<p>They did eliminate sports at UChicago but apparently they are slowly bringing them back and in fact have sports likelies these days. Was the perception that “where the fun goes to die” tied to the elimination of sports? </p>
<p>Approf, several times over these threads, you suggest needed elements that I do see in place. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think the answer is obvious. Randall Collin’s work tells me that credentialism has been driven by an elite to preserve the best jobs for their offspring. Standardized testing is a threat to this transmission because it has not only validity and reliability, but is resistant to preparation.</p>
<p><a href=“http://nepc.colorado.edu/files/Briggs_Theeffectofadmissionstestpreparation.pdf”>http://nepc.colorado.edu/files/Briggs_Theeffectofadmissionstestpreparation.pdf</a></p>
<p>How do you get around the problem? By re-centering to remove strong resolution at the top and bottom so you have trouble separating the top 5% from the top 10th of one percent. (This also has the added advantage of making weak students look better than they really are).</p>
<p>You can also improve the process further by introducing subjective evaluation into the equation. Philip Tetlock’s work tells what “experts” are capable of :</p>
<p><a href=“Everybody’S an Expert | The New Yorker”>Everybody’S an Expert | The New Yorker;
<p>The elites know that as long as they cater to the scions of the richest and the most powerful, the plebeians would be clamouring for admission, and their treasuries will always be overflowing. While the poor are being used as “decoys”, it is the middle class that are the true losers here. Excellent business plan though. Chicago, for all her idealism, finally sees the light.</p>
<p>A non-linear thinker here, but I would gladly give it up for understanding quantum mechanics. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Bingo. I find it ironic that SAT was instituted to give the working class a fighting chance, but it has to be re-calibrated again and again because the middle class is so successful that it is a threat to the status quo. </p>
<p>There are some real delusions and conspiracy theories around these parts. And of course the stupidity of acting as though one is “forced” to aspire to Harvard et al. Plenty of elite SES people don’t even care to play that game. It takes a willful naïveté to believe that all the Richie Riches of the world are dying to go to Harvard. </p>
<p>emeraldkity4, #196 the surprising thing about social mobility in England is that it is actually <em>higher</em> than the social mobility in the US, despite our image of England as a class-ridden society. This has been true for more than 30 years.</p>
<p>PG, #203, there are plenty of students with trust funds who are enrolled in Ivy League schools. But of course Richie Rich has no need to “play the game.” He’s rich!</p>
<p>I agree that one is not forced to aspire to Harvard. Actually, no one in my family has ever applied there, though we had credentials that would have made admissions conceivable.</p>
<p>I don’t want to speak for you, PG, so before commenting further, I will ask: In your view, what would be the point of going to Harvard at all?</p>
<p>In my view, it would be academic, to learn from professors who are at the tops of their respective fields, or a hair’s-breadth away. That goal could be accomplished at other universities, too–though in general with fewer options in terms of major, if one wanted to be taught by faculty who were truly at the “top” of the field. </p>
<p>The distribution of students at Oxford and Cambridge from state schools vs. private schools (in the article linked by emeraldkity4) looks very similar to the distribution at Harvard, Yale and Princeton.</p>
<p>QuantMech, the admissions process in Oxford and Cambridge is regularly accused of bias against those who are not white, male, private school students (when you pull all the articles complaining about the process together.) There are also articles complaining that private school students are discriminated against. </p>
<p>The interview is not universally accepted as a step towards impartiality. Given the effect of anonymous auditions for orchestras, I personally do think that interviews might tip the process toward applicants who look and act like the interviewers.</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.theguardian.com/education/2013/feb/26/oxford-university-ethnic-minority-applicants[/url]”>http://www.theguardian.com/education/2013/feb/26/oxford-university-ethnic-minority-applicants</a>.</p>
<p><a href=“Baroness Kennedy attacks Oxford 'snobbery'”>Baroness Kennedy attacks Oxford 'snobbery';
<p>Many of the people who are now Oxford or Cambridge dons, at least in the sciences, came from modest economic backgrounds, so looking and acting like the interviewers would not require private school–in fact, it would probably be a disadvantage. The write-up that you linked, with comments from Baroness Kennedy, says that Mansfield College (this is a sub-unit of Oxford, like all of the other Oxford colleges) has 84% of its students from state schools. I don’t anticipate seeing that percentage of students from public schools at H, Y, or P any time soon.</p>
<p>If you look at the videos of the mock Cambridge interviews, do the interviewers look like your impression of snobbish English people? I will repost the video link later on, since the thread is pretty long.</p>
<p>The issue of minorities in England is a difficult one. The distribution of nationalities among the minority groups is different from the distribution in the US, and the history is different. There are conscious efforts in England to break down walls of class, race, and ethnicity, which are fairly similar to the efforts in the US.</p>
<p>There are differences among the colleges within Oxford and Cambridge, in the social stature of the students. Some seem to draw a higher percentage of private-school students than others.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m not sure I follow that point. I agree that recentering squishes the top end of the scale, but I think the motive for that is to give schools more “cover” or discretion to admit those that they prefer. I don’t think they prefer the highest income kids. My guess is that if we had the statistics on the top 2% scorers who are rejected from the elites, it would show a bias towards rejecting the kids from the most well-off families…not the opposite. Maybe I’m wrong, but that’s my speculation.</p>
<p>It is but one school in Oxford that is admitting 84% while there are 37 or 38 other schools.</p>
<p>The key takeaway should be this.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I am frankly trying to get my head around how one could admit on the basis of “predicted” grades. Who predicts the grades? Wouldn’t such a system bias the admissions toward schools with strong track records? I presume an admissions offer could be revoked, if the actual grades were lower than expected. However, it’s easier to revoke an admission than to extend an offer in the opposite case–as, after all, there may not be a free spot to offer. </p>
<p>Added: According to this article, predicted exam grades are predicted by the students’ teachers. However, one study found that half the predictions were wrong. <a href=“http://www.theguardian.com/education/mortarboard/2008/dec/09/alevels-accesstouniversity[/url]”>http://www.theguardian.com/education/mortarboard/2008/dec/09/alevels-accesstouniversity</a></p>
<p>Students in lower socioeconomic levels were more likely to receive predictions which were too high. </p>
<p>Of course, if that trend were true, that would lead admissions committees to believe predicted grades for students from state schools would usually be corrected downward, while grades for students from private (i.e., “public”) schools would be more reliable. </p>
<p>Why not admit on the basis of exam results, rather than teachers’ predictions?</p>
<p>“I don’t want to speak for you, PG, so before commenting further, I will ask: In your view, what would be the point of going to Harvard at all?”</p>
<p>Is your q about Harvard specifically, or about elite schools in general? I don’t idolize Harvard so I don’t see any need to go there that wouldn’t be met for the most part by other elite schools. I don’t have that sudden-hush-and-intake-of-breath at their mention like so many of you do. </p>
<p>"The elites know that as long as they cater to the scions of the richest and the most powerful, the plebeians would be clamouring for admission, "</p>
<p>Oh come off it. There aren’t more than a handful of developmental cases at these schools. If H et al wanted to auction off x number of seats for (say) $10 mm apiece, they’d make more. </p>
<p>For UK applicants at least, Oxbridge decisions are partially conditioning on the A-Level results which come out in August, not the school grades! If an admitted applicant does not meet the condition(s), the acceptance would mostly likely be revoked. </p>
<p>Ocationally, they do offer unconditional acceptance to the absolutely top applicants. </p>
<p>@emeraldkitty4 I don’t think anyone here is going to defend the current Oxbridge admissions system as perfect, especially given the concerns people have about the fairness of interviews, but it is worth noting that social class mobility is much lower in the US than in the EU, including England.</p>
<p>SAT rewards students who can quickly solve rather trivial (sometimes intentionally) poorly worded problems and who can quickly crank out a standard essay. It will not help identify future Einsteins or Tolstoys but people who can do well in Trading Floor support or write for Yahoo News. If Pinker wants admission by some tests then it should be different tests. I believe what Pinker really wants is to eliminate all non-academic ECs from admissions consideration like it is done in all top Universities around the world. If more colleges in the US follow this path - it may not be a bad idea. I am sure these colleges for academic grinds will have large demand, US News will put them in a separate ranking and they will flourish alongside HYP where students will continue to sing and play sports instead of going to classes.</p>
<p>Agreed that the SAT are not the best basis. Something involving national exams (so more like the AP tests) might be better. Fancy universities used to have entrance exams, nothing wrong with that. (I believe they cut down on entrance exams in the US because too many Jews were passing? Now the racist worry would be about East Asians I guess.)</p>
<p>Here’s a little thought experiment, just for fun. You’re the Harvard admissions department, and you have two stacks of 100 applications each. You have to take all of one stack, and none of the other. Your research leads you to believe that there is a Bill Gates in stack A, and 10 Marvin Karpluses in stack B. Which stack do you pick? And does anybody think this would be a difficult question?
And what if, instead of one Bill Gates in Stack A, there was one Bill Clinton?</p>
<p>Hunt: Why the restriction of having to take all of the one stack? Not following the construct. </p>
<p>Because you don’t know which of the 100 will be the Bill Gates.</p>