Stanford and Private School Admissions - A Mystery

Colleges and Universities A-Z Stanford University
161

<p>Interesting ewho, I looked it up and apparently this is true. </p>

<p>Nevertheless, Ramaswami, I am going to hope we can move forward without focusing on these incredible outliers in the academic world. You of all people should be in favor of this. I don't want to discuss who has more or less stars even. I want to hear your views on how to select a group of amazing academic students who have the potential to go to top grad schools, and end up becoming researchers in high places. These form closer to the bread and butter of the academic world, and a university's role in accepting and nurturing these graduates is not to be taken lightly, I am sure you'll agree. </p>

<p>And, at this point I hope you understand that I understand perfectly that not everyone is meant to be one of these sorts of students, and that sure, many schools may have good reasons to accept MOSTLY other kinds of students who show more promise to become well contributing citizens. Let's move on to the quota which is the only one I think I would consider expressing my views on.</p>

162

<p>mathboy, erwo added one more UC Berkeley undergrad to the Nobel list. I guess my list, of 2, was not up to date but I did concede there may be one or two more. But the important point is that I am not emphasizing Nobels, I was reacting to your accusation of falsehood, the implication that I was unaware of Berkeley's prowess in research, so I used Nobel as a proxy to show I am extremely well aware of Berkeley. To show my knowledge of Berkeley, actually to show off, let me say that it happens to be the only university where the sons of two Nobelists taught in the same subjects their fathers had won the Nobels in . An obscure fact: the sons of Einstein and Thomas Mann.</p>

<p>Moving on, the issue of outliers was perhaps raised by you first. You argued, based on some students who were supposedly brilliant but did not get into the Ivies, and refused to acknowledge that a) they may be outliers and b) not as brilliant as you and their high school teachers thought.</p>

<p>As to my comment on your reading, kindly follow my logic: to argue about ivy admissions and have no knowledge of Karabel's seminal work is ignorance and I don't need to read all your posts to make this comment unless in a post I had overlooked you had commented on Karabel, in which case you would have brought it up when I subsequently mentioned Karabel. You also seemed unaware of the best scholars versus best futures model which has been extensively discussed in the Atlantic, Harper's, Chronicle, etc.</p>

<p>It seems to me, and here I could be very wrong, there are a few students who find AP physics and math easy, don't get into the Ivies, get resentful of those others who earn 5s on AP who they think are undeserving (hence the test is easy goes the logic) and now want to devise test in which they alone succeed and others fail so they can now confirm their brilliance. This is a game I am not going to blame. One example, cited by you or faraday I think, was about someone who acknowledged he was inadequate in math or physics and yet got a 5. It is amazing that you could not consider that the student's statement was one of humility, perhaps to get you off his back, because he sensed the resentment that he got a 5 when you all more brilliant ones also got a 5.</p>

<p>if you applied to the Ivies and got rejected, suck it up like a man. It is dishonest intellectually to play a game, and then when you lose start devising a better system that will accomodate your unrecognized brilliance.</p>

<p>Sorry to be so blunt but I see sour grapes talking.</p>

163

<p>Ramaswami - look, I made it clear that I'm not pointing fingers at your knowledge of Nobel winners. </p>

<p>As a note to you - I never even considered putting Ivies on my list, except briefly Princeton. I didn't even apply to Harvard. The two large schools I was considering were Stanford and Berkeley, and I am very happy with my current school. I post due to interest in educational trends. Faraday is a Stanford admit, and raised similar concerns to mine. Again, suggesting that one guy (faraday) did badly on the SAT's, and suggesting that I am sad for getting rejected from Ivies -- not productive, and in both cases untrue.</p>

<p>Also, where in my recent posts am I arguing about how Ivy League admissions should be done? My consistent question is HOW you think they select the more academic students. It's a question. Where am I making any accusation? I told you, I want to step back from the discussion of harder AP's and super tests, and talk about the bread and butter of the academic world. </p>

<p>"You argued, based on some students who were supposedly brilliant but did not get into the Ivies, and refused to acknowledge that a) they may be outliers and b) not as brilliant as you and their high school teachers thought."</p>

<p>Sorry, I DID acknowledge they may be outliers. I even USED the word "outliers," and can recall that I used this term before you did.</p>

<p>You, Mr. Ramaswami, are spending all your posts accusing me, when my latest posts are ASKING for your well read opinion on the matter of how wonderful academic minds displaying unusually good talent really are singled out.</p>

164

<p>See, I actually conceded that my use of "falsehood" was extreme. I would like for your constructive thoughts now. It's been MANY posts since I actually decided to stop talking about harder curricula, and try to understand from you how the academic minds are being recognized.</p>

<p>Am adding to my post: honestly, just let me know if my question, which is about how the current system specifically singles out the exceptional academic minds, is too boring for you. Because I am noticing that you're not answering it. If I am so poorly read, you might want to educate me on this matter. Who knows, you may entirely set my worries to rest, and convince me that there are already ideal ways to identify these. </p>

<p>I am for instance pretty convinced that graduate schools are doing a good job in selecting students of promise, knowing what I know about them because I have it from actual professors who have been involved in this business. You just haven't responded to my consistent question yet. If you don't in the next post, I will have to assume that it is not of interest to you, which is understandable, and we can conclude.</p>

165

<p>mathboy98, your points are well taken, I was quite irritated at the falsehood comment and misuse of stats comments (faraday's) but you have handsomely acknowledged that you were somewhat hyperbolic.....</p>

<p>My sarcasm about your Ivy apps and faraday probably having a low SAT (because of questioning the SAT) were unnecessary and I apologize for it unreservedly to both you and faraday.</p>

166

<p>faraday probably having a low SAT (because of questioning the SAT)</p>

<p>I've noticed that usually, the people who claim the SAT is a completely nonsensical and silly test are either
1) people who get near perfect scores and thus conclude that the test isn't hard enough to challenge their unrivaled intellect and thus the College Board must up the ante even at the expense of those who don't find the test so unbearably easy (the other 99.9% of test takers...) or
2) People who scored relatively poorly who try to find excuses for their scores by saying that the SAT isn't a true indicator of intelligence (which is relatively true but regardless) and that they're a lot smarter than their scores. </p>

<p>The people who score highly, but not ungodly so (maybe between 2100-2290) are I've noticed on these boards the ones who don't bash the SAT as much.</p>

167

<p>I am glad it's clear that I am well intentioned, and I appreciate that you've understood that I do not wish to be so hyperbolic. If you have decided to conclude without discussion of my question: "which is about how the current system specifically singles out the exceptional academic minds" that is fair, since you've made lots of posts in this thread. However, if you're up to discuss that aspect a bit, I am too. </p>

<p>To make it clear -- that question, which we haven't really covered, is one of the main reasons I raised this thread, though I concede I may not have been clear enough in my presentation of the actual question. I WOULD like a better curriculum, but you've mentioned so would you, and I will refrain from claiming that the current selection system is lacking until you've had your fair chance to present how it works to select <em>academic</em> students. Please, though, do answer me -- are you interested in this topic or not? I'd like to hear your words, but would rather know to conclude if you have other matters to attend to.</p>

<p>As of now, I believe your main contribution has been to inform me that definitively, the Ivies are (by your knowledge of the admissions committees' thoughts) not looking to become like the IIT's any time soon for some reasons. This is a good contribution, but I still am interested in the future of those who aim specifically to become good researchers, who will be A+ students in the hardest majors at top colleges, and go on to contribute via pure intellectual achievement.</p>

168

<p>An interesting question to pose. How does the manner in which a graduate school selects top academic minds differ from the similar process for those admitted to undergrad institutions for their academics (rather than any other factors)? </p>

<p>I for one have some good confidence in grad schools and how they do their selection. One advantage, I believe they have, is that what an undergrad does with his schedule in college is less generic than what a purely academic high school student would do in high school. Part of this is that grad school is a very specialized thing. But in principle, there is something about going to MIT as an undergrad and having it at your disposal, and people seeing what you did with boundless opportunity, which shows tons of promise in showing what you're made of. </p>

<p>I understand that it is idealism (and even somewhat foolhardy) to expect anything like this of high schools, but it would be nice to take that magic ingredient and inject an element of it into high school.</p>

169

<p>bengaltiger, you hit the nail on the head with one mild correction: fewer 2400s bash the test than the ones who did poorly. The scorers at the very top do realize that it is not all that easy at the very top. Many say, there is little difference between a 2300 and a 2400. There is. If there isn't why didn't the 2300 get 2400?</p>

<p>Statistically, I guessed faraday would more likely be a low scorer. Even so, I apologize for putting him/her down.</p>

<p>mathboy, it would be an act of intellectual cowardice on my part to engage in discussion and then not answer your repeated fundamental question. I do intend to answer, please give me some time. Thanks.</p>

170

<p>FYI, for the very first 2400 new SAT test several years ago, there were 107 / 300,000 got 2400. ramaswami: about how many Cal graduates received Nobel Prize, if you google Nobel Prize by University, you will find out that there are at least 6 -7 of them went to Cal for undergraduate. I just don't have time to check them out.</p>

171

<p>ewho, I don't understand what your point is. Regarding Nobels and univ affiliation, it is done in different ways. When I checked UC Berkeley had 2 undergrads who had earned Nobels. I doubt if it is 6 or 7. There will always be fewer Nobelists and 2400 scorers and more non-2400s who will earn Nobels than 2400s. I do not get your point, if there is one.</p>

172

<p>ramaswami,</p>

<p>There was no point in my last post. I was trying to say how few there were to get 2400 in SAT to support your statement. And I was also to point out that there were more than 3 Cal graduates who won the Nobel prizes, not just 2 or 3 as you mentioned before. </p>

<p>P.S. let me find out how many when I have time. I hate to do.</p>

173

<p>ewho,UC Nobels, I think no more than 3. if 6 or 7 can you please give names? Thanks.</p>

174

<p>People who won the Nobel Prizes with undergraduate degrees from UC Berkeley</p>

<p>Joseph Erlanger, BS, Chem
Andrew Zachary Fire, BA, Math
William Francis Giauque, BS, Chem
Lawrence Robert Klein, BA, Econ
Willis Eugene Lamb, Jr., BS, Chem
Robert Betts Laughlin, BA, Math
Willard Frank Libby, BS, Chem
Thomas Crombie Schelling, BA, Econ
Hamilton Othanel Smith, BA, Math</p>

175

<p>ewho, thanks , that helps. But my larger point, that the research ivies, Harvard and Columbia, having produced more Nobels out of their undergrad population still holds true, and is in fact amplified when you adjust for undergrad cohort size.</p>

176

<p>ramaswami, my first guess is that your son is at Columbia. I have been watching the "fights" between you and mathboy, and many times I am on your sides but with less than100% in agreements. I will come back to this when I have time later. My point is that the key to value which school is better is the cross-admits: when you are offered admissions at both schools, which one are you going to pick. Yale was my son's absolute first choice before he applied schools, and Stanford was the third one. He could not be much happier when he got in Yale's SCEA. What happened? He chose Stanford in the end. Yale and Stanford tied last year with 80-80 (160 cross-admits, 80 went to Stanford).</p>

177

<p>"which school is better is the cross-admits"</p>

<p>If you'd like to discuss this, I'm open to listening (I know very little about cross admits). Just to let you know, I have never claimed a school is "better" than another, and I don't think Ramaswami has either. We're just discussing how admissions philosophies work. </p>

<p>"Many say, there is little difference between a 2300 and a 2400. There is. If there isn't why didn't the 2300 get 2400?"</p>

<p>I'll agree there is intrinsically a difference - a 2300 scorer may not even legitimately be ABLE to get a 2400. What the 2400 is actually good at, though, is unclear. Perhaps the 2400 may correlate better with people skills. I don't know. Just throwing random things out there. </p>

<p>However, as Ramaswami and I would agree, there are plenty of factors other than this score which play a role in the success of an individual in such and such area.</p>

178

<p>mathboy, I am glad you acknowledge that I am not arguing that school X is better than...Cross-admit battles yield student preferences, what the market does, so to speak and do not speak to the superiority of a particular school. Also, you make a strange statement, that 2400 relates to people skills. The SAT does not test for people skills.</p>

<p>And now to your problem: I believe the present system does very well even by the academic type of student. Especially the academic type. Elite colleges want well rounded classes, not well rounded kids necessarily (although they take some of these) and just because ECs are considered there is the false belief that ECs are substitute for academics. ECs serve as tie breakers. The elite colleges love the lopsided kid, the one who aces all math and science, has rave recs, and bombs Latin or US History. Whilst there are thousands with 800 on any one test, if you take 3 tests, example, SAT 1, math score, SAT 2 math and physics subject tests I doubt if there are more than 3 or 4000, if that, with scores of 780-800. so, even without APs which may not be available to every kid, the current system does identify the high scorers. Throw in a few APs in math and science and you know who the top math/sci students are. </p>

<p>If you study the college admissions requirements, rigor of curriculum is emphasized. The adcoms comb your curriculum for rigor, they know all about vertical growth, a kid with French 1 thru 5 is valued more than one who knows 4 languages but has done French 1, Spanish 1, and so on. Apply this principle to math and science and see who has maxed out on the school curriculum and see what he does next, community college courses, or advanced courses devised for him by the math dept etc. Teachers will gush about such students. They are the ones who go on to Intel and Olympiads and Siemens and if they are not available, that is the mentorship, then they work with their school math teacher in publishing in math journals or devising physics experiments. In other words, the top students rise to the top and are recognized by teacher recs, no additional tests needed.</p>

<p>I believe that a lopsided brilliant math/sci student will get into Caltech, MIT, Ivies, etc and if he/she doesn't there is usually a hidden bomb that is buried in teacher/counselor rec or there are many of these and the school chooses the most promising. A Stephen Hawking will get into these schools, but the average IIT student, although he can survive a more rigorous curriculum than is currently offered in American high schools may not since the Ivies are looking for more.</p>

<p>Someone put it elegantly: MIT and Caltech are looking for the best of a type (the best math/sci student, let's say) but the Ivies are looking for the best of the best (meaning the best of the best academic types, best of the best musicians, the best of the best XYZ).</p>

<p>They are looking for people who will GO BEYOND, so devising a new test or new curriculum does not serve the purpose since students will then aspire to satisfy the new requirement, they do not want people who meet standards, they want those who go beyond whatever is.</p>

179

<p>Hi, I have to head off somewhere, so will read and respond thoroughly later, but as a note, the 2400 involving people skills was just a joke - just saying, who knows!!!</p>

180

<p>Ramaswami, I'm interested, since you're a psychologist, what do you think of the SAT writing compared to the reading and math?</p>