I think some basically avoid the real world in that sense.
After suffering through the indignity of going to some college which does not just admit the top few people in their specific field, they finally make it to a PhD program which is only admitting their people. And then they get a tenure-track appointment in some department where their only peers are their people. Sure, they have to waste some time lecturing at students beneath their standards, but the minimum requirements for how much effort they really need to put into that are often blessedly low.
And so they can mostly just do their narrow thing with the people who also do that narrow thing, and not have to meaningfully interact with the rest of humanity.
If, of course, that is really what they want. And some do.
I don’t think that’s the current case. There’s not much of a job market in academia for PhDs. Around 68% of college faculty are contingent (not tenured/not on the tenure track).
The competition for the tenure track jobs that do open up is fierce, and selection is not based only on one’s academic, research, and publication record…it’s holistic and often political. There are many factors outside of the candidates’ control that impact the selection process.
Well, some may be a better fit than others, but generally speaking they would all still be a better academic fit than institution where very few of their peers can be found.
It isn’t so much about what’s on the menu as it is about who is being served.
It’s as if the maitre d were turning around the hungriest customers, because, god forbid they eat too fast.
I gota say this is a much funnier version of the good ol’ “America, love it or leave it” principle.
And yeah, they sure make some darn good sausage in other parts of the world.
But as a representative of what is often called “sausage migration” (look it up:), I find this conversation deeply ironic.
You just described life’s aspiration of approximately 100% (check my math!) of all mathematicians.
“No discovery of mine has made, or is likely to make, directly or indirectly, for good or ill, the least difference to the amenity of the world.” ~G. H. Hardy (1877-1947), English mathematician
Of course! If instead of addressing the actual barriers to achievement we chose to paper them over by forcing desired outcomes by fiat, what else can we expect but having to force these outcomes further and further away from the actual barriers that cause them in the first place.
Might as well get the kids used to it sooner rather than later.
And then we are surprised when we learn (at the risk of mixing the metaphors) that other places have better sausage.
But again, there are actually types of undergrad programs which would be good for the hypothetical kids you are describing, and not just the best of a bad type of program.
So why wouldn’t these kids seek out the actually good type of program for them? Why would they insist on being a square peg in a round hole, when suitable square holes exist?
As you are describing it, what is on the menu is exactly the problem.
Your hypothetical kid apparently has no interest in all the non-academic aspects of a famous US residential college. So your hypothetical kid does not want to be assessed in terms of whether they would benefit from and contribute back to the non-academic aspects of a famous US residential college.
But that’s what these famous US colleges offer. If that is not what these hypothetical kids want, they should look for a different type of college. And such alternatives are not hard to find, not for the types of kid you are describing.
No one is saying these kids have to permanently leave the US.
But if you want to see the Eiffel Tower, you have to go to France. If you want to do an undergrad program at Oxbridge, you have to go to England. If the type of undergrad program these kids hypothetically want isn’t available in the US, then that is just a fact they have to deal with, no different from any other situation where something specific someone wants is not available in the US.
The good news is Oxbridge and the like want kids like your hypothetical kids. And then if their next step is a US PhD program, those programs will want those kids to come back.
So I really do not have a lot of tears to shed for the kid who is a poor fit for Harvard, excellent fit for Oxbridge, and has Oxbridge as an option. I am not even sure what the problem is supposed to be in this hypothetical.
Keep in mind this hypothetical is about kids who were objectively top 10 in their field as of age 17 or so.
If that continues (some of these kids flame out, of course), they are not likely going to be the sorts of people who struggle to find a tenure-track appointment some day.
I’m with NiceUnparticular Man here. If the mystery is “what happens to the other 30%” I can assure you, based on my own hiring experience and life experience, they do NOT end up at the College of International House of Pancakes because they didn’t make it through the holistic review at Harvard (or similar). They get dispersed through our enormous and robust and yes- not perfect educational system. A few WILL go to Canada or the UK. But the majority find a home at another prestigious university because the Academic 1 rating at Harvard- which ended up being duplicative of another Academic 1 applying to Harvard- is a rare flower at CMU, Harvey Mudd, Vanderbilt, U Michigan, Swarthmore, etc. (depending on the discipline). it’s easy for the Academic 1 to apply to Harvard, MIT and Stanford and assume “one and done” but that’s now how admissions works–because an individual student cannot control for the rest of the applicant pool.
But if y’all are losing sleep over the brilliant minds being forced to fold sweaters at the Gap for the rest of their lives because they had no EC’s and therefore they didn’t get into Harvard I have a newsflash for you- they end up at another fantastic institution and life goes on.
I do find it laughable that folks here think that targeting a tenure track job in academia is somewhat less complex/opaque than college admissions. In some fields there are 3 jobs available in their discipline per year. In others there are 1. And if you think that the “most brilliant” is the one who will get that job, you have not been paying attention since about 1968.
I recall talk of “grade deflation” at Princeton up until about, oh, five years ago.
I wonder if the lower GPAs had anything to do with the lower test scores among some matriculants.
In other words, did the grading policy really change, or were some of the students simply stronger academically… able to earn better grades?
(That would imply test score/college GPA correlation. I’m not ready to make that leap, of course; just wanted to toss the idea out there for discussion.)
Pushing (dare I say goading?) some of the very top American students out to seek fulfillment elsewhere seems—to me at least—very contrary to the American ethos of being the magnet for world’s best and brightest.
Certainly a rough awakening for many Americans by choice who went through the trouble of uprooting their lives, so their kids won’t have to.
There is another problem with going abroad (besides, well, going abroad): while UK and Canadian universities charge Americans American prices, they offer virtually no need-based aid.
Most estimates say about 1,000 students score a 1600. That’s a tiny proportion of the 1.7 million test takers. In fact only about 3,500 score a 1580 or better
There was also a change to the three part SAT in 2004, although it appears as though the original two parts’ scores were supposed to be comparable across the change.
We heard similar comments from Northeastern during a visit summer of 2022 for our kid that just started college this fall. He did not end up there and withdrew after a deferral and suggestion to ED2. His application was Test Optional.
We had a similar experience upper middle class area with a high schools that is 25% ivy and about 50%-60% if you add in G-Town, Stanford, U Chicago, BC, Northeastern, Wash U, Vanderbilt, then the LACs (Middlebury, Williams, Colgate, Amherst) and our kid same as you describe not a great test taker. Did some prep but just didn’t get to the number that would benefit the application so went TO and had some really good acceptances. Also, hard worker and took a rigorous course load. For those thinking “to submit or not to submit” for 2024 if you application is very strong otherwise it can hurt but not help. So listen to those admissions counselors and college advisors whatever the threshold is 1400, 1500, whatever. We focused on essay’s and entire application which is build up and developed over time not a three hour test. It’s ok to go TO even is there is perceived privilege.
I’m going to assume this is a private school, or an exam school, as I’m not familiar with many public schools that send 60% of students to ultra selective colleges. Perhaps in those circumstances going TO works out well, but for kids from more typical public HSs (we send about 15% of kids to very selective schools and only about 7-8 will be Ivy) I think the question is more nuanced. From our school, few kids (other than athletes) get in without an excellent test score on top of all the rest (strong ECs, good essays etc).
