7 ms·

> It's just laughable that an admissions process is a trade secret More and more, I view these Ivy league colleges (and a few others like MIT, Stanford, etc) a

> It's just laughable that an admissions process is a trade secret More and more, I view these Ivy league colleges (and a few others like MIT, Stanford, etc) as private clubs not too dissimilar from country clubs. Beyond the anti Asian bias, I think something more revealing will be the number of legacy admits. Education is getting more decentralized and so the only real value of these institutions is brand recognition and network. If that is indeed a good analogy, then it makes sense Harvards admission criteria is a trade secret.

tdumitrescu 8y ago
I don't think the (high rate) of legacy acceptances has ever been considered a secret at the top ivies? "Harvard's incoming class of 2021 is made up of over 29 percent legacy students, reports The Harvard Crimson." https://www.cnbc.com/2017/09/06/harvards-incoming-class-is-one-third-legacy.html https://www.cnbc.com/2017/09/06/harvards-incoming-class-is-o... At the school I went to, even before I applied I knew that their admissions process funneled legacy applications into an entirely separate pool from normal applications.
rjzzleep 8y ago
Was there ever a doubt in that? I wish I had known that University is for networking and making connections. Maybe my life would have been easier. My ex's internship at Harvard was as simple as her dad knowing a prof that is friends with a harvard one. No prep, no interview, no nothing. It opened a lot of doors and that's great, but the interesting thing was that when things are so easy to attain, I had to do a lot of convincing to actually get her to attend it. And when I contrast it to the amount of stones that were thrown in my way, I can't help but be a little bit jealous
- arethuza 8y ago
  I remember when my wife was applying to law schools in the UK and she happened to know someone (through a sporting club) who had previously handled admissions at one law school and he explained to her that they were looking for an "alpha quality" in applicants - my wife proceeded to ask what actually made up this quality and how they tested for it - to which the answer was basically "you know it when you see it". Eventually when she realised was "alpha quality" meant "went to a good public school and already have family in the profession"... Mind you - at least these days law has changed and nobody really cares about how posh your relatives are, just how much money they have....
  - teachrdan 8y ago
    > went to a good public school To clarify: "public school" here means "private school" in American, yes?
    - arethuza 8y ago
      Yes, sorry - although public schools are strictly speaking only a subset of private schools.
sonnyblarney 8y ago
"More and more, I view these Ivy league colleges (and a few others like MIT, Stanford, etc) as private clubs not too dissimilar from country clubs." They always were, to some extent. Comparably, they are considerably more egalitarian now than they were even 50 years ago. "so the only real value of these institutions is brand recognition and network" Whatever the admissions problems - they are still very good schools. They tend to have better profs and better students and that counts for a lot. Also huge financing basis, and due to 'brand' they get visitors from prominent individuals the world over. I think the problem is not the schools - it's the way we treat 'brand value' particularly in places like the Silicon Valley. I wonder if during interviewing, what would happen if interviewers were simply not allowed to know the educational background of the candidate - after all, once they have been admitted for an interview, does that information really matter at all (i.e. in the context of a specific interview?). It's hard for younger people to avoid this, and when I did a lot of interviewing in my 20's I think I was too skewed by this, not having the opportunity to know really what all of that meant. Particularly when it comes to socialization - I find that Ivy League types are confident and polished communicators, so I particularly enjoy the process of trying to 'see past the nice smile' to find what counts ... but fully aware of how important it is to still have 'brand recognition' even at the company early on, as this actually does help to recruit more talent and investment, sadly.
- dunpeal 8y ago
  > I wonder if during interviewing, what would happen if interviewers were simply not allowed to know the educational background of the candidate - after all, once they have been admitted for an interview, does that information really matter at all (i.e. in the context of a specific interview?). I've been heavily involved in interviewing, from the hiring side. You are actually correct. From the hiring party's perspective, the cost of interviews is the time of the current employees administering them. The candidate's entire resume is thus taken into account before making the expensive decision to fly them over and have 5-10 people interview them in person. In other words, there certainly is some weight given to a candidate's educational credentials, but it's almost completely limited to the decision whether to interview them at all. Once a candidate is in front of an interviewer, their resume only matters as a jumping point into live discussion, typically of topics like past projects and interests. The brand of their school makes zero difference at this point. > It's hard for younger people to avoid this, and when I did a lot of interviewing in my 20's I think I was too skewed by this, not having the opportunity to know really what all of that meant. The unpleasant truth is that unless you interviewed with some extremely inefficient employers, you were not rejected due to your school brand, but due to your perceived interview performance. Nobody flies a candidate for a full day of interviews just to reject them based on something that was already known. Not every candidate from a top school is smart. There's plenty of terrible candidates from top schools, and they bomb interviews just like everybody else, and when they do they get rejected. Finally, I'd say that nowadays, the benefit of the handful (say top 10) schools is far less obvious. There's plenty of "2nd-tier" engineering schools that will easily get you into most interviewing processes.
Thriptic 8y ago
> Education is getting more decentralized and so the only real value of these institutions is brand recognition and network. This is simply not true. I went to what I would call a tier 3 school for undergrad and then ended up at MIT for graduate work. The difference between the two institutions was really night and day. Not only are the classes more rigorous and the instructors objectively better at MIT, but the students just think differently: they have much more ambition and are far less constrained by the status quo / what their parents did. Being around that totally changed my outlook of what is possible and what I should expect from myself, and really pushed me to make huge career and self-education strides.
- gajjanag 8y ago
  I generally agree with this, but here is a counterpoint regarding graduate studies. From my first hand experience as a graduate student at MIT, a lot of the research produced at MIT generates a disproportionate amount of buzz - essentially identical work (in terms of quality) produced by a student in a "tier 3" school will not generate the same kind of recognition. The reasons for this lie in the network effects; people read and cite people who they can attest to with less effort and scrutiny. The points regarding the instructors and student body are definitely valid and should not be ignored.
  - deepnotderp 8y ago
    Agree 100x Example from my field: silicon photonics project which got a lot of press and all of them mentioned MIT, usually in the headlines. U boulder contributed to the project and got e near zero recognition.
- DoubleCribble 8y ago
  Hear, hear. Having experienced a similar transition, the improved quality of instruction and the impressive caliber of my cohort was shockingly apparent in my very first class. I liken the transition to switching from the minor leagues to the pros.
- steev 8y ago
  I have not gone to graduate school at a place like MIT or Harvard, but I have done graduate work at both a top 30 and a top 60 school. There was absolutely a difference in quality of research, professors, and coursework at both schools (STEM subjects, and the top 30 school being higher quality).

tdumitrescu 8y ago

I don't think the (high rate) of legacy acceptances has ever been considered a secret at the top ivies? "Harvard's incoming class of 2021 is made up of over 29 percent legacy students, reports The Harvard Crimson." https://www.cnbc.com/2017/09/06/harvards-incoming-class-is-one-third-legacy.html https://www.cnbc.com/2017/09/06/harvards-incoming-class-is-o... At the school I went to, even before I applied I knew that their admissions process funneled legacy applications into an entirely separate pool from normal applications.

rjzzleep 8y ago

Was there ever a doubt in that? I wish I had known that University is for networking and making connections. Maybe my life would have been easier. My ex's internship at Harvard was as simple as her dad knowing a prof that is friends with a harvard one. No prep, no interview, no nothing. It opened a lot of doors and that's great, but the interesting thing was that when things are so easy to attain, I had to do a lot of convincing to actually get her to attend it. And when I contrast it to the amount of stones that were thrown in my way, I can't help but be a little bit jealous

arethuza 8y ago
I remember when my wife was applying to law schools in the UK and she happened to know someone (through a sporting club) who had previously handled admissions at one law school and he explained to her that they were looking for an "alpha quality" in applicants - my wife proceeded to ask what actually made up this quality and how they tested for it - to which the answer was basically "you know it when you see it". Eventually when she realised was "alpha quality" meant "went to a good public school and already have family in the profession"... Mind you - at least these days law has changed and nobody really cares about how posh your relatives are, just how much money they have....
- teachrdan 8y ago
  > went to a good public school To clarify: "public school" here means "private school" in American, yes?
  - arethuza 8y ago
    Yes, sorry - although public schools are strictly speaking only a subset of private schools.

sonnyblarney 8y ago

"More and more, I view these Ivy league colleges (and a few others like MIT, Stanford, etc) as private clubs not too dissimilar from country clubs." They always were, to some extent. Comparably, they are considerably more egalitarian now than they were even 50 years ago. "so the only real value of these institutions is brand recognition and network" Whatever the admissions problems - they are still very good schools. They tend to have better profs and better students and that counts for a lot. Also huge financing basis, and due to 'brand' they get visitors from prominent individuals the world over. I think the problem is not the schools - it's the way we treat 'brand value' particularly in places like the Silicon Valley. I wonder if during interviewing, what would happen if interviewers were simply not allowed to know the educational background of the candidate - after all, once they have been admitted for an interview, does that information really matter at all (i.e. in the context of a specific interview?). It's hard for younger people to avoid this, and when I did a lot of interviewing in my 20's I think I was too skewed by this, not having the opportunity to know really what all of that meant. Particularly when it comes to socialization - I find that Ivy League types are confident and polished communicators, so I particularly enjoy the process of trying to 'see past the nice smile' to find what counts ... but fully aware of how important it is to still have 'brand recognition' even at the company early on, as this actually does help to recruit more talent and investment, sadly.

dunpeal 8y ago
> I wonder if during interviewing, what would happen if interviewers were simply not allowed to know the educational background of the candidate - after all, once they have been admitted for an interview, does that information really matter at all (i.e. in the context of a specific interview?). I've been heavily involved in interviewing, from the hiring side. You are actually correct. From the hiring party's perspective, the cost of interviews is the time of the current employees administering them. The candidate's entire resume is thus taken into account before making the expensive decision to fly them over and have 5-10 people interview them in person. In other words, there certainly is some weight given to a candidate's educational credentials, but it's almost completely limited to the decision whether to interview them at all. Once a candidate is in front of an interviewer, their resume only matters as a jumping point into live discussion, typically of topics like past projects and interests. The brand of their school makes zero difference at this point. > It's hard for younger people to avoid this, and when I did a lot of interviewing in my 20's I think I was too skewed by this, not having the opportunity to know really what all of that meant. The unpleasant truth is that unless you interviewed with some extremely inefficient employers, you were not rejected due to your school brand, but due to your perceived interview performance. Nobody flies a candidate for a full day of interviews just to reject them based on something that was already known. Not every candidate from a top school is smart. There's plenty of terrible candidates from top schools, and they bomb interviews just like everybody else, and when they do they get rejected. Finally, I'd say that nowadays, the benefit of the handful (say top 10) schools is far less obvious. There's plenty of "2nd-tier" engineering schools that will easily get you into most interviewing processes.

Thriptic 8y ago

> Education is getting more decentralized and so the only real value of these institutions is brand recognition and network. This is simply not true. I went to what I would call a tier 3 school for undergrad and then ended up at MIT for graduate work. The difference between the two institutions was really night and day. Not only are the classes more rigorous and the instructors objectively better at MIT, but the students just think differently: they have much more ambition and are far less constrained by the status quo / what their parents did. Being around that totally changed my outlook of what is possible and what I should expect from myself, and really pushed me to make huge career and self-education strides.

gajjanag 8y ago
I generally agree with this, but here is a counterpoint regarding graduate studies. From my first hand experience as a graduate student at MIT, a lot of the research produced at MIT generates a disproportionate amount of buzz - essentially identical work (in terms of quality) produced by a student in a "tier 3" school will not generate the same kind of recognition. The reasons for this lie in the network effects; people read and cite people who they can attest to with less effort and scrutiny. The points regarding the instructors and student body are definitely valid and should not be ignored.
- deepnotderp 8y ago
  Agree 100x Example from my field: silicon photonics project which got a lot of press and all of them mentioned MIT, usually in the headlines. U boulder contributed to the project and got e near zero recognition.
DoubleCribble 8y ago
Hear, hear. Having experienced a similar transition, the improved quality of instruction and the impressive caliber of my cohort was shockingly apparent in my very first class. I liken the transition to switching from the minor leagues to the pros.
steev 8y ago
I have not gone to graduate school at a place like MIT or Harvard, but I have done graduate work at both a top 30 and a top 60 school. There was absolutely a difference in quality of research, professors, and coursework at both schools (STEM subjects, and the top 30 school being higher quality).