Stanford and Private School Admissions - A Mystery

Colleges and Universities A-Z Stanford University
141

<p>faraday, I am irritated at your patronizing attitude. Regarding whittling down/sifting, etc, if you have 100 applicants and only 10 spots, then you have to use a mechanism to choose the 10. The very fact that the colleges use EVERY MECHANISM THEY CAN GET HOLD OF (from SAT scores to recs to essays to audition tapes) suggests open mindedness and creativity. If they use X mechanism and not Y you can accuse them of choosing an imperfect measure over a better one that exists. Show me one measure they deliberately ignore.</p>

<p>When I said, do we actually know /see the grades of everyone, I did not mean in a granular sense, of course, you and I will know the transcripts of a few, but adcoms handle 22000 and they are in a better position to have all the facts. </p>

<p>You mention speed over rigor. It is not as if they could have both and deliberately sacrificed one for the other. You don't have a clue about test construction. Speed is a measure of intelligence, sir. And your statement conformity over creativity, what the hell does that mean? The elite colleges value creativity, they pore over the apps looking for evidence of it, that is the coin of the realm. But the converse is not true, if one bombs the conventional tests, that does not mean one is instantly creative.</p>

<p>Kindly do not waste your time with the likes of me when you can be working on that grand theory in physics. Your dismissal of me would make sense, if you were a presidential scholar at Caltech.</p>

142

<p>"Where is the flawed use of statistics?"</p>

<p>Your flawed use of statistics regarding SAT's, not the college admission. In fact, I am impressed that they could select so well despite the lack of rigor in the testing system.</p>

<p>"Please offer some better measure that exists"
We already have in the previous posts. Rigor is the hinge point.</p>

<p>Remember I am not criticizing admission people. Neither am I critizing the multifactorial approach. All I am criticizing is the educational system (SAT, SATII's etc...) and measures of academic performance. I admire those admission people who have to make those decisions based on a flawed testing system. They succeed despite the flawed system, which is highly commendable.</p>

<p>"grand theory in physics" It's nothing close to a grand theory of physics :D. The Irodov problems are just a collection of fun/challengin problems to do, and sth that builds a better physics base than the standard Physics AP HS course.</p>

143

<p>First off, I see tensions are rising, and that's fine to an extent, but I hope it's clear that my goal isn't to insult. I am open to learning new things here, not just bashing the way systems work.</p>

<p>"The very fact that the colleges use EVERY MECHANISM THEY CAN GET HOLD OF (from SAT scores to recs to essays to audition tapes) suggests open mindedness and creativity. If they use X mechanism and not Y you can accuse them of choosing an imperfect measure over a better one that exists. Show me one measure they deliberately ignore."</p>

<p>I agree there is a good open-mindedness. And I agree that there are a TON of different goals in selecting students - the most academic aren't always the best fits, etc, etc, etc. (This is coming from me, basically a purely academic sort...I think I'm pretty open-minded.)</p>

<p>My intentions should be clear here - I am looking out for the ideally done selection of the quota of purely excited academic sorts. </p>

<p>Instead of claiming anything, let me ask: why do you think that in faraday's and my experience (along with others), several schools in our areas (well at least in the part of CA I am in) have had less than consistent correlation between the so-called "brightest" students in math and physics, as per students' and teachers' opinions and admission? Please do not just dismiss our cases as trivial sampling errors, because I think they deserve some due consideration. I have given you examples before. I mean, sure the RIGHT factors are being considered - teacher recs, academics, etc - but why these failures, in your opinion?</p>

144

<p>Note -- the profiles of the guys I mention. SPECIFICALLY people with few EC's, but teachers who adore them and agree with me that their futures in the academic world are brighter than most. I think there is a subtle issue, and I can only guess what it is. I am pointing to our curriculum. I respectfully ask for other suggestions if they exist.</p>

145

<p>mathboy, let us be good scientists and look at all possible explanations for the lack of correlation you cite.</p>

<ol>
<li><p>You are mistaken. You cannot know all the data that colleges have. For you to flatly assert a lack of correlation, you must know all applicant info, all admit info, all reject info. You and I don't have all the information. Frankly, of 22000 applicants to Harvard, just an example, how many can you and I really know and how well?</p></li>
<li><p>Teachers (and all human beings) say nice things to one's face. Did they really say that in the rec letter? How can we be absolutely sure that the teacher did not say sweet things to the face and write, "he is bright but selfish" etc etc. There is a reason that teacher recs are confidential and one has to forfeit rights to see the letters. In other words, the high praise from teachers need to be backed with letters. In some cases, teachers do share such letters and that brings me to the next point.</p></li>
<li><p>Teachers praising the kid as the next Einstein is only one data point. What if Harvard were to say that they know this teacher has said the same for every student and for every student in the last 10 years?</p></li>
<li><p>Valid disagreement. Adcoms may disagree, they may have graduation and success data on kids from this particular school and this particular teacher. Or, to put it another way, they may admit a kid of whom a different teacher offers modest praise only and reject the kids with glowing praise because the former modest-praise teacher is known never to offer any kind of praise and the two kids of whom he offered modest praise ended up winning the Putnam.</p></li>
<li><p>Inside information on moral trespass that we are not aware of, rape, cheating, plagiarism. Please, I am going over the any number of reasons for discrepancies.</p></li>
<li><p>A college's decision, arbitrarily, to take only 80 kids of the pure academic bent, and they prefer to take the other 80 than the 80 you and I know. This would be a conscious reason for colleges to restrict pure academic admits.</p></li>
<li><p>Genuine errors.</p></li>
<li><p>Problem profiles. I have written letters outlining counseling and medication support to stellar idiot savant students. Colleges may not have the resources, the inclination or the appetite for liability to take someone who may win the next Putnam but has made 3 serious suicide attempts.</p></li>
</ol>

<p>Etc Etc. You may now say your friends do not belong in any of the above. Yes, they do, number 7 and twenty other areas I have not touched on.</p>

<p>I am sorry I got irritable, but faraday accused me of misusing statistics which implies fraud. All I am saying is that colleges at once both a) give weight to SAT and other scores and b) are simultaneously willing to abandon these in search for the unique student.</p>

<p>If we believe X or Y or Z about the college admit process we will find problems. But let us try this thought experiment: let us believe the colleges highly value SATs etc at the same time believe they highly devalue the SATs etc. You will note there is support in admit decisions for both decision tree.</p>

<p>As far as faraday's comment that there is an alternate measure in the previous post, I fail to discern (failure on my part). Is there an alternate measure, a quantitative measure that exists that colleges refuse to take note of?</p>

<p>Look, MeriLee Jones , the erstwhile MIT admissions dean said she did not want to admit too many math/science grinds. Especially in the context of Asian students, whatever test you design, they will ace it, and then ace college courses but may not add to the life of the college or even make imaginative contributions. hence, colleges may have (I have no clue about this but hazarding a guess) decided, we will use the SAT or AP not to discern prowess but to ascertain if they can do minimal work, thereafter we will abandon the prose of numbers and go for the poetry of essays, ECS, recs, etc. Maybe they are reading the narrative in interesting ways, what is subjective does not mean biased or whimsical , they have 4 or 5 readers, I see a nuanced approach in all this.</p>

146

<p>OK, so now I agree the admissions directors have their own goals. Is part of the reason you dislike my and faraday's harping on the AP that you believe admissions directors won't care more about high scorers ANYWAY, even if curricula are improved? I.e. that they (and perhaps you) are more confident in the use of subjective (however potentially good) means?</p>

<p>I am making the absolute maximum effort to calmly read your material and think about all this.</p>

147

<p>I am interested in knowing some more reasons why the cases I mentioned could've turned out how they did. </p>

<p>I am in agreement that no. 7 is a legitimate possibility. I know, to basically 100% certainty, that their characters are good. I'm guessing that if anything, point no. 3 of yours may have applied. I.e. overpraising teachers. </p>

<p>What other factors are there? And is my above understanding of your point right? I want to understand it properly.</p>

148

<p>Above should read, a little more vaguely, "now I agree the admissions directors MAY have their own goals." Again, since I do not know explicitly.</p>

149

<p>mathboy, many of us assume, especially those from Asia and Europe, that college admissions is about enrolling the truly academic. We may wonder, what has the ability to throw a ball (athletics), the fact that one's parent graduated from that college (legacy), ECs (school clubs etc) got to do with academics?</p>

<p>In his marvellous book The Chosen, Karabel tells the story of how admissions at HYP evolved to be what it is today. A very brief synopsis: HYP found by looking at the Terman kids that the very bright did not amount to much, that in their own experience the most successful grads from HYP were the ones who were moderately academic but were players on team sports. They also looked at U of Chicago and how it had become irrelevant in the life of the nation (not in the academic world of Nobels etc) because of Mortimer Adler's emphasis on the life of the mind. HYP feeder schools then, the Philips Academies, had all imbibed the British notion, the battles of Britain were won on the playing fields of Eton. Sound mind in sound body. The presidents of these schools were mostly Greek scholars and they probably were brought up on the charming story of Pericles calmly writing poetry and discussing Heraclitus the night before a sea battle, the notion that Sophocles was a farmer and carpenter and soldier, in other words, HYP abhorred specialists and specialization, hence their till-today stance against preprofessional training.</p>

<p>They believe the mission of the university is to contribute to the life of the nation in politics, business, the arts, etc with research/academic contribution being a small part. Do remember, that the research university is a very very new notion, just over a 100 years old, invented in Germany in the 1870s. </p>

<p>Hence, if you are outstandingly brilliant, a genius, then you can do nothing else and still get in but if you are below that, even if you are magisterially above everyone else (which is what it seems your friends are) then there must be something else you bring to the table.</p>

<p>Often one hears stories, especially Asian kids, stellar scores, summer lab work, etc, rejected by all Ivies. Why? These kids are still not Newton/Bill Gates/Andrew Wiles level. Yes, they do the usual community service, which is highly suspect in adcom's eyes (cannot be measured, hours can be manipulated) and hence the rejection.</p>

<p>My son, for example, no Andrew Wiles, probably closer to your friends, would have done even better in a tougher AP curriculum, got into 5 Ivies because he was a varsity athlete (that's what I think anyway). Otherwise he would not have made it. Athletics, especially tennis, can be measured, without years of training you won't make it to no 2 on a top prep school team. Even then, HYP rejected him, why? No Andrew Wiles, and no ECs and the other things they value. At least that's what I think.</p>

<p>Perhaps if you change your idea of what a university is about, then things will fall into place. Hope this helps.</p>

150

<p>OK, so I believe I was right in assessing where your frustrations came from. I.e., I believe you've been saying that admissions officers don't WANT to look for more curricula, and have different, better measures to get what they think correlates with overall success of students. I believe your frustrations stemmed from the fact that our suggestions for a harder AP test kind of directly contradict the admissions offices' goals, and this may be why you wanted us to get informed.</p>

<p>However stale the discussion got earlier, I think with a little careful and calm understanding, both you and I may take something from this. So let's take a step back, forget AP's, and such, and get down to basic philosophical considerations. </p>

<p>I want to first ask - are you certain that the classification "Wiles caliber" or "just a very good student" is not too broad? I, as a math major, am under the impression that Wiles is a phenomenon, whose rise (as given in the popular documentary on Fermat's Last Theorem) was in no way predictable. He could've just been a mathematician with "deep ideas" as his adviser stated. If "Wiles" or "less than Wiles" is the name of the game, would you suggest an admissions officer knows better than Wiles's adviser how he would turn out? That is, if this is how your son was judged: "My son, for example, no Andrew Wiles, probably closer to your friends."</p>

151

<p>mathboy, forget my Wiles reference, it can be misleading. The elite colleges do value high academic ability, hence Harvard enrolls approx 50% of those who score 2400. Not all of them will turn out to be academic superstars, some may even struggle with Math55 etc. Similarly, Harvard may take most Intel/Siemens winners, again not all, and only some of them may turn out successful. The adcoms certainly don't have some crystal ball as to an individual's future but make informed guesses. Sometimes they are right, sometimes wrong and we only know the times they are right. Same goes for faculty advisers. For every adviser who predicted the phenomenal success of a student, many predicted wrong and we will never know, social psychologists call this the survivorship bias.</p>

<p>To return to the subject, the elite colleges are not interested in admitting all the top academic students, hence there is no need for them to devise tougher and tougher tests/curriculums. They are interested in capturing some small percentage of the top students and for this purpose, a combination of high SATs, APs etc will do. For the rest of the student body, they want to admit those who can graduate, who will successfully earn a B or B+, that's all. They are creating a mini city, a civic body, so they want journalists and footballers, violinists, social activists and a small minority of academics. If you can imagine that in any American city the true scholars are only a small part, a minuscule part, then you can see why the university wants to reflect in its composition the mix of the city.</p>

<p>Hence, diversity of color, gender, race, etc. Let me put it another way; if the Ivies admitted only the academically meritorious they will be like UC Berkeley without affirmative action: all Asian, number of whites, almost no blacks. Then they won't be Ivies, they will be
IITs. And no one will want to go there!!</p>

<p>A number based system, and that's what it will be if you have your new test or new curriculum, will be lacking interest, one dimensional, boring, everyone there will be good at "going to school". The Ivies want to turn out Yo Yo Ma, Warren Buffett, Bill Gates, Rajiv Gandhi, Hank Paulson, they want an interesting mix of students, and in the sense that we are occasionally stunned by their admits and rejects, continuously surprised by the admits and rejects, they are on track, they have earned our fascination and interest. </p>

<p>UC Berkeley and IIT won't turn out, at least highly unlikely, world class pianists, tennis stars and Nobel laureates. The Ivies do. They hunt for promise. To have some grand new test or curriculum that identifies the next great physicist, what fun is there in it? To take the application of a black student from an OK inner city school and see in him the making of a federal judge, that's the job I want. </p>

<p>I spoke to the adcoms of the Ivies my son got into, it was amazing how they read his file, the nuances they picked up, their reasoning. I believe they are doing an incredible job. </p>

<p>Please read Karabel's book, The Chosen. Read articles from the ATlantic on college admissions, there was a series some 4 years ago.</p>

152

<p>I agree with the spirit of your points about the Ivies. The Chosen seems to be one of your favorite references. If I have to look at something first, I guess I'll try that. </p>

<p>Now, I won't speak for IIT, but to say UC Berkeley won't turn out Nobel Laureates is actually quite a falsehood. Berkeley is actually more of a center for top research (as evidenced by its superior graduate departments) than most Ivies. The undergrads going there have a unique access to premier faculty - in terms of the top math faculty, some of the schools coming to mind are: Berkeley, Stanford, MIT, UChicago, Harvard, and Princeton. </p>

<p>Certainly not all Ivies. All prestigious schools though. Something Berkeley I think is REALLY good for is research. Similar statements hold about some more score-obsessive schools like Caltech -- it's supposed to be a good bet that you'll find a Nobel Laureate there, and Caltech students are usually some of the most exceptionally high scoring -- way, way more so, I'd say, than your every day Ivy League. Now, as for tennis stars and pianists, probably not likely. As for these awesome leaders, perhaps also not as likely.</p>

<p>"that identifies the next great physicist, what fun is there in it?"</p>

<p>Well, I think that'd be fun as a job for me =] and I'd be interested to think what measures I'd devise. Not a job for everyone though. I think a future physicist superstar is probably best picked by a current physicist superstar. </p>

<p>I am curious -- could you compare and contrast how the Ivies, as opposed to say Caltech, admit the pure academic minds? If there are indeed differences.</p>

153

<p>Note - the above line "I'd be interested to think what measures I'd devise. Not a job for everyone though. I think a future physicist superstar is probably best picked by a current physicist superstar." is in no way to suggest that I consider myself a physics superstar. Two distinct statements.</p>

154

<p>mathboy, I am aware of Berkeley's reputation as a research powerhouse so don't be so sweeping about my 'falsehood", I am not an idiot exactly. Prior to the 80s, the number of Berkeley undergrads going on to win Nobels was way below that of the research ivies, Columbia (which leads although there is controversy over how the univs count nobel affiliations) Harvard, Yale and UPenn. Only since the affirmative action debate in California has UC Berkeley started attracting top math/sci minds in undergrad. Earlier, the top undergrads went there for pol sci mostly. This is not to deny that it is a great school. Karabel's Chosen is only one of many books I would recommend but since you are clearly not familiar with the philosophy/ideology of Ivy admissions I suggested that as a first.</p>

<p>The Ivies do not have a special talent for identifying academic superstars, in fact their job is probably more difficult since they don't rely too much on scores like Berkeley. They seem to accomplish their self-chosen mission as the major contributors of talent to American life by doing a few things well a) enormous endowment allows for extensive student support for travel, research etc b) recruit established superstar researchers who have gained their reputation elsewhere hence attracting federal money and superstar students c) reputational and signaling effects thru alum network permits placement in choice research/govt/private industry positions which in turn allows preeminence d) bring creative and driven students together.</p>

<p>To answer your question specifically, using H as example, it attracts the best, and it can choose among them and by achieving critical mass of creative talent the effects are more profound. Berkeley admits for example are largely from within California, H's admits are more extensive, that's one way. To return to your falsehood comment, look up the no of H and Columbia undergrads prior to the 80s who have won Nobels and you will see my point. Until then H and Columbia's admit policy was more like Berkeley's today. Early on, H simply took those who did well on a Greek and Latin exam, remember your insistence on one grand exam!!</p>

<p>As to why Greek and Latin, they were prominent then but listen to this:</p>

<p>Sir Peter Medawar, an Australian Nobelist, once said that when Oxford and Cambridge excelled in teaching Latin and Greek they turned out great scientists but since they became good at teaching science their scientific output has declined but they are producing first rate philologists. He made this comment in 1979 and not tongue in cheek.</p>

155

<p>mathboy, the problem with you is you are generally poorly read, but you want to thrust your opinions on others and throw out words like falsehood (like your friend faraday who practically accused me of fraud in SAT stats.).</p>

<p>Laughlin and Libby are the only two UCal Berkeley undergrads who have earned a Nobel ever. I have gone through every Nobel ever associated with Berkeley and found just 2. I may be wrong by one or two, I doubt it, but the research Ivies , the ones I had in mind. Cornell, Harvard and Columbia, not in that order have had more of their undergrads go on to win Nobels. Now, I am not, repeat, not, proving or disproving a thing, I made this point and had you practically pounce on me.</p>

<p>As to your friend faraday, kindly read tokenadult's posts on SAT score frequency and college admissions and you will see how wrong mr faraday is.</p>

<p>Both of you need to remember Blake's comment, "you need to know more than enough in order to know what is enough". Thanks. Goodbye.</p>

156

<p>sorry, mathboy, I am becoming like you, multiple posts, but to clarify my comment about your being poorly read, I am restricting it to college admissions and if you make a comment that Karabel's Chosen is my favorite because I keep mentioning, that says something, that book is the definite history of undergrad admissions at HYP since the founding of these schools, without knowing that book you are at sea in trying to comment on HYP admissions or even Ivy admissions. That is central. So,someone who argues about Ivy admissions without reading it is akin to arguing gravity without any knowledge of Newton or Einstein. You will laugh at someone who argued science without any scientific knowledge but in the field we are talking about, you and faraday talk about test construction without a clue about psychometics.</p>

<p>Brave new world that has such people in it.</p>

157

<p>Look Ramaswami, I agree the word "falsehood" was a poor choice. But I think you're suddenly assuming I am trashing all you're saying. Please be a little careful in assessing what parts of your posts I am questioning (not even necessarily trashing). I have explicitly acknowledged that I do not know much about what goes on in the minds of the Ivy League admissions committee. I am generally good about phrasing a lot of my words in terms of questions, rather than assertions, when I am dubious. When I've failed at this, I apologize and concede I should be more careful.</p>

<p>Let's go back to my previous remark - do you honestly measure the caliber of a school's admissions process in selecting the <em>academic</em> portion of its student body by Nobel Laureates? Or would you be open to just considering exceptional academic minds? Can you compare + contrast how Caltech and Ivies select their more research/academic-minded students?</p>

158

<p>"Now, I am not, repeat, not, proving or disproving a thing, I made this point and had you practically pounce on me."</p>

<p>I think you are just as, if not more guilty of pouncing in many occasions, but I agree I was a bit out of line. I continue to read and consider your words carefully, and I ask you do the same instead of making accusations "generally poorly read, but you want to thrust your opinions on others."</p>

159

<p>Now that you've had some chance to cool off, let's again make an effort at avoiding counter-productive confrontations. From both our ends.</p>

<p>The simple point I want to learn of is how the academic population of universities is selected. We have agreed that "Wiles" or "not Wiles" is too broad a distinction, right? Before any confrontations came up, we never had a chance to get somewhere with all that. Forgetting Wiles, as you say, can we talk about the bread and butter of the academic world? Not Nobel Laureates, not Wiles, not fields medalists, but just plain exceptional academic stars? How do schools identify these?</p>

<p>I really hope you won't write a huge message telling me how little I know without reading my own writing, which is really asking for your views, nothing more. If you're too frustrated to continue, please let me know, else let's keep it calm.</p>

160

<p>Andrew Fire, a Stanford reject and Cal graduate, won the Nobel Prize in 2006. He is currently a Professor at Stanford.</p>