I was with you till you said that “whether at MIT” or elsewhere. I think there is research (although some in this thread, just don’t want to believe or concede or agree with it) that shows that being at the bottom half at an elite school may be worse in the long run than being at the top at a less competitive school for some students. Don’t shoot the messenger, I am not making these results up.
In any case, your question was answered.
If you want to see what elites selected by faculty look like, look across the pond at Oxbridge, LSE, Imperial, etc. in England.
No matter how you handle admissions, half of the students will be in the bottom half, however that is defined. So changing the admission process is not relevant to this claim that the bottom half will be better off elsewhere, since even if they all did go elsewhere, there would still be a bottom half of the remaining class that was formerly the top half.
Indeed 
Or perhaps secondary admission to highly competitive (due to capacity limitations) majors at some schools.
Had to chuckle at the way you worded that, ucb.
OP, the two main “sources” are Gladwell and an old Duke study about how URMS change majors more often. Yup, we’ve been over that on CC and it still is not gospel. It’s unfair to the process and to the individuals to assume. Resting on those two ignores achievements and score growth. Plus college grad rates at elites. Lots of kids hit the ‘college buffet of courses’ and become intrigued with other studies…say, ya know, linguistics.
While you’re looking at Oxbridge, consider how some British kids seek out US colleges for the opportunity to experiment with various majors.
Fair point. But I think that if a student is well prepared, they might cope better and be more persistent and stick with it, than if they are not. and whether or not a well prepared student is admitted vs a not so well prepared student is determined by admissions. The question is would faculty members deliver that tough love message better and in larger frequencies than current adcoms? I suspect they might, but have no real data to back it up, I admit. Although, the UK top schools admit students very differently and they seem to focus on very different criteria. I wonder whether that is because faculty is involved, or if they admit into majors directly or whether they don’t really think the American system works very well
Re: #46
For elite colleges, essentially all admitted applicants are well prepared, even if some may have been given a boost for whatever non-academic reasons get added. The elite colleges have far more well prepared applicants than they can admit, so any “tough love” in rejecting not-well-prepared applicants is already done essentially automatically.
Meanwhile, the moderately selective colleges like the CSUs have to deal with admits who are not very well prepared, even though their admission processes are often purely based on academic credentials.
We are going to have to agree to disagree here. I strongly reject that assertion, but that is just me
@VeryLuckyParent, the research I’ve seen has shown that there is no effect when it comes to where you go to college for those who are smart, motivated, and come from non-disadvantaged backgrounds, while attending an elite is advantageous for those from disadvantaged backgrounds (let’s face it, there are more resources to help those who need help at rich privates than at most publics).
@lookingforward: Indeed, English unis and American privates are quite different (Scotland is in between but still closer to England, while some American publics are closer to the European sink-or-swim model with slotted majors but still very close to American privates).
For a kid who definitely knows what they want to do at 18, is already well-prepared for a subject, and is independent and self-motivated (they treat uni students like adults in the UK; little hand-holding), the top English unis make a lot of sense (3 years of undergrad at an English elite is essentially grad-school-lite). For most kids, an American uni would be more ideal.
It’s a myth they take kids who will invariably sink to the bottom. This thread notion of letting faculty choose, in order to avoid adcom “mistakes,” seems to rest on the (incorrect) idea elite adcoms are taking sinkers. Not. I do see these kids and they are, as ucb says, well prepared. Even exciting. Activated, challenging themselves and full of potential The back story retreats when you see what they have done.
But again, there are faculty involved in admissions.
PT, all this talk of UK makes me want to hop a plane…
The suggestion is that current adcoms are motivated by completely different things than perhaps a faculty member would be and thus the profile of the class would be very different if faculty were responsible for the decision. I suspect that current adcoms aren’t invested as heavily in the probability of the academic success of a student as much as they are invested in a student’s promise and/or the art of the possible. I suspect faculty would prioritize academic history, over promise or the art of the possible
Which is better? Well that depends on where you sit doesn’t it?
Faculty would definitely still aim for the art of the possible. Again, in that peek at the Oxbridge faculty admissions committee, they’re not going just straight off of academic marks. Obviously, you have to meet very high standards just to be considered, but they are also trying to forecast potential, and they understand that someone who has made the most of their opportunities shows more potential than someone from a private school who has high marks but isn’t as brilliant as his/her peers given the same resources.
Thread is going in circles.
Of course it depends on where you sit, if you mean your responders, our various accumulated experiences. And it sure seems most of us are thinking differently than OP. So be it.
Interesting thread here. I think one difference is that faculty would value the teacher recommendations more than Admissions Committees currently do.
I have been part of the faculty at institutions ranging from highly selective to open admissions. Recognizing that open admissions isn’t at issue here (yes. yes. yes. yes. yes. ye—oh, wait, we’ve hit our enrollment cap. no. no. no. no. no.), I suspect, actually, that faculty and adcoms at institutions of more or less selectivity have many of the same motivations. I don’t understand why you keep claiming that faculty would have different selection criteria—on what do you base that?
@dfbdfb I don’t think I can supply you with any proof that will make you change your mind but I do have quite a few friends who are professors and based on what they tell me and what their colleagues talk about with each other, they believe that undergraduate admissions lets too many students in that shouldn’t be there in their classes. They are often frustrated at the amount of remedial work required and the fact that they have to sometimes adjust the class pace to cater to some of these students. They have told me admissions criteria should focus on who can do the work.
It’s anecdotal but I’ve heard this too many times from too many folks that it has made an impression on me that they would do things very differently if they were in charge
Re #56
How selective are the schools that your faculty friends teach at?
All schools are AAU members, two are private universities in the top 20 of USNews ranking. While, I know this is not a scientific sample, one of the profs has become a strong advocate for an extremely rigorous academically oriented entrance exam like they give in Russia. She then wants to select kids based on results of this kind of an examination. She thinks the SAT/ACT in the US are a complete joke.
Note that most publics feel that it’s their mandate to serve all communities in their state, and that isn’t going to change regardless of whether profs are admitting or not. They will not have full control over admissions.
Likewise, many schools would still have to satisfy institutional needs. Privates need to keep alums happy. Sports programs need their athletes, etc.
The US is not Europe or Russia. If your prof friend prefers the Russian admission philosophy, they could always teach in Russia instead.