<p>I’ll just repeat that I pretty much think the concern Pinker asserts is not realistic, because I just don’t believe that there are very many, if any, super-academic prospects that are falling through the cracks because of Harvard’s admissions policies. Heck, even these super-smart STEM kids who supposedly aren’t sifted out by SAT testing will almost all have other testing (such as competitions) to show how smart they are. Yeah, I know, somebody knows some kid who was super-brilliant but wasn’t interested in competitions, etc. Well, that’s tough for him–there is at least some minimum degree to which anybody who wants something must play the game that is required to get it. If you want to get into Harvard, you have to be able to show Harvard that you’ve really got the stuff. Personally, I’m not too concerned about the kid who knows how the game is played but chooses not to play. I feel a little more sorry for the kid whose parents won’t let him play the game. I am most sorry for the kid who has the potential but not the resources to play the game, but that’s really a different issue.</p>
<p>Re PG #533: My comments referred to Student X who was rejected by MIT and concluded that his/her chances of an academic career in STEM were probably slim (pre-CC and prior to the broad availability of the information that MIT admits on more or less the same grounds as the other “top” schools, rather than solely on technical firepower). The existence of people who did not have any of the top five schools on their radar just strengthens the case that Student X is being rational, in considering alternate plans for the future. A good number of those other students would probably have been accepted over Student X also, had they applied to MIT. So there are even more people in the same age cohort who are more promising for academic careers in STEM than Student X appears to be (from Student X’s perspective).</p>
<p>This is in the past, of course. I just think that it is wrong to impugn the character of Student X, based on a change of course. Actually, there appeared to be several people who were each Student X, in these terms–collegealum314’s acquaintances, not mine. </p>
<p>QM, forget about the Student X of the past. Any student today who is rejected by MIT but accepted by other top STEM schools would have to be pretty dense to think that his or her STEM career is doomed. Such a student may well be disappointed, and I am always sympathetic to people who are disappointed–and it’s certainly possible that some opportunities will not be as easily available to that person. But this is just life; it has nothing to do with MIT or Harvard, really. You can’t always get what you want.</p>
<p>It’s funny, I was rejected by MIT, along with many other schools, and spent a period of time thinking I wad dumb, and that I had no future in academia. I even looked at CV’s of professors I looked up to, discounted the ones that didn’t go to a top school, usually because it was foreign, and then decided you had to go to a top school to be successful. Except this was for grad school, rather than undergrad. To me, the rejections from grad school hurt much worse because I knew I was being evaluated entirely by professors. Fortunately I did get accepted to at least one place, and I’m in grad school now.</p>
<p>“Such a student may well be disappointed, and I am always sympathetic to people who are disappointed–and it’s certainly possible that some opportunities will not be as easily available to that person. * But this is just life; it has nothing to do with MIT or Harvard, really. You can’t always get what you want. *”</p>
<p>Exactly (and so sayeth philosopher Jagger). It seems like there’s just a lot of angst being thrown around that certain things in life aren’t <em>guaranteed</em> to our unquestionably smart, deserving and hardworking genius acquaintances. But nothing is guaranteed. Why are our hypothetical geniuses exceptions to the rule? </p>
<p>I think for the kind of kids who have realistic aspirations for places like Harvard or MIT, it may come as something as a shock the first time something happens that says (or seems to say), “Actually, you’re not the best of the best.” This is because some of these kids have always been the best of the best in their local environments–in some cases, the best ever at their high schools. So it’s natural for them to be a bit disoriented the first time this happens. Personally, I think it’s better if it happens during high school (i.e., perhaps getting turned down by a competitive summer program, or for something else competitive).</p>
<p>A lot of what I’d like to say, really can’t be said on CC. It’s more conversation than public statement. Lots don’t have it, Hanna, right. But the ones who do are not automatically “sacrificing” some aspect of their academics or potential. They dig in, take rigor, expand on their academic interests in some ways, have a variety of activities, for a variety of reasons and purposes. All this reflects in many ways, some small. They can be pretty exciting. And, of course, they’re only 17, just getting started. </p>
<p>I’m advocating that we not just adulate those with high scores, we not fuss about the need for some measure beyond 2400, (both of which I’ve referred to as hierarchical thinking,) we not go black/white about what they can fit into their 24/7, in hs or college. Many/most of the activities they engage in are part time or occasional, some start as family interests and turn into personal pursuits. Some show a long term commitment of a few hours/week (or per month,) some take advantage of opportunities that only last x weeks. Etc. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>As has been said before, how many top academic kids really have zero extracurricular or at least cocurricular involvement? Most often they compete in academic competitions. And often they have some other non-academic involvement too, although usually only had big distinctions in classical music. Does this mean that they didn’t engage fully in intellectual development? No. Even the guy I knew on the traveling US physics team was in a sport (although he was not good at the sport.)</p>
<p>But then that is not what I was talking about. The candidates I was talking about had state and/or national distinctions in academic pursuits plus a sterling track record at a place where the competition is ivy league level, plus other involvement in other activities. They did not go out into the community and organize activities, and probably did not shoot their mouth off about how they were going to change the world or articulate a vision of what they were going to do (even though some of them did change the world.) But this was quite awhile ago now.</p>
<p>We need to stop talking about the past, because Harvard’s value system has apparently completely changed from what it was 20 years ago to now and thus . For those cases that were recent, well, we don’t know how good the candidates really are because they are too young to have done anything. So there is no way to have this discussion. </p>
<p>Also, even if it was kosher to evaluate college admissions decisions based on who became successful, you run into another paradox:
Case 1: The supremely qualified person got into the top school and went on to become extremely successful. Conclusion: College admissions worked fine.
Case 2: The supremely qualified person did not get into the top school but went on to become extremely successful anyway. Conclusion: College admissions worked fine, because it did not stop the person from being successful.
Case 3: The supremely qualified person did not get into the top school, and as a result, they did not become as successful as they would have been or at least did not make the same contribution to the world (as opposed to making a lot of money for themselves.) Perhaps their heart was not in it anymore. Conclusion: This person is a “hothouse flower” with little character or staying power, who would have likely not made it anyway because there are plenty of obstacles in life and they would have been tripped up down the line. Further, were they that smart to begin with? It’s debatable. Therefore, college admissions worked fine.</p>
<p>So at least for the college admissions part of the argument, there is no way to have the discussion from the perspective of the effect on the individual candidates or the world. As for the effect on the university, Harvard’s reputation is an unsinkable ship.</p>
<p>The only thing you are left with is Pinker’s discussion of whether Harvard students should be more engaged in the classroom. That is, are they maximizing the potential of the people they do admit? Does it matter at all if you study at all if you aren’t going to be using the subject matter directly in your job? I don’t know, although I thought that was the point of the liberal arts philosophy–that you stretch your mind intellectually and this impacts what you do in your career and enriches your life. Are Harvard students stretching their mind outside the classroom to make up for the time they don’t spend studying? Maybe. I don’t know. I’d say the working on the humor magazine would be equivalent to a creative writing class, and working on the newspaper would be equivalent to a writing class. Maybe these activities could be more integrated in the curriculum so that faculty could provide feedback on students’ work. Just an idea. It’s probably fair for a Harvard professor to ask these questions, considering that it is his job to educate them. MIT has been experimenting with more interactive lectures in their physics classes. MIT doesn’t need to do this as their graduates “do fine” anyway, but that is the point of the university–to ask questions about the status quo and make improvements.</p>
<p>“So at least for the college admissions part of the argument, there is no way to have the discussion from the perspective of the effect on the individual candidates or the world.”</p>
<p>If you’re bound and determined to hold Harvard, or MIT, or whatever, as the Only Place Where People Can Make a Significant Impact on the World and If You Don’t Get It, You’re Doomed, you’re right - and Harvard and MIT need to have their hands slapped for not having ESP to identify your transformative genius friends.</p>
<p>“The only thing you are left with is Pinker’s discussion of whether Harvard students should be more engaged in the classroom. That is, are they maximizing the potential of the people they do admit?”</p>
<p>That’s fair, and I think they could do more to promote student engagement. For example, there’s a movement going to shrink the maximum size of sections from 18 to 12. I think that would mostly be a good thing (though it would have real down sides). Also, more departments could require non-Honors concentrators to take capstone seminars if they aren’t doing a thesis. I chose to do this, and the courses were amazing – I’m still in touch with one of those professors, though she isn’t at Harvard any more. But the department would have let me coast through more big lecture courses senior year. Maybe Harvard should do more to discourage that.</p>
<p>I’ve decided to mostly sit this latest iteration of the debate out, but QM, the quote you were looking for in post 537 is the last lines of Middlemarch:</p>
<p>"The growing good of the world is partly dependent on unhistoric acts; and that things are not so ill with you and me as they might have been, is half owing to the number who lived faithfully a hidden life, and rest in unvisited tombs.” </p>
<p>Yes, that’s it! Thank you so much, apprenticeprof! #550</p>
<p>In #547, collegealum314 mentions a paradox: No matter what the admissions outcomes and later accomplishments are for a supremely qualified applicant, the conclusion can be reached that “college admissions worked fine.” Karl Popper (a bit out of vogue these days, I understand) advanced the idea that “falsifiablity” was the hallmark of science. That is, if some observable result would cause one to modify a statement, the statement could be regarded as scientific, and otherwise not. Granted, college admissions are not scientific. But the fact that a belief about the working of admissions can be maintained regardless of the observable outcome makes the belief itself questionable to me.</p>
<p>collegealum314 raises another good point: Admissions decisions from 20 years ago (where we know a bit about long-term outcomes for individuals accepted or rejected) don’t count, because the admissions landscape was different then. Actually, I’d put the boundary at 5-10 years ago, for the change in the admissions landscape. We can’t really talk about recent admissions decisions, because we have no evidence on people’s subsequent accomplishments. A variant on Catch-22. </p>
<p>I wanted to add a comment in connection with my earlier posts: I don’t devalue entertainment for its own sake! I think people benefit a lot from entertainment. I do think there is an argument to be made that "All work and no play . . . " But I don’t see a point in giving students “credit” for entertainment, in terms of admissions.</p>
<p>Turning to a slightly different component of Pinker’s article, I think it is worthwhile to quote the entire paragraph that collegealum314 started quoting in the original post on this thread. In its entirety, here it is:</p>
<p>“What about the rationalization that charitable extracurricular activities teach kids important lessons of moral engagement? There are reasons to be skeptical. A skilled professional I know had to turn down an important freelance assignment because of a recurring commitment to chauffeur her son to a resumé-building “social action” assignment required by his high school. This involved driving the boy for 45 minutes to a community center, cooling her heels while he sorted used clothing for charity, and driving him back—forgoing income which, judiciously donated, could have fed, clothed, and inoculated an African village. The dubious “lessons” of this forced labor as an overqualified ragpicker are that children are entitled to treat their mothers’ time as worth nothing, that you can make the world a better place by destroying economic value, and that the moral worth of an action should be measured by the conspicuousness of the sacrifice rather than the gain to the beneficiary.”</p>
<p>While this mostly speaks for itself, I would add two comments:
- The boy’s mother probably did not “cool her heels” while waiting for him–she probably took work with her.
- I am sadly afraid that many children get the sense much earlier than high school that they are entitled to treat “their mothers’ time as worth nothing,” and it takes a long time to get over that. In many cases, a real understanding of how much people’s mothers do for them comes rather late in life. To this, I should add that I recognize the sadness and obstacles faced by people who lose their mothers early in life, and don’t mean to hurt anyone by bringing up how much mothers often do for their children–not meaning “helicopter mothers” by this, just normal maternal efforts. </p>
<p>I don’t think the college landscape has changed dramatically in 20 years. It has changed incrementally - kids now take more APs or advanced courses, and probably done either more ECs and/or ECs in greater depth, but it’s not as though there was any sudden change. Even 35 years ago, I took four APs and was involved in Girl Scouts on a national level, had the equivalent of the Gold Award and was involved in various things at my school. I don’t think Harvard was getting the list from each prep school any more about who the most clubbable kids in the class were with no attention to grades. The students I knew who’d gone to the major New England prep schools were all really smart and accomplished. Ditto the public school kids who made up almost half the class even back then. There was a small contingent of gentleman C types I am told, but I never met them.</p>
<p>“A skilled professional I know had to turn down an important freelance assignment because of a recurring commitment to chauffeur her son to a resumé-building “social action” assignment required by his high school.”</p>
<p>Maybe so, but nothing required by the high school is going to get the kid into Harvard. This kid is going elsewhere if that’s the extent of his commitment.</p>
<p>To look at the issue from the opposite angle, maybe Pinker isn’t aware that Harvard undergraduates run a full-service homeless shelter that feeds and houses 23 men and women every night. At least in my day, it was the only student-operated shelter of its kind in the world, and volunteers were required to do overnight shifts. Needless to say, no one is required to volunteer there. It just doesn’t make any sense that Harvard students are doing that for the sake of their resumes, unless their devotion to the cause is so great that they want to go into social service as a profession, which I doubt he would criticize.</p>
<p>
At many flagship universities and other colleges, students get credit for some of these activities, even including things like marching band. I’m not sure I’d want the Ivies to go in that direction, nor in the direction of more faculty involvement in ECs.</p>
<p>I would also note that even though Pinker says his class is interesting and worthwhile, it’s a pretty small sample from which to conclude that Harvard students aren’t going to class. I’d want to know a lot more before I concluded that this was a major issue.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>However, some of them would bend over backwards to admit her even if her SAT score was 1600/2400 and the same schools get talked about by people as admitting some highly unqualified people as athletes or development cases at the expense of some brilliant 2400/2400 kid since people have no clue who was that person at the bottom of the pile but will guess endlessly. </p>
<p>I just finished reading a really interesting book called “The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks” by Rebecca Skloot. The book was a great read but so are many others I have read in the past. However, how the book got written is what caught my attention. Rebecca Skloot was a 16 year old taking a make up Biology class in a community college to meet some high school graduation requirements back in 1988 when she came across how much HeLa line of cells contributed to the health sciences since 1988 and she wanted to know what her family thought of it. She started asking questions as she went through college and spent the next 15 years or so researching it. I would like to emphasize the part about her being SIXTEEN.</p>
<p>“In #547, collegealum314 mentions a paradox: No matter what the admissions outcomes and later accomplishments are for a supremely qualified applicant, the conclusion can be reached that “college admissions worked fine.” Karl Popper (a bit out of vogue these days, I understand) advanced the idea that “falsifiablity” was the hallmark of science.”</p>
<p>30 years ago, I turned down Wharton for Northwestern. How do I know that I didn’t make a mistake? </p>
<p>Circling back to Pinker’s opinion piece. If Harvard’s student body isn’t up to snuff, then no college’s student body will pass muster. </p>
<p>On the other hand, I’ve never seen a study reported in the press which covered the correlation (or causation) between intelligence (as measured by test scores) and such qualities as: diligence, frivolity, extraversion, ambition, charm, work ethic, empathy, vanity, bravery, creativity, or common sense. These qualities matter, too. </p>
<p>As to the “entertainment” question, Harvard College’s original mission statement did refer to “literature, the arts and sciences.” It would be wrong of me to belittle future lawyers’ participation on robotics teams. After all, they don’t plan to follow stem careers, thus robotics would be a waste of time for them. Likewise, I find the denigration of students’ passions in the arts to be wrong. </p>
<p>I don’t even think the students get “credit” for musical hobbies in admissions. I think it would be hard to admit a class with the test scores Harvard desires which did not include many accomplished musicians. It’s a staple of upper class childhood, after all. </p>