@blossom Not sure that hiring is the same as college admissions, but I’m curious about fact based hiring. Can you identify some companies that have removed the human element to implement “fact based” methodologies? What tests do they use to measure leadership, emotional intelligence, ability to problem-solve on the fly, ability to change ones mind in the face of better facts, and elasticity of one’s capability to learn new skills? How are each weighted? Do they included SES, gender, race, and other factors as well? How are those weighted?
Hirevue and pymetrics are 2 such widely used metrics. Consult their websites for details. I am certain they have competition as well.
Surprised that some posters would favor opacity over transparency as outsiders. Those with power need to be held accountable for exercising their power. College admissions can’t be exceptions. Transparency is the first step to accountability. No transparency means no accountability, which is what those with power generally prefer.
Bowing out. Good night
But event tools like pymetrics suffer from the same issues that people here raise about Harvard admissions - transparency. They claim that they base their proprietary AI on each companies top performers. Top performers that were hired under previous years of biased hiring practices. They then go on to say that that they utilize an algorithm auditing tool to make sure that their training data is purged of gender and ethical bias. How can they prove that (transparency)? Are they actually just injecting their own bias? What happens when someone is denied a position because of a low score from pymetrics?
WORDS!
Most people on CC might not be benefiting from this “elitist” selection process (in the so-called holistic disguise), as seeing the many “average-excellent kids seeking merit money” posts, but many happily drink the cool aid and defend its legitimacy.
I thought I was from a country famous for brain-washing its citizens!
It’s not either/or. I’d bet plenty of cyber-dollars that the masses just don’t care one way or the other, at least with respect to admissions at ‘elite’ colleges. As long as they don’t break any laws, there is nothing in the 503c regs that call for transparency in admissions decisions.
Presumably, colleges are accountable to their Boards; that is the job of the Board members, as fiduciaries.
@Rivet2000 as I posted a few pages back many companies are starting to use pymetrics, basically the use of neuroscience and AI, in the initial screening. The idea is to tailor the screening tool to identify the specific characteristics that an individual company is looking for. These tools take the form of computer style games. https://www.pymetrics.com/employers/
Actually, the secret seat of power is the uber wealthy who can afford huge political and charitable donations. Yeah, the 1%. They have politicians in their pockets and decide which initiatives are worth funding. Which, incidentally, isn’t the public schools. Hmmmmmm, coincidence?
I agree the judiciary and many national politicians graduate from a short list of schools. That Concentration of power doesn’t bother me as much as the select few families setting public policy in secret.
Unlike Harvard College, Harvard Law is very numbers-oriented. With a high undergrad GPA and high LSAT score and you can be from Podunk State and get into HLS. And HLS will set you up for top judicial positions. Just sayin’.
Not really. While HLS really does have students who did their undergraduates at a very wide array of universities, the ones that go on to judicial positions generally did their undergraduates in “the right” colleges. I was looking at the list HLS graduates who were in high judicial positions, and the majority did their BAs at Ivies, Duke, etc.
The story that I remember that is closest to this is a janitor at Boston College had all five of his children accepted there:
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/boston-college-janitor-sends-all-five-kids-to-college-for-free/
The thread has derailed and devolved into debate. Closing.