<p>
I agree with your larger point, but not with this example. Microsoft is well known for hiring their interns as full-time employees before they graduate. They like promising college dropouts so much that they create them. :)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Interesting concept, but it wouldn’t be long before the schools begin to add students who don’t project as being academically dedicated - in the interest of crafting a more interesting class through the science of holistics. We’ll soon be back where we are today.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>How much more accuracy in predicting whether individual students will be committed to their studies can be gained, especially at the medium and lower levels of selectivity? What about open admission community colleges and the like?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Actually, I have never heard of such a policy at Microsoft at all. I agree that they often times provide full-time offers to interns -but contingent upon them actually graduating.</p>
<p>Now, if you are saying that those offers will actually become active before they graduate, then by all means, provide a link or two that delineates such a policy. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And schools should not be allowed to do so, on pain of losing their taxpayer funding, either for research or for state subsidies, or even their tax exempt status. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>As I explained before, I don’t care what the open admission community colleges do, because by definition, their open admissions policy means that they don’t deny admission to anybody. Hence, admitting a bunch of lazy students doesn’t mean that some dedicated students won’t be admitted. </p>
<p>But that does happen at schools with competitive admissions. Admitting lazy/unqualified students therefore imposes a cost onto and restricts the freedom of other students by not even giving them the chance to be educated. </p>
<p>The example is probably clearest with many (almost certainly most) large state schools - where, let’s face it, there are plenty of students who are far more interested in drinking and partying than in actually studying. One could imagine a news expose where a group of students, especially the ones in creampuff majors, are tracked over a semester and their hedonistic lifestyle is revealed where they engage in relatively little studying/learning, but rather in long stretches of socializing and leisure activities. We could then posit to the state taxpayer the question of: why exactly do the taxpayers have to work every day to generate tax dollars to support these students on their 4-year vacation? Perhaps even more saliently, how does it feel to have a hard-working and dedicated child who wasn’t admitted to that state school because his admissions seat was given to a bunch of indolent slackers? We could then actually interview a parent of such a child - who may perhaps have been relegated to a low-tier school but at which he is working hard and earning strong grades - and contrast that with a shot of those other students lounging around. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I would actually suspect that that is precisely where the most gains can be made. {In contrast, if your graduation rate is already over 90%, there probably isn’t much more you can do.} </p>
<p>Like I said, when you’re sitting on a giant dataset of the performances of past students, linked to their admissions records, you can surely come up with a broad set of predictive statistical models. For example, it might be the case that certain types of high school grades - i.e. top grades in high school math/science courses - are far more predictive of graduation than are top grades in gym. One should then deprecate the use of gym grades in favor of math/science courses in determining admissions. Perhaps it is the case that high school soccer experience is far more predictive of graduation success than is high school football. Then you should place more weight onto soccer. Whatever. </p>
<p>The point is that the data will surely tell you something. So why not use it?</p>
<p>“Getting an education is about being educated not about getting a job or starting a business.”</p>
<p>Yup.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>UC and CSU already only count grades in the “a-g” academic subjects, not PE grades. I would not be surprised if most other big state schools, whether of low, medium, or high selectivity, do something similar.</p>
<p>For math and science in particular versus other academic subjects, it is certainly possible that they are less predictive of university GPA. It is known that math standardized test scores are less or not predictive of university GPA (see [this</a> paper](<a href=“Publications | Center for Studies in Higher Education”>Publications | Center for Studies in Higher Education)), but that may because of self selection into majors (those who do worse in math choose majors that do not depend on math, and most schools have very light weight (if any) math and science graduation requirements for non-majors).</p>
<p>Of course, if you want to eliminate non-math majors that you claim are mostly “creampuff” majors, then math grades and test scores would become more predictive of student success. So would increasing the math and science breadth requirements, but it is unlikely to happen at most schools.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I also strongly suspect that certain grades within the ‘a-g’ classification are far more predictive than others. Top grades in high school math and physics are probably far more predictive than top grades in, say, social studies. </p>
<p>Heck, I am almost certain that grades in different classes in the same subject are more predictive than others. For example, it might well be true that high school geometry grades are more predictive than are high school trig grades. Or vice versa. That’s what the data can determine. </p>
<p>But, as I said, all you have to do is use the data. But the fact that they have this data is undeniable.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Actually, major selection may nullify the predictive value high school math and physics grades on university grades, just as it probably nullifies the predictive value of math standardized tests on university grades. UC and CSU schools, like almost every other school in the country, offer non-math humanities and low-math social studies majors and have little in the way of math and science breadth requirements, so someone who does poorly at math can minimize the university GPA effect of math courses.</p>
<p>Of course, within majors that are heavily math based, high school math grades are likely to be much more predictive.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’ve got no idea whether it’s a policy, but I’ve crossed paths with a number of CS folks who interned for Microsoft and had the option to immediately join. Some of them took it.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Why not provide a link that says Microsoft will not make offers to interns until they graduate? Do you even work in this field? I’m not guessing, I’m talking about actual people that I’ve worked with.</p>
<p>“Please post a few links to some company’s internal hiring policies.” Seriously, what planet are we on here?</p>
<p>You didn’t need to reach to make your point. Nobody disagrees that a college degree seems to be needed for most jobs. You just happened to pick a bad example, that’s all - CS, and this company in particular. As I said, your larger point is correct.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, you asserted in post #61 that such behavior by Microsoft was ‘well-known’. Well, it certainly isn’t well-known by plenty of people, including myself and others I have talked to. If it is indeed well-known and we are just misinformed, then one would think that written evidence of it would be easy to locate. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m not even entirely that that’s true. I suspect that certain high school grades serve as a proxy for work ethic and natural intellectual curiosity far more so than do other topics. To get an A in high school Social Studies can often be achieved with relatively little work. That seems far harder to accomplish in high school physics or math.</p>
<p>But anyway, if what you are saying is true that the predictive ability of a particular high school class is contingent upon the major that the student chooses, then it would be trivially easy for a statistical model to pick that up. Just interact the high school grades with major (or, if he drops out before choosing a major, then the college courses that he takes). That demonstrates the power of the model. It can incorporate whatever nuances you can think of, as long as the data exist - which it surely does. </p>
<p>But, like I said, you have to actually want to use the data.</p>
<p>^
“To get an A in high school Social Studies can often be achieved with relatively little work. That seems far harder to accomplish in high school physics or math.”</p>
<p>That seems extremely dependent on the person and the teacher.</p>
<p>sakky - You asserted that Microsoft today would only hire college grads. Please provide a link to this policy, or some other backing evidence.</p>
<p>In post #3: “Microsoft almost surely, and yet ironically, would probably not hire Bill Gates today.” </p>
<p>In post #25: “And that, ironically, includes many companies that were themselves founded by people who lacked degrees. It’s not easy to land a job at Microsoft, Oracle, Dell, or Apple without a degree. In other words, those companies ironically probably will not hire their own founders.”</p>
<p>I ask because I’ve worked with a number of folks who were hired as software developers at Microsoft without college degrees, all of them from internship work. And I’ve met others who had that option, but opted to continue their studies. Also, although I never worked at Microsoft, I’ve worked with quite a few software developers who didn’t have degrees in any related field, and some with no degree whatsoever. So I’m having a hard time reconciling my true life experience with your statements, which appear to be unfounded - a guess on your part. I doubt that you work in this industry.</p>
<p>Again, I do agree with your larger point. But I believe that you picked a bad example, both in the industry and in the particular company cited.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Sure - one needs only link at the hiring criteria posted by Microsoft (and other major software firms) at the career centers of the top tech universities such as MIT, Berkeley, Stanford, and the like. Most full-time job recruitment is targeted at graduating seniors, with the understanding that they will in fact graduate (not just take the offer and then immediately drop out). </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And I am similarly having a hard time reconciling my true life experience with your statements, and frankly, I’m beginning to doubt whether you work in the industry. Why do such firms target full-time on-campus employment recruitment specifically at graduating seniors? Why not target every student, regardless of class level? By doing so, you would quadruple your target population, would you not? </p>
<p>Look, you’re the one who is making an extraordinary claim. I know quite a few people who would like to work at Microsoft as developers but who don’t actually want to go to college (or if they do go, don’t actually want to finish college). I’m not saying that your claim is wrong, but extraordinary claims have to be backed by extraordinary proof. </p>
<p>To be clear, are there probably a handful of people who are able to obtain full-time jobs from Microsoft without degrees. Perhaps there are - Microsoft is after all a large company. But to assert that such a policy is ‘well known’ is a different matter altogether. Like I said, if it was truly ‘well known’, then one should be able to easily show proof of that policy. It should be clear that there are plenty of people dropping out of top schools such as MIT to work at Microsoft without graduating. In fact, I can’t think of a single person who has actually done so (although I can think of plenty who graduated from MIT and then worked for Microsoft). </p>
<p>Which all only reinforces the notion that such a pathway is unusual, which only bolsters my original point that Bill Gates would find it difficult to be employed at Microsoft as a full-time employee today. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If that is the case, then you have nothing to fear, for the statistical model will note that the ‘Social Sciences’ predictor variable will have a large standard error - meaning a large variation - and is therefore not useful for prediction. </p>
<p>To my detractors, I have the simple question: what exactly are you afraid of? It seems that the only thing to fear is that the model would be too predictive, and that it is somehow ‘good’ that we continue to admit people who aren’t likely to graduate. But why is that good?</p>
<p>sakky - Again, I very much agree with your larger point. But your guess about Microsoft was inaccurate, and I unfortunately made the mistake of correcting it. I don’t have any desire to “win an argument on the internet” vs. a 13k poster, so I’ll just leave it be.</p>
<p>Look, MisterK, I’m not necessarily saying that you’re wrong. All I am saying is that it would be nice to have some evidence, if for no other reason, so that I can show it to others. Believe me, I want to be convinced of your point, as it would go a long way towards changing my view of Microsoft.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Does this even happen? This sounds so ridiculous.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Does it? I think even a casual examination of a typical school would discover a great number of students who, frankly, aren’t really doing anything. </p>
<p>But don’t take my word for it. Consider the following snippets:</p>
<p>*About 20% of college students say they frequently come to class without completing readings or assignments, a national survey shows. And many of those students say they mostly still get A’s…</p>
<p>Students report spending about 31/2 hours a week preparing for each class. That’s about half what instructors expect from a typical student…Of those who frequently didn’t do homework, 29% of freshmen and 36% of seniors got mostly A’s…" *</p>
<p>[College</a> students ‘get away with’ poor preparation - USATODAY.com](<a href=“http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/2008-11-10-nsse_students_N.htm]College”>http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/2008-11-10-nsse_students_N.htm)</p>
<p>*Once on campus, the students aren’t studying.</p>
<p>It is a fundamental part of college education: the idea that young people don’t just learn from lectures, but on their own, holed up in the library with books and, perhaps, a trusty yellow highlighter. But new research, conducted by two California economics professors, shows that over the past five decades, the number of hours that the average college student studies each week has been steadily dropping. According to time-use surveys analyzed by professors Philip Babcock, at the University of California Santa Barbara, and Mindy Marks, at the University of California Riverside, the average student at a four-year college in 1961 studied about 24 hours a week. Today’s average student hits the books for just 14 hours…In survey after survey since 2000, college and high school students are alarmingly candid that they are simply not studying very much at all…In one CIRP survey subset last year, analyzing predominantly private institutions considered to be mid-level or high-achieving colleges, some 32 percent of college freshmen somehow managed to study less than six hours a week — not even an hour a day. Seniors studied only slightly more, with nearly 28 percent studying less than six hours a week. And other surveys of today’s students report similarly alarming results. The National Survey of Student Engagement found in 2009 that 62 percent of college students studied 15 hours a week or less — even as they took home primarily As and Bs on their report cards.*</p>
<p>[What</a> happened to studying? - Boston.com](<a href=“http://articles.boston.com/2010-07-04/bostonglobe/29288580_1_college-students-students-and-professors-college-admissions-officials]What”>http://articles.boston.com/2010-07-04/bostonglobe/29288580_1_college-students-students-and-professors-college-admissions-officials)</p>
<p>At the same time, other than community colleges, practically every college runs an admissions process of some sort where some applicants are rejected. So how would it feel to be the parent of a hard-working student who is rejected from such a school, only to watch that same school then admit plenty of students who are more interested in partying and socializing than in studying?</p>
<p>You know what sakky, something just occurred to me - time marches on, and the decades are adding up. Although I’ve met these degree-less former Microsoft developers/offerees throughout my career, including recently, none of them are new stories. Now that I do the math, my most recent example would have probably been a Microsoft hire in the mid 90’s, not too far removed from the original culture. So perhaps what I think of as a common story might actually be only the traditional Microsoft story. The most likely places for a CS hire without a degree would certainly be in the smaller companies.</p>
<p>Umm, that didn’t really answer my question. How do you know that the people who get rejected from these schools are so hard-working? I feel like the admissions rates aren’t very low at the schools where that study is most applicable.</p>