4 ms·

While the school I went to had larger admissions when controlled by degree, quality was maintained by failing out a huge chunk of the student body. Getting a re

While the school I went to had larger admissions when controlled by degree, quality was maintained by failing out a huge chunk of the student body. Getting a rejection letter is much more humane. Beyond that, exclusive clubs often come with good perks: in this case, the assumption that the outcome of conversation and networking will be relatively high.

tmp_anon_22 5y ago
Exclusive clubs aren't about providing perks to those who get in, its about maximizing club profits by only having patrons buying bottle service and other expensive add-ons. Its to get more rich people to sign up.
Spoom 5y ago
Eh. I went to a community college that let basically everyone in, and failed out ~95% of their computer programming course. I graduated, and I likely would not have gotten in in the first place if they went with the exclusivity model of universities (my last year of high school was terrible, and that's all they really looked at). Most people who didn't make it in this program went to more general programs so they still got something out of it. I'm now working at a large tech company. I'm glad both models exist because I would have been completely excluded if they did not.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
majormajor 5y ago
How is a rejection letter more humane than getting a chance to prove yourself? If everybody is screening on the same factors so that rejection letters are highly correlated, it would definitely be inhumane to only have that model
- nostrebored 5y ago
  They’re not the same factors, even if they are correlated though! Besides, there’s almost always a transfer pathway available for the false negatives.
  - rtpg 5y ago
    I mean the main thing is like a third of people at these schools are legacies at this point so pretending that the screening is for ability to take classes is not 100% right
josephcsible 5y ago
I much prefer the failing-out approach over the rejection-letter approach. With the latter, you exclude those who would excel but look bad on paper, in favor of those who won't but look good on paper.
- ramraj07 5y ago
  Yeah what’s wrong in wasting a couple years of a students time and a bunch of their money when you could have saved them the trouble.
thebigman433 5y ago
I think it very much depends on how the "failing out" is done. If its just a standard grading scheme and there is the potential for 100% of the class to pass (if they all do well on the content), then I think its actually great to give as many people the chance as possible. But, some of the classes I took early on in college had extremely difficult grading curves based on the middle/top students in the class, which I didnt think was fair at all. Trying to weight each individual class so a certain % of people pass is a terrible act imo, as it will vary year to year. I passed all of the classes, but I still feel sorry for the kids who failed just because our year had more smarter students that the previous/next years.
- lokar 5y ago
  My experience was absolute thresholds from F to C-, and a relative curve above that. Seemed fair. And seemed practical when I was on the other side doing the grading.

tmp_anon_22 5y ago

Exclusive clubs aren't about providing perks to those who get in, its about maximizing club profits by only having patrons buying bottle service and other expensive add-ons. Its to get more rich people to sign up.

Spoom 5y ago

Eh. I went to a community college that let basically everyone in, and failed out ~95% of their computer programming course. I graduated, and I likely would not have gotten in in the first place if they went with the exclusivity model of universities (my last year of high school was terrible, and that's all they really looked at). Most people who didn't make it in this program went to more general programs so they still got something out of it. I'm now working at a large tech company. I'm glad both models exist because I would have been completely excluded if they did not.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

majormajor 5y ago

How is a rejection letter more humane than getting a chance to prove yourself? If everybody is screening on the same factors so that rejection letters are highly correlated, it would definitely be inhumane to only have that model

nostrebored 5y ago
They’re not the same factors, even if they are correlated though! Besides, there’s almost always a transfer pathway available for the false negatives.
- rtpg 5y ago
  I mean the main thing is like a third of people at these schools are legacies at this point so pretending that the screening is for ability to take classes is not 100% right

josephcsible 5y ago

I much prefer the failing-out approach over the rejection-letter approach. With the latter, you exclude those who would excel but look bad on paper, in favor of those who won't but look good on paper.

ramraj07 5y ago
Yeah what’s wrong in wasting a couple years of a students time and a bunch of their money when you could have saved them the trouble.

thebigman433 5y ago

I think it very much depends on how the "failing out" is done. If its just a standard grading scheme and there is the potential for 100% of the class to pass (if they all do well on the content), then I think its actually great to give as many people the chance as possible. But, some of the classes I took early on in college had extremely difficult grading curves based on the middle/top students in the class, which I didnt think was fair at all. Trying to weight each individual class so a certain % of people pass is a terrible act imo, as it will vary year to year. I passed all of the classes, but I still feel sorry for the kids who failed just because our year had more smarter students that the previous/next years.

lokar 5y ago
My experience was absolute thresholds from F to C-, and a relative curve above that. Seemed fair. And seemed practical when I was on the other side doing the grading.