3 ms·
If this were clearly a bad thing, wouldn't the schools that don't do this produce much higher quality graduates?
by tolbish 5y ago
If this were clearly a bad thing, wouldn't the schools that don't do this produce much higher quality graduates?
- toomuchtodo 5y agoHonestly, I have no idea. I think everyone is seeking signal when a lot of life is luck. Smart people will overcome except when they can’t (smart people fail despite their best efforts all the time) and those who might be unable to achieve (whether because of lack of intelligence or because of life circumstances) might still stumble into success. It’s a crapshoot, but pulling levers makes everyone look like they’re trying to fix whatever they want to fix. We’re optimizing for the wrong problems (selective admissions for limited slots), versus working towards universal access to high quality instruction regardless of location.
- tolbish 5y agoYou make it sound like it's not something that should be fixed. Any alternative ways of enabling lower-middle class kids with fewer resources to achieve opportunities at success?
- toomuchtodo 5y agoUniversal access (free) to community colleges, remote learning MOOCs from those top in their fields. Commodify higher education and distribute widely, don’t reward artificial scarcity. Existing colleges do not have incentives to do this. They are incentivized to protect the value of their brand and their institution, and to preserve scarcity and gated access to credentials.
- tolbish 5y agoExcept Colorado just banned legacy admissions and dropped their SAT/ACT requirement.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- toomuchtodo 5y agoSomeone will be making a subjective determination for each student based on something that isn’t a test score or legacy attribute (“feels”, their “story”, whatever you want to call it). Not exactly universal access imho (although I agree legacy should’ve never been a deciding factor).
- dwighttk 5y agoare there schools that do random admission to compare to?
- tolbish 5y agoThe argument is that dropping SAT/ACT requirements is bad for the school. So if that were actually true, then there should be data showing schools that dropped the requirement being worse off than schools that didn't.
- whoooooo123 5y agoWhat does 'bad for the school' mean? As long as they continue to rake in the cash from tuition/sports/grants and can keep funding their ever-growing bureaucracies, will they care if educational standards have cratered? The evidence suggests that they don't.
- tolbish 5y agoIf it were purely about money, they would not be axing legacy admissions.
- whoooooo123 5y agoThe legacy kids will all still be admitted. The more vague and subjective the admissions criteria, the easier it is to shoo-in the rich kids and pretend it's about anything other than money. No wonder they're getting rid of the SAT.