<p>epiphany brings up a good point that public universities do not admit on pure meritocracy. Without the social engineering considerations affecting private colleges' admission policies, public universities still have to give priority to the residents of their own state. That is quite appropriate. But it means that out-of-state applicants not only have to pay higher tuition--again, right and proper--but are held to higher standards for admission owing to the cap on OOS admissions. I submit that this has a greater impact on the academic profile and performance of the student body at public universities than the small number of development admits at private ones.</p>
<p>As far as I know, Caltech is "pure" in the sense that only academic considerations play any role in determining admission. That is, no whiz kid is ever rejected in place of another kid for the sake of balance. Rather the problem is Do they accept Kid A with high test scores and lesser classes or Kid B with lower test scores and participation in the Math Olympiad. This is a problem of limited evidence. They never say, X is ex ante less likely to do well in Core than Z, but X is a really good athlete or X's Daddy gave $1 million to us so we give him a leg up. Don't confuse the fact that there's a gray area with the habit of helping people who are clearly outside the gray zone. If anyone has direct evidence to the contrary, I'd like to hear it.</p>
<p>Moreover, the academic selectivity has one very important effect. It determines how strict the core curriculum can be.</p>
<p>Most of the top schools cannot require as tough a Core as Caltech because so many of their students would simply flunk out. Even MIT's Core Math is less intense than Caltech's (MIT has an optional section which uses much the same material as Caltech's required section). Most schools have core curricula that are very flexible. Moreoever, grade inflation has made it easier to play around with the bottom. In the 1960s, weak legacy kids who didn't work hard at least had a realistic chance of failing at the Ivies. That is not even true today. Creative course selection will even give you a shot at honors.</p>
<p>My guess is that in most schools, the really egregious admits are in the bottom 10-15% of the class. Since the figures for this group aren't even tabulated in US News (which only gets scores for the 25th and 75th percentiles), policies regarding this group can vary wildly and not be visible. I can tell you that at my institution, this is the group where I've noticed the most changes over time. We will never know how much play goes on till we have data on the bottom quintile at the top schools. But HYP's strength in the top half of the class provides cover for the bottom fifth.</p>
<p>Not Quite Old:</p>
<p>MIT's academic mission is broader than Caltech, so its requirements must differ. Ditto HYP. While it is fine to expect that future math majors take the honors version of calculus, there should be other types of math requirements for future film studies or English or poli sci majors. What is easy for one student may be incredibly difficult for another. I know that some courses at many colleges are "gut courses." But they are not guts because some prof decided to pander to development admits. They are guts because the prof is a soft touch and/or realizes that the class is likely to be taken by non-majors or students who are unfamiliar with a particular culture. When I was in college, I took a fine arts course as part of my gen ed requirement. I did okay, not great. But my roommate, who was a chem major, had an agonizing time of it. She simply did not know what she should be looking at to distinguish one style from another or to convey in writing the differences she did manage to detect.</p>
<p>I concur that the level of writing by college students has declined over the last 30-40 years. But this has nothing to do with admissions policies and everything to do with the more general cultural changes throughout all of society.</p>
<p>Marite:</p>
<p>Thanks for pointing that one out to me. Since I do not know much about how college admission works in USA, we find new ways to get surprised each day. But it is a learning curve.</p>
<p>Marite,</p>
<p>I don't really disagree that there are different requirements, but I think there should be some core minima. I cannot prove that the changes are purely ones of "zeitgeist." I disagree that grade inflation has nothing to do with lowered standards for the bottom half of the class. </p>
<p>But I do think grade inflation is insidious. I have met and counseled hs students who were admitted to Caltech or Chicago who preferred to go elsewhere because they thought Ivy X would be easier. They are well aware that's it's better to be in the bottom half of an easy grading school than get a C+ at a tough one. Hence grade inflation in the top group affects all, just as well-known easier grading in the humanities hurts those who major in engineering.</p>
<p>Writing and humanities courses used to be much harder. Latin was often graded more strictly than physics. Lit or History could be very demanding. One history prof said to me last year "Back then I would have given many of these papers a C or D. Now I give B minuses."</p>
<p>What I often hear from colleagues at all top schools is a wearying indifference to undergrads. Whatever they say in public, in private many of the top guys say "Who cares what the undergrads learn? It's too much work to teach and grade carefully. They pay their 40K, they get a degree. Those who are really good will search out the right courses." This attitude is especially common among those who negotiate contracts which basically keep them out of the classroom. I think that at most top schools, the undergrad college and the grad+faculty are really two different institutions. The prestige of the latter plus the selectiveness of the former help set the brand name.</p>
<p>I just feel sorry for the kids as they are being shortchanged.</p>
<p>Not Quite Old:</p>
<p>Grade inflation has nothing to do with developmental admits. Whether you agree with Harvey Mansfield that it started with Affirmative Action, or those who claim that it began when sympathetic profs tried to keep their students from being drafted to Vietnam, it has nothing to do with get rich parents to donate millions.
Nor has the relationship between faculty and students. if there were no developmental admits, it would not change one iota.
Let's not shift the terms of the debate.</p>
<p>"Most low income students do not aspire to HYP."</p>
<p>Absolutely correct. It is a form of "redlining" - schools not keeping consistent contact with GCs at schools with lots of low-income kids, financial aid policies oriented toward the upper middle class ones Z(the no-loan policy primarily benefits families in the $90k-$160k range) rather than low-income ones (i.e. policies that allow one to work to contribute to the family, or lower summer expectations - Ruth Simmons at Brown got that one right); admissions policies oriented toward higher income ECs; failing to account for impact of socio-economic class on SAT scores, etc., at infinitum. One doesn't apply for a loan for a house in a neighborhood where one is likely to feel unwanted.</p>
<p>It costs money, time, and energy to change those aspirations (as Amherst has discovered). The reality is they could do it if they wanted - 75% of the low-income admits at UCLA or Berkeley are well-qualified academically for the prestige privates, but (obviously) they don't end up there. And I think that's just fine - provided there are places at UCLA or Berkeley (that's my bigger concern). </p>
<p>I would still love to see study of athletic admits relative to all admits among students from families in the $40-$90k income range. The floor is littered with vals and sals, 1600/2400 SAT rejects in that range, but numbers on athletes might be particularly instructive. (and I think it would demonstrate that someone who suggests that a music or debating EC is the equivalent of a football one doesn't know what s/he is talking about.)</p>
<p>marite wrote:
[quote]
Grade inflation has nothing to do with developmental admits.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You're probably right, but I have the same issue as NQO. All these forms of outrage are closely related in my mind (probably the same set of neurons), so when I think about development admits I also think about affirmative action and grade inflation, etc.</p>
<p>When I stage my coup, the first thing I'll do is outlaw all universities except Caltech.</p>
<p>Marite,</p>
<p>At this point I'm done with arguing cause and effect. I repeat my argument as a statement of principle. I'm indifferent to social or economic stratification as an outcome. I want to do away with all non-academic preferences. AA, legacy, development, balance, etc. If the end result is that only the rich or only the poor are admitted, so be it.</p>
<p>Perhaps we could start with the state schools. I would like to see them move to a purely blind test and grade based admissions standard, preferably with more an d improved tests.</p>
<p>If I ever convince my rich friends here or abroad, perhaps someday a new university can be founded on these principles that is also rich enough to do first tier research.</p>
<p>
[quote]
...I think it would demonstrate that someone who suggests that a music or debating EC is the equivalent of a football one doesn't know what s/he is talking about.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>A Div1 football program can only award 85 scholarships, with a max of 25 (I believe) in any given year. A good portion of these boys would qualify for financial aid to attend. Others bring talents and academic credentials that would have earned merit money at schools that offer it. Are you saying that a large football powerhouse school, like Ohio State, gives out fewer than 25 scholarships for arts & academic stars each year? That seems unlikely to me.</p>
<p>No. I am saying a school that for a school like Williams, where 40% of the students are varsity athletes (and 10% more are junior varsity or club sports members, and maybe 10% more entered as athletes and quit), and likely HYP but to a slightly less extent, the chances of a student with a family income of $40-$90k getting admitted may be 3 or 4 times greater if s/he is perceived as an athlete likely to compete at the collegiate level. And that a debater or musician won't get anything close to that level of boost.</p>
<p>Not quite old:</p>
<p>I hope you're done arguing cause and effect because so far, you've done a poor job of it and have been wandering far off topic.
I very vividly recall a visiting prof, one of the luminaries in his field--in fact, he pioneered a whole subfiled-- who announced on his first day of class that everybody would get a B for merely attending, and at least an A-for writing a paper. The year? 1967. I have the strongest suspicion that this prof would have been very much against developmental admits. But he had nothing against grade inflation if it kept some of his students out of the draft.</p>
<p>
[quote]
All these forms of outrage are closely related in my mind (probably the same set of neurons), so when I think about development admits I also think about affirmative action and grade inflation, etc.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>They should not. They have different histories.</p>
<p>
[quote]
When I stage my coup, the first thing I'll do is outlaw all universities except Caltech.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Won't there be space in your brave new world for a school unlike Caltech? My S did not want to apply there because he did not want to be surrounded by kids just like himself. :(</p>
<p>marite --- :-) you know I was kidding. Where would I go for grad school?</p>
<p>As for publics discriminating more overtly than privates -- if there's going to be discrimination, I'd very strongly prefer that it be overt. Calling quotas and extra legs up what they are at least lets us have an honest debate. </p>
<p>This is, for me, the most intersting part of the 2003 Michigan cases on affirmative action. Outlawing the "point system" was really dumb, because that encourages exactly the sort of winking and codewords that make some private programs' ways of awarding preference so dishonest (in my view). I think all universities should be required to have point rankings of applicants (based on whatever criteria they want), and they should be required to admit the top N point-gettters in their own system. They should also be required to publish the point scale and the profile of the applicants according to the point scale. Then we'd be in business.</p>
<p>;-)</p>
<p>Ben:</p>
<p>Okay: one college and one grad school only. :)</p>
<p>In bringing up the admission policies at public universities, I wanted to make the point that, they, too, cannot afford to be pure meritocracies because they have to give preference to in-state applicants. There was a thread earlier lamenting that UVM's admission of OOS applicants was making it harder for average in-state sudents to be admitted; UNC and UVA, if I recall previous discussions correctly, cap OOS admissions to 18%. So maybe Caltech will have to continue to operate in splendid isolation. </p>
<p>Oh, and grad school admission is more meritocratic than college admission (nobody cares if a prospective English major plays the violin or basketball or has performed xxx hours of community service) but there is a fair amount of horse-trading among profs and subdisciplines, and a definite eye toward funding.</p>
<p>I agree, but what I've always at least respected professors' tendency to call a spade a spade in graduate admissions. "Yeah, that guy is better, but we only have funding for this field, and so we'll take this guy instead." And they'd often be willing to say so to the applicant. By contrast, the amount of weaseling and lying that is produced by elites' undergraduate admissions offices is stomach-turning.</p>
<p>
[quote]
At this point I'm done with arguing cause and effect. I repeat my argument as a statement of principle. I'm indifferent to social or economic stratification as an outcome. I want to do away with all non-academic preferences. AA, legacy, development, balance, etc. If the end result is that only the rich or only the poor are admitted, so be it.
[/quote]
Haha. Thats so Dick Cheney. As if only the poor really could stand a chance against only the rich.</p>
<p>Ben:</p>
<p>Letters of rejection to applicants can be incredibly mealy-mouthed.
When I was a graduate student, Harvard had 4 categories of admissible students from 1 to 4. Sometimes, applicants in categories 3 & 4 were admitted while students in categories 1 & 2 were passed over, because the 1s and 2s needed funding but the 3s and 4s had gotten lucky and received outside fellowships or had rich parents. But I'll bet that the letters of rejection did not mention that fact; they probably just said that there were too many qualified applicants, yadda, yadda.</p>
<p>
How would you implement such a scheme? I don't have time to look at the data, but clearly more HS graduates have 1500 + (M + V) on their SATs than can fit into Harvard. So, do you then look at GPA? Weighted vs unweighted? How about different grading systems? </p>
<p>The problem with saying that admissions should be based on academic ability only, is that you have to be very careful about how you define the criteria. So do you use the GRE for undergraduate admissions, since more than a few kids hit the ceiling on the SAT?</p>
<p>I agree that we should have a meritocracy. It's just not clear to me how we define meritocracy.</p>
<p>Surely not in a way that involves parents' ability to give $1M. At least we can agree on that. :-)</p>