4 ms·

Why set a minimum bar at “qualified”? If you try out for an NBA team they won’t say “you are really fucking good at basketball, you’re not as good as these guys

Why set a minimum bar at “qualified”? If you try out for an NBA team they won’t say “you are really fucking good at basketball, you’re not as good as these guys but you’re diverse so you’re hired.” You get scarce positions by outcompeting people, not by clearing a bar and then getting selected for your race.

defen 7y ago
Basketball is zero-sum, undergrad college admissions mostly aren't. As long as Harvard lets in enough students who are "good enough" to not fail out or besmirch their reputation, it can continue indefinitely as a prestige-generating institution. Put another way - the "Michael Jordan" of undergraduate academics doesn't really exist (in other words, there is no individual undergraduate you could admit who would instantly make your college superior to every other one)
- dwoozle 7y ago
  Of course there are — they are the “Michael Jordans” of the world... not only Michael Jordan himself, but all of the top accomplished people in the world... presidents, Nobel Prize winners, CEOs, famous authors... Harvard is prestigious because they admit people who later do those things. The content of the curriculum is largely the same as other colleges. Harvard is looking for people who have the highest probability of becoming prestige generators, the same way that NBA teams are looking for people with the highest probability of being points generators. Sure, the assessment methods for Harvard are much more coarse, but that doesn’t mean they don’t exist.
  - defen 7y ago
    You can't really assess someone's capability of becoming a president/CEO/famous author based on their achievements before age 18. It's also really hard to determine whether people achieved those things because they went to Harvard. For example, getting access to the Harvard network massively increases your chances of getting a business funded, being successful in politics, etc. Finally - Harvard's prestige in the sciences is mostly due to graduate students/professors, not undergraduates. > The content of the curriculum is largely the same as other colleges. Maybe in some departments, but Harvard's math curriculum is not the same as most other colleges in the US, for example.
    - nybble41 7y ago
      > You can't really assess someone's capability of becoming a president/CEO/famous author based on their achievements before age 18. It's also really hard to determine whether people achieved those things because they went to Harvard. These statements are almost completely incompatible. If there is no way to tell who is likely to be successful beforehand, and yet those who attend Harvard are more successful as a group than those who do not, then it is fair to say that attending Harvard led to their success. Personally I'd say it's some of each: the admissions process does in fact manage to select for applications who are more likely to be successful, as a group, and there are also some unique benefits available to Harvard students and alumni (as you yourself pointed out) which tend to boost their chances even further. > For example, getting access to the Harvard network massively increases your chances of getting a business funded, being successful in politics, etc. That would be one of the means by which people achieve things because they went to Harvard. It's not just about the academics. Of course, not everyone would be capable of taking full advantage of that network even if it were made available to them.
      - defen 7y ago
        What I'm trying to say is that Harvard has a selection process in place, for which thousands of people per year count as "qualified", and I don't think there's a strong reason to believe that the admitted students are in any way "better" than the qualified-but-not-admitted students. However, getting that Harvard stamp of approval (which really comes down to luck, if you're qualified) opens a ton of doors, in terms of network, "brand", etc. One big difference between Harvard and OPs NBA example is that Harvard gains prestige from its alums, for things they do years or decades after their affiliation with the institution.
        dwoozle 7y ago
        > I don't think there's a strong reason to believe that the admitted students are in any way "better" than the qualified-but-not-admitted students On what basis do you think that? What data or reasoning suggests that the people Harvard almost admits would produce equal (fame, donations, other currency) to the university as those who are actually admitted?
- rohit2412 7y ago
  So, Bill gates, Zuckerberg, Sergey Brin, Larry Page etc etc did not bring their amla mater's any extra fame? Is your bar just "do not besmirch the good name of this institution"? Then I guess nobody should care for or covet International olympiad winners.
  - defen 7y ago
    Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg dropped out of Harvard. Neither Brin nor Page went to Harvard and are both more famous for their connection to Stanford as graduate students IMO
    - rohit2412 7y ago
      They did bring fame though right?
      - defen 7y ago
        Sure, but this is about undergraduate admissions, not graduate.
        sjg007 7y ago
        I mean I don't think the graduate level is that different.
      - Retric 7y ago
        I think their dropping out may have hurt Harvard’s reputation as much as helped it. It’s often viewed as a place smart people and the elite go, but not always where they receive a great education.
brlewis 7y ago
Professional sports have well-defined skills and roles to compete for. Diversity of backgrounds/perspectives/ideas is not as valuable in athletes as it is in an academic community.

defen 7y ago

Basketball is zero-sum, undergrad college admissions mostly aren't. As long as Harvard lets in enough students who are "good enough" to not fail out or besmirch their reputation, it can continue indefinitely as a prestige-generating institution. Put another way - the "Michael Jordan" of undergraduate academics doesn't really exist (in other words, there is no individual undergraduate you could admit who would instantly make your college superior to every other one)

dwoozle 7y ago
Of course there are — they are the “Michael Jordans” of the world... not only Michael Jordan himself, but all of the top accomplished people in the world... presidents, Nobel Prize winners, CEOs, famous authors... Harvard is prestigious because they admit people who later do those things. The content of the curriculum is largely the same as other colleges. Harvard is looking for people who have the highest probability of becoming prestige generators, the same way that NBA teams are looking for people with the highest probability of being points generators. Sure, the assessment methods for Harvard are much more coarse, but that doesn’t mean they don’t exist.
- defen 7y ago
  You can't really assess someone's capability of becoming a president/CEO/famous author based on their achievements before age 18. It's also really hard to determine whether people achieved those things because they went to Harvard. For example, getting access to the Harvard network massively increases your chances of getting a business funded, being successful in politics, etc. Finally - Harvard's prestige in the sciences is mostly due to graduate students/professors, not undergraduates. > The content of the curriculum is largely the same as other colleges. Maybe in some departments, but Harvard's math curriculum is not the same as most other colleges in the US, for example.
  - nybble41 7y ago
    > You can't really assess someone's capability of becoming a president/CEO/famous author based on their achievements before age 18. It's also really hard to determine whether people achieved those things because they went to Harvard. These statements are almost completely incompatible. If there is no way to tell who is likely to be successful beforehand, and yet those who attend Harvard are more successful as a group than those who do not, then it is fair to say that attending Harvard led to their success. Personally I'd say it's some of each: the admissions process does in fact manage to select for applications who are more likely to be successful, as a group, and there are also some unique benefits available to Harvard students and alumni (as you yourself pointed out) which tend to boost their chances even further. > For example, getting access to the Harvard network massively increases your chances of getting a business funded, being successful in politics, etc. That would be one of the means by which people achieve things because they went to Harvard. It's not just about the academics. Of course, not everyone would be capable of taking full advantage of that network even if it were made available to them.
    - defen 7y ago
      What I'm trying to say is that Harvard has a selection process in place, for which thousands of people per year count as "qualified", and I don't think there's a strong reason to believe that the admitted students are in any way "better" than the qualified-but-not-admitted students. However, getting that Harvard stamp of approval (which really comes down to luck, if you're qualified) opens a ton of doors, in terms of network, "brand", etc. One big difference between Harvard and OPs NBA example is that Harvard gains prestige from its alums, for things they do years or decades after their affiliation with the institution.
      - dwoozle 7y ago
        > I don't think there's a strong reason to believe that the admitted students are in any way "better" than the qualified-but-not-admitted students On what basis do you think that? What data or reasoning suggests that the people Harvard almost admits would produce equal (fame, donations, other currency) to the university as those who are actually admitted?
rohit2412 7y ago
So, Bill gates, Zuckerberg, Sergey Brin, Larry Page etc etc did not bring their amla mater's any extra fame? Is your bar just "do not besmirch the good name of this institution"? Then I guess nobody should care for or covet International olympiad winners.
- defen 7y ago
  Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg dropped out of Harvard. Neither Brin nor Page went to Harvard and are both more famous for their connection to Stanford as graduate students IMO
  - rohit2412 7y ago
    They did bring fame though right?
    - defen 7y ago
      Sure, but this is about undergraduate admissions, not graduate.
      - sjg007 7y ago
        I mean I don't think the graduate level is that different.
    - Retric 7y ago
      I think their dropping out may have hurt Harvard’s reputation as much as helped it. It’s often viewed as a place smart people and the elite go, but not always where they receive a great education.

brlewis 7y ago

Professional sports have well-defined skills and roles to compete for. Diversity of backgrounds/perspectives/ideas is not as valuable in athletes as it is in an academic community.