<p>Wow, calcpro, let them eat cake. </p>
<p><a href=“Harvard, Ivy League Should Judge Students by Standardized Tests | The New Republic”>http://www.newrepublic.com/article/119321/harvard-ivy-league-should-judge-students-standardized-tests</a></p>
<p>Haven’t seen it posted elsewhere yet. Some of the arguments we see in this thread are echoed in the article. And the author’s proposed solution to “fix ivy league” is - interesting.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Why does everyone have to have the same dream? Not everyone sees Harvard as the be-all, end-all. What about kids whose dreams are not dependent on a specific college at all? Or those who have done the research and recognize that the path to fulfilling their dreams involves a school other than Harvard?</p>
<p>Thanks for posting that, Benley. I think an honest discussion about the goals of higher ed is very timely. Pinker’s take on it is very interesting, and frankly seems more thoughtful and germane than Deresiewicz’s rant. His conclusions? I’m not sure, but testing certainly has a necessary place that perhaps needs tweaking. If it’s true that only about 5% of students to these schools are chosen on the basis of academic merit, that is surprising, and kind of sad. </p>
<p>Thanks for posting that. I hereby am going to steal, er, leverage “Tailgate State.”</p>
<p>Benley, IIRC, you live near Boston, went to Harvard yourself and have kids in elite NE boarding schools. This is why you are “surprised” that not everyone around the country dreams of Harvard. I’ve told this before, but I sat on a plane next to a man who had gone to Middlebury, then came out to Chicago for grad school and work, didn’t know of my NU connection at this point in the discussion, but told me that he didn’t understand til he got out here that Middlebury and other elite LACs weren’t as meaningful here, and that NU was to Chicago as Harvard was to Boston - and he had thought Harvard was to everywhere what it is to the NE. And this is Chicago - a major city!</p>
<p>Now, make it Omaha or Tulsa or Cheyenne. You are just on drugs if you don’t realize that there may be tiny enclaves where elite schools are known, but on average Brown and Cornell and Dartmouth and Penn and Northwestern and whatever will not mean a darn thing. The average person just doesn’t think about this stuff, and the diamond-in-the-rough is sitting in the midst of a heck of a lot of average people as his or her conduits of knowledge. </p>
<p>“find it a little concerning that in some parts of the country, the “Harvard caliber” kids don’t know Harvard.”</p>
<p>All the people around here can tell the difference between the programs at Northern Illinois, Eastern Illinois, Western Illinois and Illinois State. Why can’t you? Answer - it’s just as irrelevant to you as the distinctions between Harvard, Yale and Princeton are for them. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I liked that second article and I think the author is pretty thoughtful, with the exception of the quote above. Maybe there are rejected kids from Harvard who are demonstrably better academically than many of the matriculants, but let’s be clear: the majority of those kids end up at other Ivys and the Berkeleys, Michigans, Dukes, UVas, and Northwesterns of the world. Or maybe at Penn State, Maryland, or somewhere else on a merit ride. </p>
<p>If Harvard is actually selecting 90-95% of its students on other than academic merit, you sure wouldn’t know it from the stats of the incoming class. </p>
<p>At least this author is closer to honest. He seems to admit to wanting a PhD factory, which is common among faculty. Derciewizc wants some kind of socialist commune. Neither one is going to happen. Thank Goodness. </p>
<p>“If Harvard is actually selecting 90-95% of its students on other than academic merit, you sure wouldn’t know it from the stats of the incoming class.”</p>
<p>Exactly. These stats only get higher and higher every year for the most part. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>yeah, but the standardized test scores are 25%-75% ranges, meaning the bottom 25% doesn’t impact it at all. Also, the GPA ranking just shows how many are in the top 10% of their high school, a pretty low bar considering the competition for a school like Harvard.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Perhaps it was meant to say that only 5-10% is selected purely on the basis of academic merit. The rest of the class must pass a (high) minimum level of academic merit, but then that pool is selected from on the basis of other criteria.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is the way I read it, actually. I’m still surprised it’s so low.</p>
<p>^^This. I think the 5-10% here refers to those academic super stars, the ones who have won top prizes in Intel, IMO, or published writers, language genius who knows 5 languages fluently… They get an “automatic in” without considering ECs, leadership, backgrounds… </p>
<p>“At the admissions end, it’s common knowledge that Harvard selects at most 10 percent (some say 5 percent) of its students on the basis of academic merit.”</p>
<p>This is misstated. As explained above, 5-10% are admitted SOLELY on the basis of academic merit (and the absence of disciplinary/criminal problems). We talked about this in explicit terms at H info sessions in the late 90s. An “academic admit” is not a 4.0/36 with 15 APs. It’s the kid who is, at 17, already publishing independent research, and not just a future PhD, but a very likely future tenured professor. It is 100% true and explicit that Harvard wants its alumni winning Oscars, Grammys, Pulitzers, humanitarian prizes, and national elections, not just Nobels and Fields Medals. I love that!</p>
<p>I don’t agree with Pinker about his ideal Harvard, but I do agree with his description of what it’s like now and how his suggestions would change it. (And, of course, with his skewering of WD.) It’s interesting that he chose to come to Harvard from MIT, which, while it cares about HS ECs and having an active campus, is way closer to his ideal of a university where academic work comes before all else for all students. Surely he knew about this difference in culture and made the shift in spite of it.</p>
<p>You have to recognize that authors implicit definition of academic merit. He’s talking about kids who will likely be competitive candidates for graduate school (PhD) admission to MIT or Stanford. The rest of the class is just well rounded 800’s scorers in an era where that score aint what it once was. </p>
<p>I will note that he does a good job of dismissing the rich kid academic advantage myth, and the “they can buy their scores through prep” drivel. </p>
<p>“You have to recognize that authors implicit definition of academic merit. He’s talking about kids who will likely be competitive candidates for graduate school (PhD) admission to MIT or Stanford. The rest of the class is just well rounded 800’s scorers in an era where that score aint what it once was.”</p>
<p>You know, it gets a bit obnoxious when a well-rounded 800 scorer isn’t “enough,” academically speaking. People don’t have to be oh-my-god-genius-level to be really smart.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What did Pinker say about his ideal Harvard? </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Why is that any more obnoxious than saying a 700 scorer isn’t enough? Or a 650 scorer and a 3.5 unweighted GPA? </p>
<p>It’s somewhat arbitrary where you set the line–the fact that it is perfect on the particular standardized exam holds no special significance.</p>
<p>An 800 math score is roughly equivalent to a 75/150 AMC score; the AMC is the entry-level test for the selection of the U.S. olympics team.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It’s not clear from the language how much academics is weighted for the other 90% admitted. </p>
<p>Currently, it depends on which group they come from and how good they are at their non-academic activities. If you have a kid who could play QB at South Carolina, or a kid who starred in a broadway play (maybe), they have some slack cut for them. But you can see from the admitted class stats that any slack is measured from a high bar to begin with. </p>
<p>Collegealum, Hanna was up close and personal with the process. Anyway, it’s blindingly clear - high academic prowess is required to get in the game, and then other factors will come into play because they have the luxury of picking and choosing who they think will make the most interesting and accomplished campus. This has been repeated ad nauseum on CC for as long as I’ve been here so I continue to be baffled as to why so many people don’t seem to understand it. </p>