<p>
[quote]
Anyways, even if the schools diversity, can't they be known for making their social sciences more rigorous (as in, built on models that try to predict before making flawed assumptions? - this has really hurt the reputation of a lot of social science fields) than average? Isn't Chicago somewhat known for this?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I'm not entirely sure that Chicago is the best example of this, at least in relation to MIT, simply because I'm not sure that Chicago really is a more highly regarded school than MIT within the social sciences that both schools teach. What may make Chicago more highly regarded overall is simply that Chicago obviously teaches a broader selection of social sciences than MIT does. But of the social sciences that MIT does teach, the evidence seems to indicate that MIT is just as strong as Chicago is.</p>
<p>Consider the rankings. According to USNews graduate edition, I get the following rankings:</p>
<p>Economics
1) Chicago
1) MIT</p>
<p>Psychology (which MIT calls "Brain and Cognitive Sciences", but come on, it's psychology)
12) MIT
28) Chicago</p>
<p>Political science
8) Chicago
10) MIT</p>
<p>So the point is, I see no clear advantage that Chicago has over MIT in terms of the social sciences among the ones that both schools actually offer graduate programs in. So I'm not sure that Chicago should be considered a model for MIT to follow, in terms of improving existing programs (because MIT is actually considered to be better in psychology, only slightly behind in poli-sci, and the same in economics).</p>
<p>The only thing that MIT could "learn" from Chicago is that Chicago obviously offers social sciences that MIT doesn't offer. So if you want to say that MIT should broaden its social science offerings, that would be a suggestion worth considering. But I see no evidence to indicate that Chicago is better in those social sciences that MIT also offers grad programs in. If anything, MIT is actually better. </p>
<p>In fact, if you really want to talk about social sciences, both from a breadth and depth standpoint, then a school like Harvard is probably better than Chicago. So if MIT wants to improve its overall social science strength, the model to follow would be the Harvard model. Yet here in this thread, we have seen how MIT is starting to adopt a Harvard-esque model, and some people here don't like it.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Sure, prestige-whoring is a silly thing, but so is doing the exact opposite: NOT going somewhere to prove a point. I mean, I didn't like the school so I didn't apply to it. If you hate what they do and speak out strongly against it and such, why apply to it just to turn it down?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I hope you think better of me than to believe I would apply just to make a point. Undergrad admissions is basically disjoint from what I care about when choosing a grad school. Harvard is one of the best programs in economics, and I very seriously thought about it. I thought the faculty there were superb and I really enjoyed getting to know them, but there's a certain atmosphere which I knew just wouldn't fit me. My only point was that an honest assessment of quality for a given person is often at variance with what is most prestigious. (And in economics as in undergrad life, nothing beats the Harvard name.)</p>
<p>The other thing, though, is that when I visited MIT, I felt very much at home. There's a very strong techie/no-nonsense atmosphere that permeates everything (even the economics department!). People care about substance, not status, and really want to get to the bottom of everything intellectually. It's very different from the typical Ivy feel. I really enjoy that immensely and when I say mean things at MIT it's only out of love for this rare and precious thing which I hope MIT doesn't waste by becoming a second-rate Harvard.</p>
<p>sakky -- we can argue about VCRs another day, but what you say about how
[quote]
prestige is basically a way to eliminate market information asymmetries, something that I'm sure you are well aware of
[/quote]
doesn't make any sense as far as I can see, and I don't think any serious economist thinks this is so. The worst thing about prestige is that it perpetuates and exacerbates information asymmetries, with ignorants often herding on an inferior option. See Bikhchandani, Hirshleifer, and Welch (JPE 1992) and Banerjee (QJE 1992) for the definitive theoretical works on this subject.</p>
Please go back and re-read my post. I stated clearly that if grades/scores/tests etc ARE enough to determine whether or not a student does well at MIT, then by all means, admit him. But it's a mistake to use them as the ONLY criteria, which implies that they are the ONLY indicators of such. The fallacy you commit is claiming to know what should have gotten you admitted. Rather than thinking in terms of numbers, ask yourself: why do we typically trust those numbers? What are they indicative of? Is there any other thing which might serve as a good indicator of those same qualities?</p>
<p>Not at all. In fact, I explicitly state otherwise:</p>
<p>See? I'm saying you should realize that grades are a good way of determining whether or not a student should be at MIT, but are not the only way or even the best way. The holistic approach acknowledges this, and acknowledges the power of grades in determining good applicants, but realizes there are other measures to judge a candidate by. The numerocentric approach fails to recognize the entire latter category.
</p>
<p>To me, the MIT holistic approach seems to favor those who resorted to self-study above those who participated in high school class-oriented academics. I agree that a holistic approach is best for admissions; I opted out of an AP computer science course because I knew that I could take an independent study in programming with a much better teacher at the local vocational high school. I certainly don't want MIT to scroll to the number of AP classes and toss everyone with less then 6 (especially since my school only offers 4), but neither do I want them to ignore the possibility that some high school academic environments were adequate.</p>
<p>
I can imagine the horror wrought by admitting students who worked hard for their education in addition to those who receive excellent educations. MIT isn't some prize for you to win like every other award you may have on your shelf, it's a place where you can continue caring for your education. You seem to think otherwise, and I can only point out the mistake here.
</p>
<p>Ah, yes, please resort to stereotypes, make my side of this argument even easier. I can imagine that your CR score was rather low (if we're going to go along that road) if you somehow managed to glean from my post that I cared nothing about my education and wanted MIT because it looked shiny on my wall. </p>
<p>After spending months looking at the academic programs of various technical/scientific universities (and already having loved the idea of MIT as a frontrunner in research and development for years), MIT became my top choice for college because of its academic programs. To meet my goal of getting admitted, I thought that I would demonstrate my ability to work hard, study hard, and learn well by achieving in my current classes. In the interim, MIT admissions apparently decided that that somehow doesn't quite fit their criteria. This is what bothers me; the admissions process has become so unscientific, and it doesn't seem to fit with the school to which it is attached.</p>
<p>
Yes. Let's just admit people based on heuristics, rather than actually acknowledging that human beings are individuals and differ from each other significantly.
</p>
<p>My comment here was referring to the ridiculous generalization that any rule with a few exceptions must be a bad rule.</p>
<p>
See, my entire argument was centered around the fact that I do value the college experience here. In fact, I'll go so far as to say I value it more because of the unique experiences I've had. There's a lot to do at MIT and I think the one thing my application demonstrated, more than anything else, is that I will take advantage of all of it, rather than just go to lecture, do psets, repeat. You can get an education anywhere, how does MIT know you'll make the MOST of yours?
</p>
<p>Well, apparently making the most of a high school education doesn't tell them that. Also, do you expect me to believe that you value the MIT education so highly, and yet the prospect of not receiving it did not cause you any stress?</p>
<p>
Sure, having been deferred and then waitlisted is most often enough to make you bitter about a school. But I don't understand the logic of jumping from that to suddenly hating the admissions policies of a school and feeling personally wronged. Do you think MIT should either Accept or Reject all Early Action Applicants? 300 acceptees and everyone else doesn't get a second look with the Regular Decision applicants? Or do you think MIT should abolish the waitlist? No way of assuring a consistent number of students per class (classes and labs and resources and dorms kind of depend on that)?</p>
<p>Or do you think MIT should set up a policy that all deferred applicants should be rejected instead of waitlisted? I thought the whole point was that whether you were deferred or not does not play a role in your decision (in fact, I'm not sure if they even retain this information). Would you rather have been rejected?
</p>
<p>Honestly, I would have no problem if MIT changed to an Early Decision program so they'd know right away that they were my top choice. I'd also have no problem if they admitted more than 30% of the class early; it seems to me that being accepted to college in December provides much more of an opportunity to enjoy one's senior year, which is apparently a major goal of the MIT admissions office.</p>
<p>And, of course, I'd rather they just accept all deferred applicants rather than waitlist them.</p>
<p>The reason I seem to take it personally is that I see people posting here and elsewhere that they were admitted with applications that they admit were mediocre. I saw a person post that he had already been accepted to Cornell ED when he was admitted, and he just left his application in to see if he could get in. If these are the people that admissions are letting in, I have to question their "holistic" approach. While this is anecdotal, the number of spots are quite limited and each decision counts.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is basically the case. My comments are directed towards MIT because it is my top choice school, so I care more about their decision. Also, the admissions office opened themselves to criticism as soon as they began describing the "holistic" process in blog entries and such; it's much easier to analyze and find fault with their policies than with the murky, cultish practices of the Ivies (and it's sad that the two types of policies are becoming more similar).</p>
To me, the MIT holistic approach seems to favor those who resorted to self-study above those who participated in high school class-oriented academics. I agree that a holistic approach is best for admissions; I opted out of an AP computer science course because I knew that I could take an independent study in programming with a much better teacher at the local vocational high school. I certainly don't want MIT to scroll to the number of AP classes and toss everyone with less then 6 (especially since my school only offers 4), but neither do I want them to ignore the possibility that some high school academic environments were adequate.
</p>
<p>This is far, far, from the truth. There are far more people admitted who stick to the courseload offered by their school, and excel in it. There are a few who go the route of self-study, and they should not be punished for it. That was the point I was trying to make.</p>
<p>
Ah, yes, please resort to stereotypes, make my side of this argument even easier. I can imagine that your CR score was rather low (if we're going to go along that road) if you somehow managed to glean from my post that I cared nothing about my education and wanted MIT because it looked shiny on my wall.
</p>
<p>Wow, you've really just stopped reading, haven't you?</p>
<p>
<p>Emphasis added. I was trying to say people like me fall into the former category, people like you fall into the latter, and they're BOTH admitted, and there's nothing wrong with that. By the way, I have not been saying ANYTHING to the effect that your education is somehow inferior or inadequate, yet that's all you seem to be hearing. My entire argument revolves around the fact that people who AREN'T happy with their education should go and do something about it, and in fact, that doing something about it is just as indicative of caring about education as excelling in a good high school program. I am not saying one route is "better" than the other, please reread what I've written and quit being spiteful. There are multiple ways to assess a person's worth in coming here, yet you seem to think that the numerical way (your way) is the best. I'm saying there are multiple equally good ways, yet you seem to think I'm saying that numbers are somehow BAD or negative. That's not true. It also saddens me to see you've resorted to personal attacks. </p>
<p>Let me rephrase: re-read what I've written please. I did not glean from your post that you don't care about your education, nor was that the implication of what I've written. </p>
<p>
[QUOTE=Master0fBalances]
To meet my goal of getting admitted, I thought that I would demonstrate my ability to work hard, study hard, and learn well by achieving in my current classes. In the interim, MIT admissions apparently decided that that somehow doesn't quite fit their criteria. This is what bothers me; the admissions process has become so unscientific, and it doesn't seem to fit with the school to which it is attached.
</p>
<p>Ah, and now I see what the problem is. You're turning your rejection into something personal. You had an awesome high school education. Great. You worked hard, studied hard, and achieved in your current classes. Awesome! And so did most of the people who got into MIT. MIT didn't feel that this "didn't fit the criteria", as most of the admitted students did precisely just that. You just weren't one of them, and that's what all this anger is about. Again: you make the mistake of thinking that numbers are the best measure of an applicant's worth. I (and other people here) are trying to inform you that they are a good way, but not the only way. In fact, MOST people who were admitted were like you, not like me.</p>
<p>You feel that hard work and great performance in classes demonstrates care and concern for education. I agree, and MIT agrees. In fact, most (the vast majority!) of the people MIT admits demonstrate their care and concern by this criteria (more than 60% of admitted students are valedictorians, IIRC). The incredible minority demonstrate it some other way. Both of these ways are valid. But there are far more people who demonstrate great care and concern for their education than there are slots for admitted students at MIT, so let go of your myopia and consider for a minute that even if you did everything academically right, so did most other applicants, and it's the OTHER factors (ASIDE from care for education) that made the difference in your decision.</p>
<p>So I ask you this: if two applicants BOTH demonstrate an incredible intellectual capability as well as concern for their education (as I'm sure you do), by what criteria will you choose one of the other? One got a B+ and the other an A-? One got a 690 on her Math SAT and the other a 720? These differences are incredibly minute to the point of being negligible, it's far wiser to look at other things.</p>
<p>
<p>I apologize for this misunderstanding. My initial comment was with regards to rules about admission specifically, not rules in general. "Heuristics", while useful in many cases, should not be what determines the next four years of a person's life, and the reputation of an Institute. Suggestions in this thread like "admit all USAMO qualifiers" are just plain idiotic.</p>
<p>
[QUOTE=Master0fBalances]
Well, apparently making the most of a high school education doesn't tell them that.
</p>
<p>You're absolutely right it doesn't. Getting straight A's and 4.0s says nothing about your social competence, your ability to isolate your own educational opportunities (research or otherwise), your willingness to work with other people, or even your own ingenuity. It's not as if self-study is intrinsically favored over high-school education, but it does demonstrate a lot of things that going the "classical" route doesn't. (Similarly, the high-school education demonstrates a lot of qualities that the self-study route can't.) Most students who go the "classical" route do many things in addition that demonstrate these additional qualities that self-study necessitates. These students are treated equally, and there are far, far more students here who got here the "typical" way than my way. I know I had to do a lot to make up for the fact that my self-study didn't demonstrate my capability to, say, pass my GIRs. I had to find some other way to demonstrate that, and I did. Rather than seeing the methods as desirable qualities, try thinking of them in terms of what qualities they are indicative of, and then have fun imaging the various other possible ways someone could demonstrate these qualities.</p>
<p>Most people who got into MIT were at the top of their class, but that's not why they got in, nor is there only one "why" behind someone getting in. I implore you, stop acting like there is.</p>
<p>
Also, do you expect me to believe that you value the MIT education so highly, and yet the prospect of not receiving it did not cause you any stress?
</p>
<p>I honestly don't expect you to believe it, no. Nor did I even ask you to believe it, nor did I even make that statement! Again, re-read what I wrote. </p>
<p>
<p>I didn't say it caused me no stress. I don't even know where you're getting what you're saying anymore; you obviously aren't getting it from what I've been writing. It did cause me stress... after all, there's a lot I knew I could-- and would-- do at MIT that most people wouldn't. Some people come here, expecting to be the ***<em>, treating it like high school 2.0, and leave with their shiny MIT diplomas. They never take advantage of all of the unique opportunities being at a school like MIT presents. It made me sad to think I wouldn't get in and get to make use of those opportunities while someone who did nothing but sit in class all day has a better shot of getting accepted, despite the fact they'd likely never be able to use this place to it's full potential. Fortunately, I was wrong-- most of the people at MIT *did</em> do well in class and had great grades, etc, but they also did far more than that.</p>
<p>It definitely, definitely, made me far LESS stressful to know that there was a human being reading my application and evaluating it in a human manner. It made it far LESS stressful for me to know that just because I had poor grades, I wouldn't be automatically disqualified from the running. If I didn't get accepted, it would be because someone got accepted who is <em>fit</em> better for this place and would actually use it, rather than someone who can perform in a mindless math/science grind.</p>
<p>Before you jump on it, that last statement was NOT meant to imply that you were one of these people. Even if you were PERFECTLY fit for MIT, there are more fit students than admitted slots. The fact that you were waitlisted and not rejected indicates that you are capable of being here and that you wouldn't be some wart on the institute. MIT wanted you, it just didn't have enough slots. Quit yelling that the admissions is unfair because you didn't get in. The vast majority of decisions are handled by the criteria you wish them to be handled by, but somehow you seem to think the small minority that got in demonstrating their worth in another way stole your "rightful" spot.</p>
<p>
[QUOTE=Master0fBalances]
Honestly, I would have no problem if MIT changed to an Early Decision program so they'd know right away that they were my top choice. I'd also have no problem if they admitted more than 30% of the class early; it seems to me that being accepted to college in December provides much more of an opportunity to enjoy one's senior year, which is apparently a major goal of the MIT admissions office.
</p>
<p>Early Decision programs lock people into a game of statistics and turn college admissions into more of a gamble than they currently are. Do you apply early to one school and guarantee your admission or apply regular to two in hopes that you might get into a better one but risk getting into neither?</p>
<p>
And, of course, I'd rather they just accept all deferred applicants rather than waitlist them.
</p>
<p>So would I. If you've been waitlisted, you have what it takes to be at MIT. But the school just isn't big enough to accommodate that many people. </p>
<p>
The reason I seem to take it personally is that I see people posting here and elsewhere that they were admitted with applications that they admit were mediocre. I saw a person post that he had already been accepted to Cornell ED when he was admitted, and he just left his application in to see if he could get in. If these are the people that admissions are letting in, I have to question their "holistic" approach. While this is anecdotal, the number of spots are quite limited and each decision counts.
</p>
<p>I just want to go on the record that while I admit my grades were mediocre, I never meant to give the impression that my application was mediocre or that my accomplishments were mediocre. I do not know whether this statement applied to me, but definitely want to take this opportunity to make it clear.</p>
<p>(Editted as I hit post instead of preview on accident)</p>
After spending months looking at the academic programs of various technical/scientific universities (and already having loved the idea of MIT as a frontrunner in research and development for years), MIT became my top choice for college because of its academic programs. To meet my goal of getting admitted, I thought that I would demonstrate my ability to work hard, study hard, and learn well by achieving in my current classes. In the interim, MIT admissions apparently decided that that somehow doesn't quite fit their criteria. This is what bothers me; the admissions process has become so unscientific, and it doesn't seem to fit with the school to which it is attached.
[/quote]
This, I think, is a problem, as orbis_somnio said a few pages back -- you seem to feel that you did everything you needed to do to get into MIT, and therefore any fair admissions policy would be to admit you. When there are over 12,000 applications for a 1000-person freshman class, not everybody who "deserves" to be admitted can be admitted.</p>
<p>I didn't read the whole thread (so long!), but I can somehow understand what the OP is trying to say. What I feel is unfair about the admission process in general (not only at MIT) is the fact that your personality as it appears in real life is most often different from your personality as it is conveyed in your application (sometimes it can be even <em>very</em> different). Now, if you are a good writer and if you can excel in the essays, you certainly have an advantage over those who are more science-oriented, but probably academically more able. What I am trying to say is that the idea of assessing an applicant through merely a bunch of papers seems very dubious (forget the interview, it has no weight whatsoever and isn't academically oriented).</p>
<p>
[quote]
forget the interview, it has no weight whatsoever
[/quote]
I hope Mikalye will chime in here and verify that this statement is incorrect. Additionally, I have direct evidence that recommendations are checked very carefully (beyond just reading what the recommenders wrote) and also weigh strongly in the admissions decision. Someone who looks good on paper will get a careful read, but there is a lot of work put into seeing beyond the numbers and essays to seek out aspects of the person those numbers are one facet of.</p>
<p>"he had already been accepted to Cornell ED when he was admitted, and he just left his application in to see if he could get in. If these are the people that admissions are letting in, I have to question their "holistic" approach. While this is anecdotal, the number of spots are quite limited and each decision counts."</p>
<p>I don't understand. That's a good thing. This kid will not take the spot offered to him and there will be one more waitlistee admitted. Each decision counts. </p>
<p>But I don't understand how MIT admissions is supposed to pick out the kids who got in ED elsewhere vs. the kids who did not. If the admissions department thought (based on the information they had- that he put on the application) that the kid deserved a spot, then they offered him a spot. They are not all-seeing and all-knowing.</p>
<p>"I'd also have no problem if they admitted more than 30% of the class early; it seems to me that being accepted to college in December provides much more of an opportunity to enjoy one's senior year, which is apparently a major goal of the MIT admissions office."</p>
<p>Tell me you're kidding. The major goal isn't to PLEASE EVERYONE. Then MIT would accept everyone that ever applied. It's to make it least stressful for the most people. You just don't happen to fall into the "most people" category, and being childish about it (you can wish that admissions ended by Junior year of high school if you want, since that makes for a non-stressful senior year) won't help your point.</p>
<p>And also, "it's much easier to analyze and find fault with their policies than with the murky, cultish practices of the Ivies "</p>
<p>This is kind of an incomprehensible statement. You're saying you'd rather not know anything? It won't stop you from being deferred then waitlisted... you'll still receive two very impersonal thin letters about it. You just won't have anyone to commiserate with. That kind of attitude and you're just ASKING to be abused. You'd rather live under a dictatorship than have to look to closely at the ugly issues of the country in order to vote.</p>
<p>Having had an MIT interview myself, I <em>know</em> that it's not of academic nature. You're not posed any math questions, no problems to solve. It's just a get-to-know-each-other sort of thing, with the opportunity to ask questions.
Recommendations are another thing I find highly questionable. Of course, (almost) every teacher will write good things about the students, so that won't stand out anymore. Instead, what stands out are reports in which teachers highlight a certain special aspect of an applicant. In the end, the question whether the teacher knows how to write really exceptional recommendations. It's not whether you're good or not, it's whether your teacher's good or not, in a sense.</p>
<p>I didn't say it was academic, did I, aw5k? I said it was incorrect to say it was of "no weight whatsoever". In fact, it may be important because it is NOT "academic", if the intent is to learn more about the person behind the paper application.</p>
<p>And my experience contradicts your assumptions. It was not either the banal glowing words a recommender wrote, nor whether they were great writers. (Although of course having seen so many recommendations, the admissions staff has likely gotten pretty good at sniffing out pro-forma recs, and can tell when a recommender's enthusiasm is genuinely special.) It was what they said when contacted on the phone that seemed to be memorable. (No, not every recommender is contacted on the phone. But the admissions staff do contact recommenders by phone sometimes to learn more. To me, this shows they're going an extra length to try to find out who those "on paper applicants" really are.)</p>
<p>Sorry for this misunderstanding. Concerning the interview's weight, I think it is only of considerable importance if the applicant appears either in a extraordinarily negative or extraordinarily positive way.</p>
<p>I am sure the admission staff tries their best to look who that "on paper applicant" really is. I just doubt that this can be done effectively (this is not to say that it cannot be done <em>at all</em>, but I think this process sometimes results in unexpected and not seldom "unfair" decisions).</p>
<p>Well, Oxford and Cambridge, for example, invite (almost) every applicant to an interview where the applicant is (1) assessed academically (he is asked to solve problems during the interview), and (2) assessed personally (there's usually a "general" interview with regards to your passions, etc.). I think it's a much fairer process.</p>
<p>However, I understand that it's impossible for MIT to interview each person individually. Their admission policy right now is probably the best they can do.</p>
<p>
[quote]
See Bikhchandani, Hirshleifer, and Welch (JPE 1992) and Banerjee (QJE 1992) for the definitive theoretical works on this subject.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Nice try, Ben. Bikchandhani et. al. and Banerjee are not relevant to the discussion because they are not models of * difficult-to-replicate signals *, and that is precisely what provides signalling value. Not everybody can get into Harvard (or MIT or Caltech) and that lack of replicability is what makes them valuable as signals. </p>
<p>As you can see from the Bikhchandani model, actors are unrestricted in which particular group they want to join. Hence, there is no a-priori reason why individual actors won't decide to conform to the group. Same thing with the Banerjee model - i.e. in the model of restaurants A & B, there is nothing that 'restricts' patrons from choosing either restaurant. </p>
<p>I would agree that if just anybody could decide to attend any school, that your above references would probably apply. But that's simply not the case. It is precisely because not anybody can go to any school is what gives certain schools signalling value. </p>
<p>If you want a more sociological based view of what I'm talking about, I suggest Podolony 1993 in ASJ. If you want a more business-oriented reputation signalling model, I suggest Fonbrun and Shanley 1990. And of course if you just want a more economic model, Milgrom & Roberts 1986.</p>
<p>Your criticism is not on point. Usually on these boards people (including you!) discuss prestige in terms of cross-admit battles. If we restrict attention to those people who are admitted to their top choices -- who really are sending whatever signal they want to send -- both models I cited apply, and you can still easily get herding on an inferior option.</p>
<p>Note that the existence of people who are constrained in their choice (e.g. only got into Harvard because their daddy gave a building) only adds noise to the prestige ranking and makes it even less reliable. Even in the purest case when all colleges compete head to head for the exact same group of best students, prestige confounds evaluation of true quality. When you add more noise, things are even worse.</p>
<p>In general your response seems very confused. The two models I gave are quite general in that you have a sequence of people with choices to make. There are no assumptions made about how they came to be in that situation, and whether it was easy or hard for them. So the model applies quite well regardless of the difficulty of getting admitted (in our case).</p>
<p>
[quote]
I hope you think better of me than to believe I would apply just to make a point. Undergrad admissions is basically disjoint from what I care about when choosing a grad school. Harvard is one of the best programs in economics, and I very seriously thought about it.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Yeah, but that doesn't exactly answer the question of why you also applied to Harvard * for undergrad too*. In fact, if anything, it actually raises even more questions. In fact, I now have the same question that pebbles has - that if you really didn't think that Harvard undergrad was that good, why did you even apply in the first place? </p>
<p>
[quote]
The other thing, though, is that when I visited MIT, I felt very much at home. There's a very strong techie/no-nonsense atmosphere that permeates everything (even the economics department!). People care about substance, not status, and really want to get to the bottom of everything intellectually. It's very different from the typical Ivy feel. I really enjoy that immensely and when I say mean things at MIT it's only out of love for this rare and precious thing
[/quote]
</p>
<p>First off, by that logic, should we be expecting you to matriculate at MIT then?</p>
<p>Secondly, let me provide a defense for Harvard. The Harvard doctoral programs are quite serious places for study. I might agree with you that the professional degree programs are status-conscious. But I'm fairly certain that few people enter a Harvard doctoral program solely for purposes of status. If all you want to do is get a Harvard degree, there are easier ways to do it. Get an master's degree at KSG or the GSE or one of the other professional schools. That's a far more straightforward way to tag yourself with the Harvard name, if that's all you're really after.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Your criticism is not on point. Usually on these boards people (including you!) discuss prestige in terms of cross-admit battles. If we restrict attention to those people who are admitted to their top choices -- who really are sending whatever signal they want to send -- both models I cited apply, and you can still easily get herding on an inferior option.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Cross-admit battles are only * one * aspect of prestige, and for the purposes of this topic, an irrelevant one. Again, you are presuming that everybody who gets into Harvard can get into MIT or Caltech (or wherever is there other top choice). Come on, we both know that's not true. Plenty of people who get into MIT and Caltech didn't get into Harvard. My brother, for example, didn't get into Harvard. {And yes, there are some people that get into Harvard that don't get into MIT, but almost certainly less.}. </p>
<p>Hence, we are STILL in the world of costly signals. Again, I would agree with you that if everybody who could get into, say, one of HYPSMC could get into all of the others, then your cited papers are applicable. But that's not the case, so my cited papers are applicable. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Note that the existence of people who are constrained in their choice (e.g. only got into Harvard because their daddy gave a building) only add noise to the prestige ranking and make it even less reliable. Even in the purest case when all colleges compete head to head for the exact same group of best students, prestige confounds evaluation of true quality. When you add more noise, things are even worse.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Ah, but that is * entirely endogenous*. Think of it this way. You say that people give buildings so their kids can get into Harvard. But that just begs the question * why Harvard? *. Why aren't they instead donating buildings to get their kids into MIT or Caltech? Why Harvard specifically? Again, it gets back to the fact that Harvard is the signal that is the most difficult to replace, hence contributing to its status ranking. As Podolny would argue, the way you preserve status is by being selective in your social network - if everybody could become a Harvard graduate, then Harvard would lose its status. {The same thing applies with Caltech - we both know that if everybody could get a Caltech degree, then Caltech would lose its status.}</p>
<p>Don't get me wrong, Ben. I sympathize with your position. I think MIT and Caltech deserve more recognition and status relative to Harvard. I think that society should place greater value on rigorous technical education and less on social networking, persuasion, and politics. But what can I say? That's just not the way the world is. We have to deal with the world the way it is, not the way we might like it to be.</p>