This is a flawed idea. It presumes, in the abstract and conclusion, that changing admissions preferences to artificially increase diversity would result in a more diverse group of leaders in the country, because elite colleges tend to produce leaders and high-income earners.
Fundamentally altering the admissions process will also fundamentally alter the institution and what graduates of it look like. If we alter selection for Navy SEALs -- because SEAL school graduates are known to be athletic, motivated, and team-oriented, and we want more people like that -- I have a feeling that we'd simply destroy the image of the SEALs rather than increasing the number of people with those personality traits.
Back to my point: It always starts with the notion of focusing on merit, but devolves into checkboxes and quotas and arbitrary preferences, because those are easier to measure than actual merit. The end result is an institution that still fails to reward merit, and no longer creates the generous benefits it did at the start of the exercise. It also creates a group of bitter, resentful people who feel wronged by the changes that will significantly reduce any prior public goodwill towards the institution.
To be even more explicit, a lot of the reason that these colleges are so strongly correlated with high incomes and high achievement is that they allow attendees to network with people whose parents and family members have already reached the upper echelon. Refactoring admissions to replace that will shred that benefit altogether. Colleges are not a totally isolated system; the value of a degree does not derive solely from the lectures the individual receives there, nor perhaps from the name-prestige of the university, but largely from the networking people are able to do there and the companies that visit and recruit from the school because of that network.
The problem for me, speaking from personal experience with a spouse, significant others, friends, colleagues, my own degrees, reading job posts here on HN, is that it is the case that there are those who filter on elite schools before even considering any actual qualifications otherwise. It happens too often. After seeing this repeatedly, I personally do not believe that the selection effects associated with these institutions, controlling for other factors, is mostly due to markers of attributes like "motivation and team orientation" or even intelligence or skill, at least relative to other institutions. My sense of reading about other things like Navy Seals is similar — that some of the selection criteria are performative and of very little real-world utility, or might even be detrimental to the functioning of the institution or its aims.
This isn't to say that there aren't exceedingly competent people going into these elite institutions, only that my personal experience is such that the "magic sauce" beyond all the life history, accomplishments, test scores, grades, and so forth, is often bias or distributed gatekeeping.
Looked at differently, let's say you have an institution that aims to be elite, but the information provided by your selection criteria hits a wall, and the number of actually qualified individuals by prediction exceeds your capacity. In that case you have to either (a) basically do a lottery, which is honest but weakens the rationale for your institution over others, or (b) create criteria that are essentially useless but have a false veneer of rigor.
I'm not sure I think diversity quotas and so forth are the way to go either, but I also believe we need to stop pretending that these selection criteria are perfect or even near perfect, and that there's no bias either. I feel as if these discussions always proceed the same, that questionable or even objectively harmful (to the institution) criteria are pointed out, and then there's some outcry that lowering them will decrease standards, even as alternatives are never tested.
The wikipedia page on Legacy Preferences is illuminating. Note the Larry Summers quote:
Former Harvard University president Lawrence Summers has stated, "Legacy admissions are integral to the kind of community that any private educational institution is."
first off; it seems to have worked in Britain. Have you seen the pool of leaders and politicians there compared to the US? Still dominated by the same elite schools, but much more diverse (ofc the diversity is literally skin deep but for the pure purposes of achieving this it does work)
secondly, have you ever heard of the Pygmalion effect? people aren't static. If you introduce somebody to a high performing environment and tell them they're meant to be there, many of them will rise to the challenge. Of course, there is room for natural aptitude -- but nobody is proposing the schools take entirely random people. They'd still be selecting the best of the cohort. People who were able to succeed dramatically enough to be noticed, just in different environments. Similarly, in your navy SEAL example, a lot is made out of the fact that soldiers like that aren't naturally born, they're made (through training, through the culture they have developed, the standards and professionalism they hold themselves to) Again, you'll want people with certain traits in the first place (low propensity for stress, high intelligence, high fitness, leadership), but to presume the current selection is perfectly meritocratic would be foolish, and its not like people are even suggesting that we don't try to select for such things, only to try and add another consideration to the mix.
I see the value of companies visiting and recruiting from certain schools. But is the other networking you’re talking about valuable or even real? I feel like most students aren’t networking. Making friends, yes. But I haven’t seen a focus on networking in that professional sense. Is it prevalent in Ivy League schools or something?
"Networking" makes it sound more active than it really is. It's just who they are meeting over those four years. The friends they make, the professors they meet and perhaps work with, the guest lecturers they're able to talk to, the parents of friends that they meet on the holidays who make calls to help land internships. The companies that show up to the career fair.
Over four years, there's a big difference in your future prospects if you were meeting people with ties to Google, Berkshire, Goldman Sachs, Amazon, Meta, et al., vs meeting people from Garmin (<$100k/year for fresh CS grads, when I graduated) and small local midwestern companies. Even if you don't get direct referrals to those big-name places, you're talking to people who know what a resume that can get in there looks like, rather than having to blindly follow whatever advice you can find online.
Used a lot of words to agree with the paper that changing admissions would change things, then offered some flighty arguments to maintain status quo. You are just spouting conservatism wrapped up in hand-wavy philosophy and justification.
Why do the rest of us care if the minority these institutions benefit have chaos and uncertainty foisted on them? Oh well. I feel zero for some random Harvard grad who contributes nothing to my life and keeps themselves off the hook for my healthcare and well-being. I have no honorific obligation to coddled and co-dependent non-contributor families. They dodged the abortion is all.
I think we also forget that high schoolers are dumb and young. The difference between top high schoolers is not that different from the average. But as the years go by that gap widens. The gaps may seem big at the time but that's viewing it locally. I did a lot of teaching in grad school and while there were a handful of kids (<1%) who were just exceptional this was almost never clear on paper. For the most part the main difference was effort. Some of my favorite students started off terribly! Well below average. But I've seen that turn around in a single class and I've seen freshman who are at risk of flunking out get straight A's in their junior and senior years. (I've also seen the complete opposite!)
Because of this, I always wonder about how many more "geniuses" were missing out on because of this. I'm pretty confident that in an elite university if you threw out the bottom 50% (or fewer!) of candidates and then just randomly selected you'd end up with a pretty similar if not identical outcome. The gap is small and shaped by environments. At college admission time the gap is just so small compared when looking from a PhD level.
I think the admissions systems are fucked up. It's become an arms race over things that don't matter. The root of the problem is just that we're trying to measure systems with lots of noise in them. At some point you're fitting noise, not meaningful data. It'll look successful but it's not successful do to your metrics, it's successful because an arbitrary metric would have sufficed. That doesn't mean don't use metrics, but rather to use cautiously. Data and measures are meaningless without context. In this context we're talking about kids. What, they can't ever fuck up? If they don't fuck up in high school they're more likely to in college. Ultimately we're dealing with humans, who adapt, change, and where it's hard to predict their futures. Personally I'd rather those kids to figure out how to be human easier. I don't know about causation, but there definitely is a strong correlation between their ability to cross these gaps when they've already learned those soft skills (those kids come to college and don't need to learn skills like taking care of yourself, cooking, or other forms of independence. They often are more clear about their desires and not just going through the motions). Unfortunately these are often inversely correlated to grades (like B's, not F's).
We can't have meritocracy if you believe merits can be measured without noise. The irony is that often the pursuit of meritocracy hinders its progress. The unfortunate reality is that there are things you just cannot measure. We should always try and seek to improve but that can't happen without deep understanding of limitations.
I'm also reminded of a scene from Silicon Valley. Richard gets into an argument about the marketing team and Jack Barker says because they're the best you gave to give them easier things to sell. There's a lot of ways to interpret that in this context so I'll leave it as an exercise to the reader.
The problem is that private elite colleges never used just SAT scores for admissions criteria, and no amount of assertion that they did or should will change that fact.
Focusing on SAT scores advances a false narrative, and serves to try to exert outside influence on adjusting admissions criteria to be more robotic.
While I admit that legacy and donations can be a factor as they always have been across all institutions, admissions always have been predicated on finding students who are most likely to find true high level success in the real world. This means finding well rounded students: those that excel in leadership positions, extra curriculars, and athletics as well as in the classroom.
What that means is that these students are more often found in elite prep schools. But what is also true is that never in the modern history of elite colleges have they refused entrance to a truly high level candidate coming out of public schools.
Though I agree that there is definitely a common difference of opinion as to what such a candidate's profile looks like. If one doesn't have much experience in the Ivy competition pool, for example, it's hard to understand your specific competitiveness.
>While I admit that legacy and donations can be a factor as they always have been across all institutions, admissions always have been predicated on finding students who are most likely to find true high level success in the real world. This means finding well rounded students: those that excel in leadership positions, extra curriculars, and athletics as well as in the classroom.
The paper says that the three main causes for Ivy-plus admission rates among the 1% are:
"The high-income admissions advantage at private colleges is driven by three factors: (1) preferences for children of alumni, (2) weight placed on non-academic credentials, which tend to be stronger for students applying from private high schools that have affluent student bodies, and (3) recruitment of athletes, who tend to come from higher-income families"
But are these oh-so-important factors what make for successful students? Let's ask the authors.
"Adjusting for the value-added of the colleges that students attend, the three key factors that give children from high-income families an admissions advantage are uncorrelated or negatively correlated with post-college outcomes, whereas SAT/ACT scores and academic credentials are highly predictive of post-college success."
> While I admit that legacy and donations can be a factor as they always have been across all institutions, admissions always have been predicated on finding students who are most likely to find true high level success in the real world. This means finding well rounded students: those that excel in leadership positions, extra curriculars, and athletics as well as in the classroom.
But the SATs still matter. They are a generalized measure of the student’s quality and are a good measure of how they’ll succeed in general. They should be given more weight than subjective measures. And focusing on them also avoids favoring those “extra” activities that are more accessible to students from wealthy families, who can afford it (money and time). For example, a family that needs the big kid to help watch the little kid can’t afford to have the big kid stay for after school sports.
By the way, plenty of public school students also have good test scores AND the extra things you mention. The big corruption of the process is when these qualified students are displaced by decisions that aren’t meritocratic. That’s legacy admissions but also race or gender based quota based discrimination.
I agree with a lot of this comment. For example, focusing on SAT scores is definitely not the way to go.
> But what is also true is that never in the modern history of elite colleges have they refused entrance to a truly high level candidate coming out of public schools.
The only way you could make this assertion would be if you knew "high level candidates" who were being refused admission "to elite colleges". And do you mean one? Or talking collectively? So a counterexample would be an high-level candidate who was admitted to NO elite colleges.
I do know examples. It happens all of the time. It doesn't even bother me. Colleges only have so many space. Unqualified rich kids getting in: undesirable and irritating. Qualified kids not getting in: a necessary consequence of the math.
The easiest way to find examples is to look in poor communities, where kids don't even know that Harvard would be free for them instead of $87k/year. Can't find any exceptional candidates there? Look harder.
The idea that there is some fictional "high-level" to begin with is crazy. Reducing all of a young person's humanity to a single metric ("level")?
> never in the modern history of elite colleges have they refused entrance to a truly high level candidate coming out of public schools
This really strains credulity. Decision criteria may not be purely based on academic merit (e.g., SAT), or even significantly based on it. It may also be true that they seek candidates likely to succeed b/c why not? Successful alumni are a self-perpetuating advertisement for your school.
But to say they have never refused admission to a candidate that will "truly" go on to succeed is trivially falsified, if only by having limited admissions slots. It's an imperfect game, and I think you're giving them too much benefit of doubt, and playing a "no true scottsman" game here.
Colleges are a “marketplace” as much as any other marketplace. Just how Stanford disrupted the traditional Ivy League monopoly, other schools can disrupt the status quo by consistent churning out leaders, great thinkers, entrepreneurs, and the like.
What sells the colleges the most is the sense that successful people tend to be there. So while admissions profit can be a very short term goal, any admit counselor knows that the long term goal is to create admirable leaders and change makers.
This is not impossible for publicly funded schools. Berkeley has put out consistently top AI researchers and engineers, more so than Stanford in my opinion.
Interesting take. But Wikipedia has lists of scientific achievements and also companies associated with both. Is it really the case that each university has such a strong “personality” or is it just their reputation.
years ago I had no interest in this old football rivalry stuff.. very, very smart people work&play hard individually at both places. However once things get more organized, the differences are indeed profound for example, the rise and concentration of capital on the one hand, and the Nobel prizes and social contracts on the other. Agree that both places are large enough, active enough, stable enough such that simple comparisons are certainly refutable. However the raw number of graduates is not at all comparable between the two. The inward and enduring commitment to certain (polarized) politics, in both cases, is evident to me. Both institutions can claim societal-level accomplishments in the pure sciences..
Berkeley has more Nobel prizes (and actual elements in the periodic table); Stanford has more Turing awards (with MIT at #2 between Stanford and Berkeley).
> However the raw number of graduates is not at all comparable between the two
This is true. Stanford isn't too far removed from Berkeley by grad student enrollment (10K vs. 12K) but the undergraduate enrollment is tiny by comparison (7.5K vs. 33K).
Interesting. Would love to learn more. Of the things you mention the capital thing does seem real. I don’t have enough visibility into these places to know about the rest. Did you attend one of these?
How are you judging “students who excel in leadership positions” at 18 year old while dismissing SAT scores as an admission criteria? Most of the “captains” in my high school have grown up to have mediocre careers (including me) and at some point were in leadership positions mostly because they “looked cute”.
SAT scores are taken into account by many schools for that very reason that it can change how you read the application of a candidate.
SAT is almost always read in terms of the deviation from the school or community average. So its not the case that having a decent score from a shit school is worse than a slight-better-than-decent score from an elite school
This is a flawed idea. It presumes, in the abstract and conclusion, that changing admissions preferences to artificially increase diversity would result in a more diverse group of leaders in the country, because elite colleges tend to produce leaders and high-income earners.
Fundamentally altering the admissions process will also fundamentally alter the institution and what graduates of it look like. If we alter selection for Navy SEALs -- because SEAL school graduates are known to be athletic, motivated, and team-oriented, and we want more people like that -- I have a feeling that we'd simply destroy the image of the SEALs rather than increasing the number of people with those personality traits.
Back to my point: It always starts with the notion of focusing on merit, but devolves into checkboxes and quotas and arbitrary preferences, because those are easier to measure than actual merit. The end result is an institution that still fails to reward merit, and no longer creates the generous benefits it did at the start of the exercise. It also creates a group of bitter, resentful people who feel wronged by the changes that will significantly reduce any prior public goodwill towards the institution.
To be even more explicit, a lot of the reason that these colleges are so strongly correlated with high incomes and high achievement is that they allow attendees to network with people whose parents and family members have already reached the upper echelon. Refactoring admissions to replace that will shred that benefit altogether. Colleges are not a totally isolated system; the value of a degree does not derive solely from the lectures the individual receives there, nor perhaps from the name-prestige of the university, but largely from the networking people are able to do there and the companies that visit and recruit from the school because of that network.
The problem for me, speaking from personal experience with a spouse, significant others, friends, colleagues, my own degrees, reading job posts here on HN, is that it is the case that there are those who filter on elite schools before even considering any actual qualifications otherwise. It happens too often. After seeing this repeatedly, I personally do not believe that the selection effects associated with these institutions, controlling for other factors, is mostly due to markers of attributes like "motivation and team orientation" or even intelligence or skill, at least relative to other institutions. My sense of reading about other things like Navy Seals is similar — that some of the selection criteria are performative and of very little real-world utility, or might even be detrimental to the functioning of the institution or its aims.
This isn't to say that there aren't exceedingly competent people going into these elite institutions, only that my personal experience is such that the "magic sauce" beyond all the life history, accomplishments, test scores, grades, and so forth, is often bias or distributed gatekeeping.
Looked at differently, let's say you have an institution that aims to be elite, but the information provided by your selection criteria hits a wall, and the number of actually qualified individuals by prediction exceeds your capacity. In that case you have to either (a) basically do a lottery, which is honest but weakens the rationale for your institution over others, or (b) create criteria that are essentially useless but have a false veneer of rigor.
I'm not sure I think diversity quotas and so forth are the way to go either, but I also believe we need to stop pretending that these selection criteria are perfect or even near perfect, and that there's no bias either. I feel as if these discussions always proceed the same, that questionable or even objectively harmful (to the institution) criteria are pointed out, and then there's some outcry that lowering them will decrease standards, even as alternatives are never tested.
Now fit legacies into this theory.
The wikipedia page on Legacy Preferences is illuminating. Note the Larry Summers quote:
Former Harvard University president Lawrence Summers has stated, "Legacy admissions are integral to the kind of community that any private educational institution is."
first off; it seems to have worked in Britain. Have you seen the pool of leaders and politicians there compared to the US? Still dominated by the same elite schools, but much more diverse (ofc the diversity is literally skin deep but for the pure purposes of achieving this it does work)
secondly, have you ever heard of the Pygmalion effect? people aren't static. If you introduce somebody to a high performing environment and tell them they're meant to be there, many of them will rise to the challenge. Of course, there is room for natural aptitude -- but nobody is proposing the schools take entirely random people. They'd still be selecting the best of the cohort. People who were able to succeed dramatically enough to be noticed, just in different environments. Similarly, in your navy SEAL example, a lot is made out of the fact that soldiers like that aren't naturally born, they're made (through training, through the culture they have developed, the standards and professionalism they hold themselves to) Again, you'll want people with certain traits in the first place (low propensity for stress, high intelligence, high fitness, leadership), but to presume the current selection is perfectly meritocratic would be foolish, and its not like people are even suggesting that we don't try to select for such things, only to try and add another consideration to the mix.
I see the value of companies visiting and recruiting from certain schools. But is the other networking you’re talking about valuable or even real? I feel like most students aren’t networking. Making friends, yes. But I haven’t seen a focus on networking in that professional sense. Is it prevalent in Ivy League schools or something?
"Networking" makes it sound more active than it really is. It's just who they are meeting over those four years. The friends they make, the professors they meet and perhaps work with, the guest lecturers they're able to talk to, the parents of friends that they meet on the holidays who make calls to help land internships. The companies that show up to the career fair.
Over four years, there's a big difference in your future prospects if you were meeting people with ties to Google, Berkshire, Goldman Sachs, Amazon, Meta, et al., vs meeting people from Garmin (<$100k/year for fresh CS grads, when I graduated) and small local midwestern companies. Even if you don't get direct referrals to those big-name places, you're talking to people who know what a resume that can get in there looks like, rather than having to blindly follow whatever advice you can find online.
Harvard has a page about it: https://careerservices.fas.harvard.edu/blog/2025/04/04/how-t...
Used a lot of words to agree with the paper that changing admissions would change things, then offered some flighty arguments to maintain status quo. You are just spouting conservatism wrapped up in hand-wavy philosophy and justification.
Why do the rest of us care if the minority these institutions benefit have chaos and uncertainty foisted on them? Oh well. I feel zero for some random Harvard grad who contributes nothing to my life and keeps themselves off the hook for my healthcare and well-being. I have no honorific obligation to coddled and co-dependent non-contributor families. They dodged the abortion is all.
I think we also forget that high schoolers are dumb and young. The difference between top high schoolers is not that different from the average. But as the years go by that gap widens. The gaps may seem big at the time but that's viewing it locally. I did a lot of teaching in grad school and while there were a handful of kids (<1%) who were just exceptional this was almost never clear on paper. For the most part the main difference was effort. Some of my favorite students started off terribly! Well below average. But I've seen that turn around in a single class and I've seen freshman who are at risk of flunking out get straight A's in their junior and senior years. (I've also seen the complete opposite!)
Because of this, I always wonder about how many more "geniuses" were missing out on because of this. I'm pretty confident that in an elite university if you threw out the bottom 50% (or fewer!) of candidates and then just randomly selected you'd end up with a pretty similar if not identical outcome. The gap is small and shaped by environments. At college admission time the gap is just so small compared when looking from a PhD level.
I think the admissions systems are fucked up. It's become an arms race over things that don't matter. The root of the problem is just that we're trying to measure systems with lots of noise in them. At some point you're fitting noise, not meaningful data. It'll look successful but it's not successful do to your metrics, it's successful because an arbitrary metric would have sufficed. That doesn't mean don't use metrics, but rather to use cautiously. Data and measures are meaningless without context. In this context we're talking about kids. What, they can't ever fuck up? If they don't fuck up in high school they're more likely to in college. Ultimately we're dealing with humans, who adapt, change, and where it's hard to predict their futures. Personally I'd rather those kids to figure out how to be human easier. I don't know about causation, but there definitely is a strong correlation between their ability to cross these gaps when they've already learned those soft skills (those kids come to college and don't need to learn skills like taking care of yourself, cooking, or other forms of independence. They often are more clear about their desires and not just going through the motions). Unfortunately these are often inversely correlated to grades (like B's, not F's).
We can't have meritocracy if you believe merits can be measured without noise. The irony is that often the pursuit of meritocracy hinders its progress. The unfortunate reality is that there are things you just cannot measure. We should always try and seek to improve but that can't happen without deep understanding of limitations.
I'm also reminded of a scene from Silicon Valley. Richard gets into an argument about the marketing team and Jack Barker says because they're the best you gave to give them easier things to sell. There's a lot of ways to interpret that in this context so I'll leave it as an exercise to the reader.
The problem is that private elite colleges never used just SAT scores for admissions criteria, and no amount of assertion that they did or should will change that fact.
Focusing on SAT scores advances a false narrative, and serves to try to exert outside influence on adjusting admissions criteria to be more robotic.
While I admit that legacy and donations can be a factor as they always have been across all institutions, admissions always have been predicated on finding students who are most likely to find true high level success in the real world. This means finding well rounded students: those that excel in leadership positions, extra curriculars, and athletics as well as in the classroom.
What that means is that these students are more often found in elite prep schools. But what is also true is that never in the modern history of elite colleges have they refused entrance to a truly high level candidate coming out of public schools.
Though I agree that there is definitely a common difference of opinion as to what such a candidate's profile looks like. If one doesn't have much experience in the Ivy competition pool, for example, it's hard to understand your specific competitiveness.
>While I admit that legacy and donations can be a factor as they always have been across all institutions, admissions always have been predicated on finding students who are most likely to find true high level success in the real world. This means finding well rounded students: those that excel in leadership positions, extra curriculars, and athletics as well as in the classroom.
The paper says that the three main causes for Ivy-plus admission rates among the 1% are:
"The high-income admissions advantage at private colleges is driven by three factors: (1) preferences for children of alumni, (2) weight placed on non-academic credentials, which tend to be stronger for students applying from private high schools that have affluent student bodies, and (3) recruitment of athletes, who tend to come from higher-income families"
But are these oh-so-important factors what make for successful students? Let's ask the authors.
"Adjusting for the value-added of the colleges that students attend, the three key factors that give children from high-income families an admissions advantage are uncorrelated or negatively correlated with post-college outcomes, whereas SAT/ACT scores and academic credentials are highly predictive of post-college success."
Hm. I guess you'll need a new excuse.
> While I admit that legacy and donations can be a factor as they always have been across all institutions, admissions always have been predicated on finding students who are most likely to find true high level success in the real world. This means finding well rounded students: those that excel in leadership positions, extra curriculars, and athletics as well as in the classroom.
But the SATs still matter. They are a generalized measure of the student’s quality and are a good measure of how they’ll succeed in general. They should be given more weight than subjective measures. And focusing on them also avoids favoring those “extra” activities that are more accessible to students from wealthy families, who can afford it (money and time). For example, a family that needs the big kid to help watch the little kid can’t afford to have the big kid stay for after school sports.
By the way, plenty of public school students also have good test scores AND the extra things you mention. The big corruption of the process is when these qualified students are displaced by decisions that aren’t meritocratic. That’s legacy admissions but also race or gender based quota based discrimination.
I agree with a lot of this comment. For example, focusing on SAT scores is definitely not the way to go.
> But what is also true is that never in the modern history of elite colleges have they refused entrance to a truly high level candidate coming out of public schools.
The only way you could make this assertion would be if you knew "high level candidates" who were being refused admission "to elite colleges". And do you mean one? Or talking collectively? So a counterexample would be an high-level candidate who was admitted to NO elite colleges.
I do know examples. It happens all of the time. It doesn't even bother me. Colleges only have so many space. Unqualified rich kids getting in: undesirable and irritating. Qualified kids not getting in: a necessary consequence of the math.
The easiest way to find examples is to look in poor communities, where kids don't even know that Harvard would be free for them instead of $87k/year. Can't find any exceptional candidates there? Look harder.
The idea that there is some fictional "high-level" to begin with is crazy. Reducing all of a young person's humanity to a single metric ("level")?
> never in the modern history of elite colleges have they refused entrance to a truly high level candidate coming out of public schools
This really strains credulity. Decision criteria may not be purely based on academic merit (e.g., SAT), or even significantly based on it. It may also be true that they seek candidates likely to succeed b/c why not? Successful alumni are a self-perpetuating advertisement for your school.
But to say they have never refused admission to a candidate that will "truly" go on to succeed is trivially falsified, if only by having limited admissions slots. It's an imperfect game, and I think you're giving them too much benefit of doubt, and playing a "no true scottsman" game here.
This is naive. The job of admissions is to make money for the institution. Academics, being "well rounded", being a "leader" is all kayfabe.
Colleges are a “marketplace” as much as any other marketplace. Just how Stanford disrupted the traditional Ivy League monopoly, other schools can disrupt the status quo by consistent churning out leaders, great thinkers, entrepreneurs, and the like.
What sells the colleges the most is the sense that successful people tend to be there. So while admissions profit can be a very short term goal, any admit counselor knows that the long term goal is to create admirable leaders and change makers.
This is not impossible for publicly funded schools. Berkeley has put out consistently top AI researchers and engineers, more so than Stanford in my opinion.
Stanford builds companies; Berkeley builds entire industries
Interesting take. But Wikipedia has lists of scientific achievements and also companies associated with both. Is it really the case that each university has such a strong “personality” or is it just their reputation.
years ago I had no interest in this old football rivalry stuff.. very, very smart people work&play hard individually at both places. However once things get more organized, the differences are indeed profound for example, the rise and concentration of capital on the one hand, and the Nobel prizes and social contracts on the other. Agree that both places are large enough, active enough, stable enough such that simple comparisons are certainly refutable. However the raw number of graduates is not at all comparable between the two. The inward and enduring commitment to certain (polarized) politics, in both cases, is evident to me. Both institutions can claim societal-level accomplishments in the pure sciences..
Berkeley has more Nobel prizes (and actual elements in the periodic table); Stanford has more Turing awards (with MIT at #2 between Stanford and Berkeley).
> However the raw number of graduates is not at all comparable between the two
This is true. Stanford isn't too far removed from Berkeley by grad student enrollment (10K vs. 12K) but the undergraduate enrollment is tiny by comparison (7.5K vs. 33K).
Interesting. Would love to learn more. Of the things you mention the capital thing does seem real. I don’t have enough visibility into these places to know about the rest. Did you attend one of these?
If things were really so machiavellian they wouldn’t take broke students at all.
How are you judging “students who excel in leadership positions” at 18 year old while dismissing SAT scores as an admission criteria? Most of the “captains” in my high school have grown up to have mediocre careers (including me) and at some point were in leadership positions mostly because they “looked cute”.
SAT scores are taken into account by many schools for that very reason that it can change how you read the application of a candidate.
SAT is almost always read in terms of the deviation from the school or community average. So its not the case that having a decent score from a shit school is worse than a slight-better-than-decent score from an elite school