3 ms·

If Harvard went away, I would be VERY happy. Schools like Tsinghua, IIT, and C9 are much more meritocratic. Oxford / Cambridge are also very "exclusive" in the

If Harvard went away, I would be VERY happy. Schools like Tsinghua, IIT, and C9 are much more meritocratic. Oxford / Cambridge are also very "exclusive" in the worst way possible, and given the history of the early US, it's not surprising that this insular Victorian / London culture of poshness also permeated into 17th / 18th century Ivy League schools in the Puritanical US. I'm amazed at what abject conditions Eastern Europeans overcome to earn top international ranks in IOI competitive programming, for example.

lordnacho 4y ago
> Oxford / Cambridge are also very "exclusive" in the worst way possible I went there, and I didn't see anything but ordinary people. Something like Classics will naturally skew towards secondary schools that have a Latin class, but apart from that admissions are close to a dice roll among qualified kids. Certainly the impression I got was that dons were jealously guarding their right to decide, on their own, who would get in. The place was non-elite enough that I never even realized the Bullingdon Club was a thing until after I left. As you might expect though, a fairly large proportion of kids came from wealthy backgrounds. Private schools that cost way more than university tuition, that kind of thing.
- brutusborn 4y ago
  Your first point seems paradoxical but I might be misunderstanding. When you said 'dons were jealously guarding their right to decide, on their own, who would get in', are you inferring that although the right to decide is owned by the dons, they are 'ordinary' so there is less selection pressure for people from powerful backgrounds?
  - lordnacho 4y ago
    Basically I got the impression that the Dons/profs would not like if the college master tapped them on the shoulder and said "Little Johnny's dad gave us some money, please let him into your tutorial group". If you look at how admissions work, it seems reasonably fair: most courses have some sort of entrance test, and then a grilling by the don. There's not a lot of soft questions in those interviews: what's e, let's take the log of a negative number, what's magnetism. Not a lot of cultural fit or motivation questions. There's also the fact that the dons seem to just have their own set of applicants to look at. My understanding of the US system is you have a whole pile of applicants from which to shape the class as a whole. At Oxford it seemed like your don has 10 applicants and chooses 2 or 3, and that's his class. The rest of the uni does the same and the incoming few thousand kids are just whatever the sum of those little decisions is.
    - brutusborn 4y ago
      Ah I get it, the dons are the gatekeepers and they aren't incentivized by donations so meritocracy prevails. Thanks for the detailed reply.
- meetingthrower 4y ago
  Can confirm. Just went to open days at Oxford and Cambridge with my son. We are Americans. Both my wife and I are double ivy grads. Totally different than the US and much more meritocratic. Steps are: 1. Be qualified to apply. In UK this means at least AAA if not more. Varies by course. US equivalent is have at least three 5s on AP and above 1450 on SAT. This is roughly equivalent to top 10% of uk graduates. 2. Take the entrance exam. Huge weed out. This really separates the grinders vs the smart kids as the tests are based on what you intend to study, but most are more intelligence based and cannot necessarily be prepped for. 3. Assuming you make it past that, you get two sets of interviews. They are testing for the ability to go toe to toe in an intellectual conversation on your subject. This is obviously biased toward a certain "type", but given the small group tutorial teaching, it is really a responsibility of the student to engage this way to provide a good experience for all. No sitting in the back of the room taking notes! 4. There are some additional crazy things like applying to specific colleges, and wildly different admit rates based on the course you choose. But the overall impression I got was that for a well prepared and smart kid, it is much more straightforward than the so called elite US schools.
  - lordnacho 4y ago
    > But the overall impression I got was that for a well prepared and smart kid, it is much more straightforward than the so called elite US schools. Yes, plus you can skip applying to all the US schools if you get accepted, because you get the acceptance letter in December. I went to a high school that sent kids to both US and UK universities, and the US ones are incredibly onerous, not to mention expensive to even apply for. Multiple teacher references, essays that are supposed to be some sort of work of art, requirements to do extracurricular stuff. I did the SATs, got the Oxford acceptance, and just dropped all the US stuff entirely.
    - meetingthrower 4y ago
      Damn I wish that were still true. They say they issue decisions in January now, which is after application deadlines for everyone else (Jan 1.)
  - 4y ago
brutusborn 4y ago
What does the entrance process for Tsinghua, IIT, and C9 look like? I'm just wondering how they are more meritocratic, do they just have less side-door admissions?
- tintedfireglass 4y ago
  IIT is pseudo-meritocratic. It's a very rigorous exam and the person who can spend their whole high school time studying phy, Chem and maths and who can spend the most money joining the best coaching institutions and best mentors bacially get the admission. Doesn't matter if someone has an IQ of 200 or India's best football player or coding genius unless they get the highest marks in physics chemistry in maths they aren't allowed. It's technically meritocratic but it is a really flawed system that rewards rigorous practice over skill, interest and other aspects of a student.
  - zozbot234 4y ago
    There's nothing "flawed" about rewarding rigorous practice over irrelevant "skills" like being a good football player or scoring well on an I.Q. test. Sure it might be nice to pick up other meaningful predictors of achievement including e.g. deep interests, but that's very hard to do reliably in any sort of high-stakes situation, and school admissions are no exception.
    - tintedfireglass 4y ago
      I think I was biased due to getting my IIT entrance test results today where I did real bad. Now that I read it, it looks like a rant/vent :(
  - ngc248 4y ago
    lol .... by this definition all college entrance exams are pseudo meritocratic.
- ngc248 4y ago
  There are no side door admissions basically. You have to write a National level entrance exam and get the best rankings to get into the best universities and departments.

lordnacho 4y ago

> Oxford / Cambridge are also very "exclusive" in the worst way possible I went there, and I didn't see anything but ordinary people. Something like Classics will naturally skew towards secondary schools that have a Latin class, but apart from that admissions are close to a dice roll among qualified kids. Certainly the impression I got was that dons were jealously guarding their right to decide, on their own, who would get in. The place was non-elite enough that I never even realized the Bullingdon Club was a thing until after I left. As you might expect though, a fairly large proportion of kids came from wealthy backgrounds. Private schools that cost way more than university tuition, that kind of thing.

brutusborn 4y ago
Your first point seems paradoxical but I might be misunderstanding. When you said 'dons were jealously guarding their right to decide, on their own, who would get in', are you inferring that although the right to decide is owned by the dons, they are 'ordinary' so there is less selection pressure for people from powerful backgrounds?
- lordnacho 4y ago
  Basically I got the impression that the Dons/profs would not like if the college master tapped them on the shoulder and said "Little Johnny's dad gave us some money, please let him into your tutorial group". If you look at how admissions work, it seems reasonably fair: most courses have some sort of entrance test, and then a grilling by the don. There's not a lot of soft questions in those interviews: what's e, let's take the log of a negative number, what's magnetism. Not a lot of cultural fit or motivation questions. There's also the fact that the dons seem to just have their own set of applicants to look at. My understanding of the US system is you have a whole pile of applicants from which to shape the class as a whole. At Oxford it seemed like your don has 10 applicants and chooses 2 or 3, and that's his class. The rest of the uni does the same and the incoming few thousand kids are just whatever the sum of those little decisions is.
  - brutusborn 4y ago
    Ah I get it, the dons are the gatekeepers and they aren't incentivized by donations so meritocracy prevails. Thanks for the detailed reply.
meetingthrower 4y ago
Can confirm. Just went to open days at Oxford and Cambridge with my son. We are Americans. Both my wife and I are double ivy grads. Totally different than the US and much more meritocratic. Steps are: 1. Be qualified to apply. In UK this means at least AAA if not more. Varies by course. US equivalent is have at least three 5s on AP and above 1450 on SAT. This is roughly equivalent to top 10% of uk graduates. 2. Take the entrance exam. Huge weed out. This really separates the grinders vs the smart kids as the tests are based on what you intend to study, but most are more intelligence based and cannot necessarily be prepped for. 3. Assuming you make it past that, you get two sets of interviews. They are testing for the ability to go toe to toe in an intellectual conversation on your subject. This is obviously biased toward a certain "type", but given the small group tutorial teaching, it is really a responsibility of the student to engage this way to provide a good experience for all. No sitting in the back of the room taking notes! 4. There are some additional crazy things like applying to specific colleges, and wildly different admit rates based on the course you choose. But the overall impression I got was that for a well prepared and smart kid, it is much more straightforward than the so called elite US schools.
- lordnacho 4y ago
  > But the overall impression I got was that for a well prepared and smart kid, it is much more straightforward than the so called elite US schools. Yes, plus you can skip applying to all the US schools if you get accepted, because you get the acceptance letter in December. I went to a high school that sent kids to both US and UK universities, and the US ones are incredibly onerous, not to mention expensive to even apply for. Multiple teacher references, essays that are supposed to be some sort of work of art, requirements to do extracurricular stuff. I did the SATs, got the Oxford acceptance, and just dropped all the US stuff entirely.
  - meetingthrower 4y ago
    Damn I wish that were still true. They say they issue decisions in January now, which is after application deadlines for everyone else (Jan 1.)
- 4y ago

brutusborn 4y ago

What does the entrance process for Tsinghua, IIT, and C9 look like? I'm just wondering how they are more meritocratic, do they just have less side-door admissions?

tintedfireglass 4y ago
IIT is pseudo-meritocratic. It's a very rigorous exam and the person who can spend their whole high school time studying phy, Chem and maths and who can spend the most money joining the best coaching institutions and best mentors bacially get the admission. Doesn't matter if someone has an IQ of 200 or India's best football player or coding genius unless they get the highest marks in physics chemistry in maths they aren't allowed. It's technically meritocratic but it is a really flawed system that rewards rigorous practice over skill, interest and other aspects of a student.
- zozbot234 4y ago
  There's nothing "flawed" about rewarding rigorous practice over irrelevant "skills" like being a good football player or scoring well on an I.Q. test. Sure it might be nice to pick up other meaningful predictors of achievement including e.g. deep interests, but that's very hard to do reliably in any sort of high-stakes situation, and school admissions are no exception.
  - tintedfireglass 4y ago
    I think I was biased due to getting my IIT entrance test results today where I did real bad. Now that I read it, it looks like a rant/vent :(
- ngc248 4y ago
  lol .... by this definition all college entrance exams are pseudo meritocratic.
ngc248 4y ago
There are no side door admissions basically. You have to write a National level entrance exam and get the best rankings to get into the best universities and departments.