Sigh, we’re going over and over justifications for entitlement. Not going to happen for every kid. Why must this spin deeper and deeper into why certain kids “deserve” the best spots? Why is “deserve” limited to a narrow academic focus?
It’s not how the system is. Citing a few who publicly state it should be different won’t change things. Insisting bright kids are doomed based on TT or bust is fruitless, IMO. This picture of subpar being the only alternative to a TT is defeatist.
Some of those “citizens” and “citizen-leaders” that Harvard wants are the future cutting-edge researchers and Fields Medal winners, because Harvard wants to educate and be associated with all kinds of future leaders. That’s how Harvard maintains its research A-game and its power and reach in certain segments of society. I think those kinds of people are maybe 10-20% of the class, though.
Harvard also has reasons to admit lots of other kinds of people who Harvard expects will be beneficial to have educated and be associated with. A lot of them are very smart, but they’re in a different category than the hardcore brainiacs referred to above. Some are likely going to be leaders in their communities, others have specific talents. Many don’t have tip-top stats. Some are smart/capable enough but are primarily there because of who their parents are. Harvard has all kinds of institutional needs, which is why it uses holistic admissions.
If other posters re-read my posts, they will see that I have never said that a sub-par institution would be the only alternative to a top school for anyone who had a remotely sensible application list. I do think a sub-sub-flagship school would be the probable in-state alternative for a bright student at our particular local school who opted out of the busy work rat race. To clarify this, I estimate that such a student would wind up with a 3.4 or 3.5 unweighted GPA, which would put the student in the bottom half of the class. (There is no GPA weighting locally.)
I did say that I thought that the most capable students should be matched with the most challenging universities. I mentioned the point about poorer students and under-represented minority students because when someone express this type of opinion, it is often assumed that they are blind to the effects of low socioeconomic status or racial bias. I am well aware of these issues. However, I believe that many of these students are among the most capable.
“I do think a sub-sub-flagship school would be the probable in-state alternative for a bright student at our particular local school who opted out of the busy work rat race.
To clarify this, I estimate that such a student would wind up with a 3.4 or 3.5 unweighted GPA, which would put the student in the bottom half of the class.”
Wow.
Talk about grade inflation.
Though I do have to wonder how well a student who couldn’t be bothered to do busy work would fare at Oxbridge or Caltech where even some of the brightest kids in the world have to work a ton to keep up and liken the experience to drinking from a fire hose.
lf, in #171, you seem to be suggesting that I am practicing circular reasoning. I don’t think so. I know how the student in question has turned out. A Hertz Fellowship–and the fact that this level of performance was perfectly predictable, and the fact that the student is a fine person–is a pretty strong indication that the student was genuinely among the top 1500 or so who applied to MIT in his year, at the very least! Most likely, among a much smaller group of top applicants.
I have not said that the students “deserve” admission to a top school because they work very hard at rigorous courses and activities, lose sleep and curtail their social activities to some extent. My point was that the over-work is what may drive the feeling of entitlement, as opposed to the participation-trophy culture. In the olden days, I was admitted to MIT without ever really breaking a sweat or losing sleep (except maybe for one night, when a term paper was due–and even then, I went to sleep shortly after midnight). This is just impossible for local top students. Given the workload, it is no wonder that they would be disappointed if not admitted to schools they would really like to attend, and where their qualifications would place them high in the class.
Locally, the guidance counselors now advise the strongest students not to apply to top schools at all (not even as a reach), because it only leads to disappointment. Not exactly true, but I see their point.
Edited to add: I did not see signs of entitlement in the top student I have been describing, but personally, I surely thought that he was actually entitled to admission to a very top school. I wasn’t wrong about this.
Why is “deserve” limited to a narrow academic focus? Well, in my case, because I am writing about admission to academic institutions, and not about qualifications for sainthood, or best friend status, or an award as best dog trainer.
This is mostly an argument about the purpose of extremely wealthy elite universities. It isn’t surprising that someone with a screen name of QuantMech would push in the direction of more specific academic excellence rather than 10-20% mixed in with other versions of excellence. And perhaps unsurprising that a wealthy elite university might not completely agree, even with some/many of its own faculty, about this.
The alternatives to "narrow academic focus " aren’t limited to those. It’s a bit of reductio ad absurdum.
Have fun.
@QuantMech, the Hertz Fellowship winner had a 3.5 HS GPA?
A California student with such an unweighted GPA in hard courses would have a good chance at getting into UCSC, UCR, and UCM, and a reasonable chance of getting into UCI. Would you consider these “sub-sub-flagship schools”?
An Arizona student with such an unweighted GPA would be an automatic admit to UA and ASU. Would you consider these “sub-sub-flagship schools”?
Harvard doesn’t just teach math. It has a Classics department which ALSO needs students. Kids who major in Econ show “brilliance” differently than the math students. Kids who study Government… Psych… History and Lit.
MIT needs kids who major in Urban Planning (needed now more than ever. Sustainability, driverless cars, transportation and infrastructure issues). Poli Sci- MIT has professors who are among the world’s leading experts on voter fraud, preventing tampering with various voting technologies, census taking and gerrymandering, how tax policy helps or hurts the poor. Business and entrepreneurship- launching a successful tech based company requires MORE than being smart at engineering, you need to understand how to launch and run a commercial enterprise which can scale.
Who wants to study at a university with ONE department and ONE kind of student? It’s cozy to extrapolate from the experiences of a couple of tippy top math students and rail about the opacity and unfairness of admissions (and I don’t agree with the conclusions being stated here) but you are ignoring the “other” kinds of human potential which are not measured by one’s facility in math.
We don’t live in a world where the only possible path is math, physics or engineering.
And the rebuttal can’t just be more anecdote, more “how it is in my area, some kids at my local hs don’t sleep enough, conversations I’ve had.” Nor what anyone suspects, but isn’t sure about.
These colleges believe they’re building campus communities. They are not the British model. When they review success, it’s not solely about his medal or her political position. Its about the whole of the experience.
Much is made of top colleges trying to follow the money. In fact, ime, what donors report is about that community, friendships, growth, the chance to expand experiences on campus (the newspaper sideline, pick-up sports, theater, other memories and opportunities) and in the local area. Not, you made me a wealthy doctor.
So Harvard unashamedly ends its ‘what we look for’ with, “Would other students want to room with you, share a meal, be in a seminar together, be teammates, or collaborate in a closely knit extracurricular group?”
Agreed, because you can become a wealthy doctor if you attend UMass, or Harvard, the former at a much lower cost. A Swatch or a Patek Philippe will both give you the accurate time, but the latter is much more expensive because it’s a luxury good, as are Harvard and its peers.
Part of the reason you go to Harvard, potentially at vast expense, is because it’s marketed as giving you a curated experience like no other, with an unparalleled cohort of classmates and professors, setting you apart from an overwhelming majority of people in the world - and, not coincidentally, a world apart from UMass and its ilk. That community and those experiences on campus give you the same kind of self-assured, happy feeling as when you look down at the Patek on your wrist. You feel like you’re part of an exclusive club, and that you have something in common with a lot of wealthy, exotic and famous people. As Gladwell points out, cultivating that mystique is core to Harvard’s brand management.
Sure, the campus is filled with leaders, many of whom are talented and/or brilliant. The Patek Philippe is also an intricate, high-quality machine, a much greater feat of engineering than a quartz watch. That’s part of why you paid for it, because there are much cheaper ways to get the time. And that’s why the alumni look back on their experiences on campus and then open their checkbooks.
Im not sure that I understand where this thread has veered off into-a discussion of are “hard to get into” schools materially better, produce better outcomes than those that arent? It seems to me that the underlying premise of this thread is that is a moot question and it relates more to whether there is a sense of entitlement among high achieving high school students that they are some how “due” admission to these schools. FWIW I know quite a few recent Harvard grads for some reason and they seem to me some of the most uninformed people I have ever met. Brilliant no doubt but they have the air of people whos life goal was to get into Harvard, didnt much know what to do when they got there because they had little innate intellectual curiosity and are now somewhat lost because they have checked that box and the road ahead is less well marked. I actually had one of them tell me that they blamed the Harvard English Department for not telling them how little English majors make when they get out of school.
Oh, brother. Lol. Anecdotal. 
We got off track because some one or few believe the bright, hard working stem kid is entitled to the bestest. His gain.
Imo, it’s not the more balanced view OP offered. But it’s what happens when we lean on individual examples and opinion.
For me, it boils down to two things: there aren’t enough spaces to give each kid a prized seat (a trophy.) And, if you really, really want to go to HYPSMetc, you’d better figure out what else they value besides your stats and “promise” or your own dreams.
I get the point you are trying to make @DeepBlue86, but I had to laugh about this. High-end watches are one of the most effective marketing programs ever embraced by a willing public.
You want to know what is one of the greatest feats of engineering that you have (or definitely once had) in your house? A hard drive with a spinning disk. Creating a reliable one requires tolerances measured in fractions of a billionth of a meter. It contains platinum and ruthenium, both rare and expensive materials. And its operation has been likened to a 747 flying 0.01 inches off the ground. And yet they cost < $100 and most work reliably for years. In comparison, a Patek Grand Complications watch is out of the dark ages.
Yeah, but I get it. You can’t talk about hard drives at parties.
Of course, someone else will say the same thing to me about what I spend on cars.
“The differences I am mentioning still exist among the students who just walk in to the SATs and walk out with all 800’s; and they do mean something for future accomplishment (in my experience). For career success in most cases, the differences are irrelevant. For career success as a theoretical physicist, they can be make or break.”
When you talk about theoretical physics or Fields Medalists, the place where the person got their Phd is more relevant and changes the equation (ha! get it) for success in the US. And for Phd programs there are no hooks, maybe legacy, but no athletes, first-gen, development cases, urm etc… It’s been shown very little correlation between undergrad school and success, much better correlation with grad school.
Very true that it is anecdotal but to me it points to the issue that you raise “youd better figure out what else they value”. By and large these kids did, Harvard, in this instance, wants thoroughbreds, high achievers in one area To me its like being a professional tennis player at 15. Thats great, I know very little about that life and they make a lot of money but who the heck would want that for their kids? I wouldnt.
@DeepBlue86 , interesting as I went to UMASS and my oldest brother went to Harvard. He would tell you, and he’s right, that a major benefit of going to a Harvard is the quality and approachable alumni. He is now a leader in biotech. Does business al over the globe. Told me, “looking back, the biggest value I get from Harvard is I can reach out to an alumni in basically any industry, anywhere in the world, and get a response to my inquiry within 24 hours”. He has started companies in different countries and need contacts in government, banking, etc. Always goes back to his network for help. That is an advantage. What is it worth, who knows?
No, of course the Hertz winner did not have a 3.5 GPA in a school where the average GPA was 3.6. He had a 4.0, a large number of AP courses, and many university-level courses beyond AP, with a broad distribution of topics. His GPA and test scores were as high as they could possibly be.
I am writing about two different circumstances, which seem to have become conflated. (Probably my fault for not being clear enough initially.)
The commonality is that the local high school had a ton of work, much of it busywork that did not enhance learning.
It has been suggested in the past that students should just blow off the busywork (lots of boys do, at least elsewhere) and settle for a B, which is perfectly fine. This would allow them to get the amount of sleep they need and also to pursue their own interests. In many regards, this would be better. Just estimating, but I think this strategy would yield a 3.4-3.5, and the student would wind up in the bottom half of the class. That does somewhat restrict college choices.
My other comment about the workload is that students who decided to negotiate it, with non-zero attendant sacrifices, might be more likely to feel that if they had intellectual qualifications that were genuinely top-rate: brilliance, academic skills, creativity, insight, curiosity, and if they had good personal qualities (helpfulness, generosity, concern for others), plus the desire to attend a “top” school, they ought to be able to get in. Perhaps the students did not think so. Their parents surely did, though! :). It is often said that there is just not enough room for all of the incredibly impressive students who apply to “top” schools. That depends on where you draw the line for “incredibly impressive.” Where I draw it, there is room.
With regard to MIT being a “pressure cooker,” there is no sign of that in Feynman’s anecdotal writing about his time at MIT. At some currently unknown point below Feynman’s level of genius, it does become a pressure cooker, presumably.