3 ms·
Yeah, admissions isn't really about who can succeed at the school (since basically anyone who gets in will be fine). While you do get some education, I'd argue
by fossuser 6y ago
Yeah, admissions isn't really about who can succeed at the school (since basically anyone who gets in will be fine).
While you do get some education, I'd argue the majority of the value is the signalling the institutions provide by being selective.
It's about forcing scarcity for social status.
- WalterBright 6y ago> admissions isn't really about who can succeed at the school At Caltech this definitely was not true. None of my fellow students were legacy that I knew of, and none were rich that I was aware of. > (since basically anyone who gets in will be fine) Also not true of Caltech. Caltech sometimes did make mistakes in admitting students who couldn't hack the program, and those poor students suffered until they gave up. It didn't matter how hard they worked, it just didn't work for them. On the other hand, some students (like Hal Finney) effortlessly, and I mean effortlessly, aced everything. Not me, I had to work fairly assiduously or I got F's.
- fossuser 6y agoYeah Caltech is specialized enough that I could see it being an exception. To expand on my previous point it’s not that all majors are unfailable - I knew plenty of kids that failed out of STEM and switched to some more generic liberal arts major anyone can pass. At Caltech that’s probably not an option.
- WalterBright 6y agoI would be nice if liberal arts programs also required calculus and physics. An educated person should know something about science besides these "I believe in science" memes on the internet. Of course, I have no chance of becoming World Dictator, so those who don't like math are safe :-)
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]