<p>A long read, but definitely worth the read.</p>
<p>Enjoy.</p>
<p>I loved the line about "short with big ears" as a reason not to admit someone. The article is an interesting read. Not much that will be news to a dedicated CC junkie, though.</p>
<p>Very interesting....as someone whose college decision was based on...."which of the 6 state schools do I want to go to?", it's interesting to look at all aspects of this college game that we parents and our brilliant children are all wrapped up in now. Let's see. How did I arrive at my choice out of the 6? One was too far away. 1 was too close. 1 was too big. 2 were off the list because my mom thought they were "party schools". That left my choice, which served me just fine all these years. It's a whole different world now, isn't it?</p>
<p>astrophysicsmom:</p>
<p>Yes, it is a whole different world. I applied to one school; the one I could afford that was also arguably the best public school in the state.</p>
<p>One point that missing from the studies of whether or not where one goes to school has an impact on future earnings is that these studies are looking at the past. I greatly fear that a future study will show that there is an effect from attending a very selective school. There was a time in this country when only a few people knew colleges' reputations and selectivity. For better or worse, US News has changed that.</p>
<p>That was a pretty interesting article. I do agree with the point that successful people will be successful, no matter where they go to school.</p>
<p>Wow, I love this article!</p>
<p>I usually hate history, but the history presented here on HYP admissions is hilarious!</p>
<p>I agree with emyla.</p>
<p>wow, it's long, but good.</p>
<p>This article also reflects on some truisms in life. Once you are out of college, you have to navigate the political bureaucracy at whichever institution you end up at. As you reach the top, it can often feel like survival-of-the-fittest. People skills can be very important to your success which, as mentioned in the article, athletes may possess many of thse skills including stick-to-it-iveness after failure (they lost games but they come back fighting) and comradery in groups (both as a team and socially, who says those beer parties don't do any good).</p>
<p>What I found especially funny was the line, "If you let in only the brilliant, then you produced bookworms and bench scientists: you ended up as socially irrelevant as the University of Chicago (an institution Harvard officials looked upon and shuddered)." I am sure the U of C doesn't mind leading in number of Nobel laureates and university presidents, even if they lack in number of politicians and US Presidents. I guess now that Chicago has a shortage of athletes and comparable social life these social skills will not ever be fully developed (at least by Ivy League standards offering every athletic team available and eating clubs, or even that at top LACs where something like 40% of the student body participates in varsity athletics). Though it is also funny that prowess in football at the beginning of the 20th century is what put the U of C on the map with the likes of HYP (remember Amos Alonzo Stagg and this first Heisman award winner, Jay Berwanger).</p>
<p>
Well the Krueger and Dale study mentioned in the article followed graduates from elite schools from 1976 to 1995. US News rankings first came out in the early 80s in time to affect many of their careers. I dare say that many already knew of schools like HYP. Things aren't going to magically change especially with amazingly bright students now attending all sorts of schools. And remember honor colleges within "lesser schools" weren't even in existence then. In fact because of the trickle down effect seen in recent years, I think the opposite will happen, more and more schools will be deemed excellent. As more students seek out a college education, more institutions will give equally good educations as their student bodies improve.</p>
1 Like
<p>This is SO GREAT!
[quote]
the dean of admissions, had a preference for "the boy with some athletic interests and abilities, the boy with physical vigor and coordination and grace."
[/quote]
Um, weird???
But of course,
[quote]
Bender concentrated on improving Harvard's techniques for evaluating "intangibles...to detect homosexual tendencies and serious psychiatric problems.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>But you know...why are people getting so outraged over this? The people writing and exposing these fraudulent and anti-meritocratic things about the Ivies are acting like they're being kept out of some great institution...If the Ivies suck so much (and you're proving it pretty well) then stop being so outraged and hurt about it...they suck! Get a good education at a place that values a good education...</p>
<p>
If you notice who is writing the books and conducting the studies:
William G. Bowen- former president of Princeton (Princeton PhD)
Sarah A. Levin- president of the Andrew W. Mellon foundation, Harvard grad
Alan Krueger- Princeton economist
Jerome Karabel- Berkeley professor, previous member of the School of Social Science at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton</p>
<p>They are all Ivy educated/associated. As academicians, they are just seeking out the truth of past and current admission policies in the hope of having an effect on future admissions policies. Similar to how Bowen and Derek Bok (former and current acting President of Harvard) discussed affirmative action in their book, "The Shape of the River" in an attempt to shed light and perhaps shape future admissions policy on that important subject. They're not trying to throw out the baby with the bath water as you suggest. The Ivy League is composed of wonderful schools and produces wonderful graduates. It is just not the be-all and end-all as many have been led to believe, and there is room for improvement just as there is at all the elite institutions of higher learning.</p>
<p>This says it much more articulately than I can:
[quote]
The endless battle over admissions in the United States proceeds on the assumption that some great moral principle is at stake in the matter of whom schools like Harvard choose to let in—that those who are denied admission by the whims of the admissions office have somehow been harmed. If you are sick and a hospital shuts its doors to you, you are harmed. But a selective school is not a hospital, and those it turns away are not sick.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>An elite school like Harvard is, like the article says, a luxury brand. Stop pursuing it. You (I'm speaking to all these critics of the admissions system) are the one who decided to set up Harvard on an altar, as the greatest school out there. You bought into it. So it's your fault that you feel wronged. Harvard isn't actually the best school/education out there. Look at all these wack, nepotistic, favoritist, plutocratic admissions standards. They're so ****ed up. So...stop complaining that you didn't get in, or that Harvard has unfair standards. Their standards are perfectly fair--for them. They just don't happen to match up with your illusion that Harvard is the place where the best students deserve to go. Your illusion is what needs fixing, not Harvard's standards. Go get a real education at a place that values what you value. Don't chase Harvard.</p>
<p>so you're saying it's completely justified to do so, Mallomar?</p>
<p>Sure, Harvard can do whatever it wants to do. Why should we care? I refuse to believe that Harvard is perfect, or should be perfect. If Harvard were to claim that its sole mission is to provide the best education possible to the best students it can find...then maybe I'd be annoyed that it failed to meet its own standards...but that isn't Harvard's mission. It's self-serving, and I'm fine with that. I think it's nice that a lot of great students can benefit from what Harvard has to offer, but I don't delude myself or set myself up for disappointment by thinking that Harvard is the top.</p>
<p>The studies that show higher income for college graduates, or the fact that it may not matter in terms of future income whether one goes to an Ivy League college or a State University only focus on one aspect of why we might want our kids go to college. It is perhaps the most easily measured by economists, but not the only aspect. If our kid would earn as much as a truck driver as they would after graduating from college, would we buy them a truck rather than spending the money on a college education? That might be a rational economic choice. And the economy certainly needs transportation services and truck drivers. But many of us hope our kids get much more out of college than a higher income. Penn State provides a different experience that the University of Pennsylvania. Some families may choose the Penn education, others may make a different choice. We are fortunate in the U.S. to have so many choices in higher education. That is one reason why the U.S. has a higher percentage of young people going on to college than almost any other country in the world.</p>
<p>
<p>...I think it's nice that a lot of great students can benefit from what Harvard has to offer, but I don't delude myself or set myself up for disappointment by thinking that Harvard is the top.
Agree, but though you may not buy into it, and the author of these studies may not buy into it, including past presidents of Princeton and Harvard, the vast majority of Americans, including those at non-HYP Ivys, believe it and it effects the way expectations are for high school students. In the end setting them up for a feeling of loss when they don't get their first choice of college in our winner-take-all society. Look at excerpts from this thread from the Columbia board <a href="http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?t=298347%5B/url%5D">http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?t=298347</a>
You would think Columbia was a far inferior school from their concern:</p>
<p>Denzera 02-10-2007 04:51 PM
I think Columbia has the resources to compete for the top talent with HYPS, most notably leveraging the advantages of NYC over new haven, cambridge, jersey, and palo alto (although the latter less so). it's brought us jeff sachs and a bunch of other professors. i'm not sure what the next step is in terms of getting the national recognition that HYPS have. More than 500 miles from new york, not a lot of people have even HEARD of columbia - or know that it's a top institution.
Maybe we just need better PR people. </p>
<p>davidng1 02-10-2007 11:02 PM
I bet a lot of high school students applying to college frequent this forum. It would be nice to have an official college rep. from Columbia admissions on this forum, like the UPenn forum. Columbia will probably benefit more from this than sending brochures to students. </p>
<p>Columbia2002 02-11-2007 05:08 AM
For one, S doesn't have even close to the recognition of HYP, particularly outside of California. Only in CA do people think of S as "the Harvard of the west."
You're not going to change laypeoples' perception of Columbia. I know Meadow Soprano goes to Columbia, but there are a tons of movies about Harvard and plenty about Princeton (I'm not sure how many Yale has). And look how much attention politicians get for going to HYP. Columbia just doesn't get enough "buzz" for the masses to pick up on it.
The sad fact is that your average layman thinks that Notre Dame is a better school than Columbia and pretty much all the non-HYP Ivies. (Time Mag did this a few years ago.) Hiring guys like Jeff Sachs isn't going to change this stuff. </p>
<p>karot 02-11-2007 12:44 PM
Yeah, Obama is a graduate from Columbia but that's pretty much all I've heard about the school in politics. Even then, his undergraduate study at Columbia was quickly pushed aside to emphasize his Law training at Harvard. </p>
<p>truazn8948532 02-11-2007 01:05 PM
What Karot? lol.
Try...
Madeleine Albright
Eisenhower
Gov Pataki
Gov Kean
FD Roosevelt
Teddy Roosevelt
off the top of my head...
Can you name the last president that attended Harvard undergrad? yale's had a brilliant streak the past few years- but believe me, that was all luck. Look at the top nominees for '08. Clinton- Wellesley, Obama- Columbia, the others largely less known schools (relatively of course). I think it's a safe bet the next president of the UNited States didn't graduate from harvard, yale, or princeton. </p>
<p>Columbia2002 02-11-2007 01:57 PM
Everyone associates the two Clintons with Yale. That's where they met, etc. I'd bet that the masses do not know that she went to Wellsley ugrad and he went to G'town ugrad. Same thing with Obama; all you hear about is his attendance of Harvard law school. </p>
<p>karot 02-11-2007 06:49 PM
Pfff, What about FDR? What has he done for me lately :P. </p>
<p>Denzera 02-12-2007 12:21 AM
Well, your job market tends to disagree with such things, but that isn't the point. The point is, to the extent that that IS true, how can Columbia go about changing it? I suppose that's a marketing question posed to a forum not exactly qualified as a bunch of marketers, but it's at least the natural follow-up to this news.
I mean, great, applications are up. Yup. It's tough to get in. Sure. But when and by what means can that translate to nationwide prestige? </p>
<p>ammarsfound 02-12-2007 04:37 AM
SPIDERMAN went to columbia :-p </p>
<p>columbia2007 02-12-2007 03:40 PM
It's really just an issue in the US interior. Abroad, Columbia has a fantastic reputation. Same on the West Coast. In, say, Indiana, football counts more toward a university's reputation than the number of Nobel Prizes; I'm not sure why such places should be worried about.
Anyway, residential colleges and a large endowment boost might help boost Columbia's reputation a little more, if necessary.</p>
<p>biggyboy 02-17-2007 03:32 PM
why does everyone care so much about prestige on CC? its getting annoying</p>
<p>Let's have a president from a public state university.</p>
<p>That would cause some commotion.</p>
<p>dadx3:All of the valid studies have shown that it is the person not the school that counts. Yes, people do have other reasons other then economics. Unfortunately, it is that they often believe the education is better. However, all the ratings are based on things other than educational effectiveness and output. Efforts to measure educational effectivness have been underway but much of the data will not be released by many colleges because it will show that gains in those areas are likely to be greater at schools quite far down the list. So why do all of us baby boomers want to get our kids into these places? Well ,we want to validate our parenting for one. Perhaps as much as we say our kids our great we really do not believe it and we want he crutch fo the prestige. Many of us also claim our great kids need the personal hand-holding that only these schools or small LA colleges can give. Also we believe that having the non elite students around, who are present in state schools, somehow dimishes our own kids ability to learn. And of course many of us want to believe that this four year slice out of an 80 year life is more important than it really is. The neatest kids I have taught are ones that are quite bright but find school to be a neceassary evil or a means to an end. They go to commuter colleges while at the same time work and maybe even run businesses. They laugh at people who would get caught up in the college game and they are one's who would never read CC but who would probably be designing it!
We have all been conned and have given more creedence to a magazine than it deserves and to the Ivy marketing.</p>
<p>
<p>That would cause some commotion.
Yeah I remember Gerald Ford (Michigan) and Lyndon B. Johnson (Southwest Texas State Teachers' College) really stirred up commotion about their academic credentials.</p>
<p>Also President Bush was so good he was rejected from a public state university's law school (Texas).</p>