zrt42

The consensus on this site seems to be that “it is the student, and not the school.”

Do these researchers have valid credentials? Are they respected in their fields? If the answer to these questions are “Yes,” what is the foundation of the belief that attending an Ivy + school does not offer the potential for any advantages by so many?

The authors are focusing on 3 specific outcomes for which attending an Ivy+ college may increase chance of that outcome. The authors explicitly state that their analysis does not contradict previous research, such as Dale & Krueger, because D&K focuses on average/median income, rather than chance of >= $650k at age 33. Like D&K, the authors also find little difference in average/median.

1. Working at a firm that employs a disproportionately large number of Ivy+ grads, at age 25
2. Attending an Ivy+ (or 5 publics) for grad school
3. Having a >= $650k income at age 33

The reasons why attending an Ivy+ may increase chance of these 3 specific outcomes are not reviewed in much detail, leaving much open to speculation. For example, the authors do not review how much of #1 relates to being a circular definition vs preference for having attended Ivy+

I was an engineering major at Stanford. I was among the ~35% of engineering majors at Stanford who does a co-terminal masters, which involves simultaneously working towards BS and MS, so I fell in group number 2. Had I not attended Stanford, I would have been far less likely to do a co-terminal masters at Stanford for grad school. Attending Stanford for undergrad no doubt increased chance of #2 for me.

In contrast, one of my relatives was also an engineering major. He did his BS at GeorgiaTech and continued to a PhD at GeorgiaTech. Attending GT for undergrad no doubt increased chance of attending GT for grad. He did not attend an Ivy+ (or one of the 5 publics) for grad school, so he would not fall into group number 2. The authors do not separate how much of the increase in outcome relates to this type of home school bias vs admissions preference for having attended an Ivy+.

I suspect #3 largely relates to the connection between “elite” finance and Ivy+. However, the authors do not review which fields of employment have the >$650k income and how much of the increased rate of those fields relates to students changing planned career field during college vs direct preference for having attended Ivy+.

[Hanna]

The student is cake; the school is frosting.

People are saying “frosting is a bonus you don’t really need” and you’re hearing “frosting is worthless.” We never said it was worthless. It’s just not essential.

[Zrt42]

“Need” or “worthless” are not the right words. I don’t think this analogy works.

To me, “It’s the student, not the school" implies that an Ivy+ school does not offer any advantages or potential advantages over a non-Ivy+ school, which directly contradicts the experts who carried out this study.

[Hanna]

So to you, “does not offer any advantages or potential advantages” means something different than “worthless.”

Sounds like we don’t speak the same language.