Harvard Professor Steve Pinker on the Ideal Elite University Admissions System

Parents Forum
181

<p>

</p>

<p>Sometimes, the disparaging of certain activities/talents may come from those who demonstrate the most proficiency precisely because it came so easily to them. It’s the “If it’s so damned easy for me to do it, then why does it deserve to be singled out for special attention? It’s so easy(to me) that even a blithering idiot can do it.” </p>

<p>One negative side-effect of this is how this skews their ability to effectively teach and mentor students/younger colleagues who aren’t as quick in catching onto the very activities/talents which came so easily to them. </p>

182

<p>@Pizzagirl‌ </p>

<p>I apologize for the misunderstanding there. There just seems to be a lot of snobbishness and pretentiousness here that really angers me. After I read Isabella’s posts I guess I got in a huff and misunderstood your post, so I apologize. </p>

183

<p>There are plenty of reasons other then defensiveness to question the value of sports, or plenty of other things, to college admissions. Some people are good at math, and some people are good at sports, and one isn’t necessarily better than the other - except one is obviously relevant to the basic function of a college, and one isn’t. Along the same lines, putting aside the purely practical benefits of getting a Harvard degree, it is more obvious why a really superior student would be better off at Harvard than at state U than why the football star or the active volunteer would. Sure, there are plenty of things Harvard offers that would presumably be great for any hypothetical student, but it is more uniquely beneficial to someone looking for a world class research institution with a star-studded faculty, demanding curriculum, and intellectually vibrant student body. </p>

<p>Part of Pinker’s point is also that it is a fallacy to suggest that admitting on more purely academic grounds would leave you with a bunch of focused future academics with no interest in the arts, politics, volunteerism, etc. You might get MORE future academics, and maybe your dance troupe wouldn’t be quite as good, but you’d still have a vibrant and eclectic campus life. </p>

<p>Personally, I think Pinker’s idea of admitting strictly based on scores is silly, both because the SAT is not the be all and end all of intelligence and because even if it were a better test than it is, it wouldn’t replace a holistic assessment of candidates. On the other hand, I do think that you might wind up with a more impressive group if HYP made a conscious effort to raise its 25-75 % SAT range closer to 1500-1600 than the current 1400-1600, and then chose holistically from within that pool. I would venture to guess that you’d have plenty of actors and artists and activists who also managed to score in the ballpark of 1500 or higher, and you’d still have discretion to make exceptions for the disadvantaged student, the true musical prodigy, etc. It just doesn’t seem unreasonable to me, when we’re talking about the top SCHOOLS in the country - i.e, places dedicated, most directly, to scholarship and learning --, which now boast a single digit admissions rate, that it shouldn’t be too much to expect that students earn a very top score on the standardized test that most applicants take. And if that means that a middle-class student with a 1450 and good but not national-level ECs doesn’t get in who otherwise might have, there are plenty of other schools that would be thrilled to have her, as people around here are so fond of telling any top students “whining” about not getting into the school of their choice. </p>

184

<p>Sheesh! PG, if you are referring to me in #179, that is really out of the bounds of civil discourse.</p>

<p>I don’t need validation by Harvard, PG (#176)–although as I mentioned before, if they decide to pick faculty on the same holistic grounds that they pick their students, I am available. I assure everyone that students who skip my lectures would learn the precisely same amount as students who skip Steve Pinker’s lectures!</p>

<p>Many years ago, a friend of mine who worked in Harvard admissions said that Harvard <em>wasn’t</em> looking for the smartest students, they were looking for those who would be most successful. I have mentioned that more than once on CC. I don’t precisely know whom Harvard considers “most successful.” In my opinion, Martin Karplus, Bill Gates, and Steven Ballmer all surely rank among the “most successful” and all of them could have been picked on the basis of scores. JFK, probably not. His Presidency had its very high points–the commitment to place a man on the moon and return him safely to Earth was one of them, in my opinion. I don’t think the full picture is out, as of yet, on the Bay of Pigs, the decisions about military advisers and troops in Vietnam, and the handling of the Cuban missile crisis. </p>

<p>lookingforward, #177, you seem to assume that some work is necessary to score high on the SATs. It is not. There are plenty of high scorers who did no preparation other than their normal school work, walked into the testing room, and walked out with a 2400, without breaking a sweat. I hope that anyone reading applications for a “top” school is aware of the existence of these people.</p>

<p>I understand the role of creativity and leadership well, actually. I understand that those qualities are not measured by standardized tests. However, neither Bill Gates nor Steve Ballmer would have succeeded as Microsoft CEO if they had not been extremely smart.</p>

<p>I don’t think that brains are the key to very much of anything in personal life. The quality I value most of all is kindness. There is no test for that, that I know of. However, I do have the view that universities are academic institutions, first and foremost. I make no apologies for that view. I realize that it is not shared by everyone on this thread.</p>

185

<p>Re cobrat #174: You might have a point, but I don’t think that CB has released data that would help one judge. Since the data I have seen on SAT vs. family income cut off at “more than $200,000” in income, and that income only gets the average student from a family in that range 1714 out of 2400, it’s not exactly top school level. I predict that at some high-income point, the average SAT score actually drops as family income continues to rise. </p>

186

<p>I allowed some kids work for their scores and some are lucky.<br>
And, success is simply not limited to some famous names anyone can dredge up. </p>

<p>I don’t precisely know whom Harvard considers “most successful.” In my opinion, Martin Karplus, Bill Gates, and Steven Ballmer all surely rank among the “most successful” and all of them could have been picked on the basis of scores. </p>

<p>Fine. You can go look and find the names you know and see who did have high scores. But see how you are falling into this “Newsweek” thing? What about the tens of thousands of other successful (eg, Harvard) grads who don’t go on to become recognizable names across the country or around the world- but are still accomplishing, having impact, changing the world, just with less limelight? Success is NOT exclusive to high scorers. This thinking is too limited. </p>

<p>And the elites know it.</p>

187

<p>I’m editing: Kindness is a nice trait to have- and important. No doubt. Compassion expressed in action is a trait adcoms look for.</p>

<p>But among the "kind"people I know, are folks who couldn’t think critically, who didn’t take on significant challenges, who completed their “growth” in hs and moved no further. </p>

188

<p>lookingfoward, how do you interpret “lucky” in connection with getting high scores on the SAT? There are plenty of students for whom the SAT is very easy. Do you mean that it is lucky for them that the SAT is very easy? There could be an element of being “unlucky” in not scoring 2400, for a student who misses one or two of the math questions, when the student actually knows the answers and just made some careless mistakes.</p>

<p>We apparently have very different sets of acquaintances. I don’t know any people who are kind who stopped growing at the end of high school. ??? (Now maybe I am confused.) </p>

189

<p>Intelligence is widely acknowledged as roughly 50/50 nature nurture. That’s not to say you’re doomed if your parents are bad but it is certainly a disadvantage in every step of life, including the SAT. The test is not racist. Kids who read books all their life and know math do well, that’s all there is to it.</p>

190

<p>This debate is going all directions. If I understand it correctly, what Pinker pointed out is that Harvard’s holistic admission practice is not a more effective way of identifying talents and “future leaders” in all walks of life than simply using standard testing. He didn’t say only high scorers would be able to succeed or only those who got in Harvard could succeed. He argues that holistic review is not necessarily more effective than standard testing (did he say plus grades) in ensuring an “interesting” class, nor would it be more effective in producing leaders in fields other than academia. To make things worse, the current holistic review is causing so much uncertainties and stress to those who are interested in attending Harvard since it makes it appear that nothing is “good enough” and anything could be “good enough” all at the same time. Furthermore, the current practice introduced a significant number of academically subpar students or students with not enough interest in doing academic work into Harvard campus, enough to jeopardize the academics oriented culture in Harvard, which he believes is essential.</p>

<p>I don’t know how established the theory on standardized testing Pinker based his argument on is. If it is well established (which apparently is not), then I think his lottery idea would not be a bad one. It seems schools like Oxford and Cambridge have given pure academics based admission (not even introducing the lottery) a test run and turn out OK. Then of course, some college AO’s would probably lose their jobs. </p>

191

<p>I think Pinker is voicing a pretty widespread concern among academics. That they don’t have much say in who gets admitted and as a result the kids they are seeing admitted don’t have the intellectual curiosity they would like to see. They have a lot of admiral qualities but intellectual curiosity isn’t always top on the list. I think he would like to see a system like Oxford where challenging testing and academic interviews determines admission pretty much 100%. </p>

192

<p>Apprenticeprof, you said some people are good at math and some people are good at sports and one is not necessarily better than the other except one is obviously relevant to the basic functioning of a college and one isn’t. If that’s the case, then why do all but a very small handful of colleges and universities in this country so strongly consider sports or music or arts or leadership? My and whole lot of others’ kids go to Harvard or other elite universities largely because they can play sports. At the end of the day, that was the thing that got her and the other athletes admitted. There was also the 1540 (CR+M) SAT, NMF, AP scholar and personal statements/essays about her love of math. She had 2 hs classmates go to MIT. They are good friends. Their SATs were like hers, their grades were like hers (top 25%, not cum laude) they won no science awards, did no Math Olympiad level competitions, weren’t legacies, didn’t get published, weren’t developmental cases but one plays hockey and one plays baseball and they’re good, like they could have done D1/Ivy sports. That was what ( more than likely) got them in to MIT. At least that’s what the kid’s parents would tell you. Yes. Not balderdashery.</p>

<p>Graduate education at all universities needs to be academic. The basic functioning of the undergrad education at Harvard College and many of these other elite universities seems to be quite multifaceted with the academic aspect just one part. They apparently want kids who learn from and create a host of different experiences. Harvard wants kids who are going to skip class so they can spend more time on The Crimson or at play practice. Ironically, my kid and all her athlete friends schedule their classes around practice. I’m sure they skip class from time to time, but it’s not for practice. Harvard fields more Division 1 athletic teams than any other school in the country. No one is holding a gun to their head. They’re Harvard and they do what they want and they want sports teams as well as academics and theater and community activists. They want brilliant kids and bright kids who can sing, act and play baseball and a few not so bright kids who can really play baseball or whose parents are especially wealthy. These schools all want all of these kids and the fact that a few academics are disappointed that there aren’t more people who are as excited by Physics, Shakespeare, and Linguistics as they are seems to be just fine with the folks who are signing their paychecks. You and Pinker are howling at the moon. It’s just the way things are at these schools in this country. A lot of them seem to be doing OK.</p>

193

<p>"I think Pinker is voicing a pretty widespread concern among academics. That they don’t have much say in who gets admitted and as a result the kids they are seeing admitted don’t have the intellectual curiosity they would like to see. "</p>

<p>And, of course, nothing prevents them from taking their concerns to the administration, sitting down with them and asking why things are the way they are, understanding the rationale, and proposing any changes or solutions. So maybe all these brilliant people are brilliant in the classroom or research lab, but don’t exhibit any real leadership traits. </p>

194

<p>The standardized test is just a test that you take one Saturday morning for 4 hours. If you feel well, you do well. If not, then you do poorly (or poorer than usual). </p>

<p>Thus, standardized tests are not perfectly accurate indicators of how smart or how smart a student you are.
Of course they do put you in some sort of range or category however.</p>

195

<p>If Pinker is unhappy now we can only imagine how happy he will be with students admitted solely by SAT scores. Both my kids used “hagwon” in the US for SAT prep. Let’s just say that it was not the place to develop intellectual curiosity.</p>

<p>Pinker does not go far enough. He should also suggest to demolish most Harvard athletic facilities and build more labs. There will be no athletic teams anyway under his plan so why waste valuable Boston real estate?</p>

196

<p>Re CCDD14, #194: I still have the position that there is no need for a bright student to prepare for the SAT–except for those from different cultures, who need to become acquainted with the implicit assumptions about values that underlie some of the CR and writing questions.</p>

<p>People who send their kids to “hagwons” get the outcomes that “hagwons” produce. They could predict them in advance, based on observations.</p>

<p>On the other hand, it doesn’t matter how apparently successful the “Tiger Mom” approach (and its ilk from other countries are) there are a lot of American parents who will not adopt it, because we think it’s foolish.</p>

<p>The admissions process in Oxford and Cambridge does not kill intellectual curiosity–not at all, as far as I could see.</p>

197

<p>*The admissions process in Oxford and Cambridge does not kill intellectual curiosity–not at all, as far as I could see.

  • How is it at improving social and economic mobility?</p>

<p>Isn’t there a reason why we are not English?
<a href=“Sociology Lens Insights - Your community space for news and opinion in sociology”>Sociology Lens Insights - Your community space for news and opinion in sociology;

198

<p>doubtful - No matter how much or little value you place on sports, the statement that academics are more essential to a college’s mission than athletics should be pretty uncontroversial. If a university eliminated all of its sports teams (and I’m not saying they should do this), it might prove a net loss to the campus culture, but you could still have a recognizable campus culture. If a university eliminated its academic programs, you would no longer have anything that resembled a university. </p>

<p>Emerald: I don’t think the Ivies are great at improving social and economic mobility, although they may be better at and more concerned about it than Oxbridge. </p>

<p>There’s also a happy medium: pay more attention to academic qualifications, but continue to do a holistic evaluation that allows you to select really promising kids from underprivileged backgrounds and some other desirable candidates that might not get in on SAT/academic analysis alone. </p>

199

<p>

</p>

<p>See Tedtalk video by Minnesota psychology professor on the issue of social class and standardized test scores.</p>

<p><a href=“https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gv_Cr1a6rj4#t=11m06s”>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gv_Cr1a6rj4#t=11m06s&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

200

<p>Grad school? “…how these tests that are used to make decisions about admissions are related to subsequent success.” The top percentage of 13 y.o. test scores related to PhD production, research studies, novels written, etc? </p>