11 ms·

The admission departments need to be leaner - much much leaner. Coming from India I find American admission process ridiculously bloated. I mean asking an under

The admission departments need to be leaner - much much leaner. Coming from India I find American admission process ridiculously bloated. I mean asking an undergraduate to do an essay of what excites them. Interviewing an 18 year old about their plans for life. Seriously, I’ve never seen a bigger fucking waste of time. Run standardized tests and admit based on actual knowledge and ability. The rest is bullshit.

throwaway23236 4y ago
While you might be right on some of this. I think the colleges are looking for people not based on standardized tests alone. Most standardized tests are just rote learning and memorization. I would challenge that these schools are looking for people who think better than most people. Yes they need to be smart when it comes to doing school work, but they need to be more than that to attend an elite university. The people that go to these schools go on to be the upper-crust of society. They can think outside of the box and push the envelope of human knowledge. Can other people do that without going to these schools? Sure. But these schools are looking for those people.
- unmole 4y ago
  I was under the impression that elite universities first switched to holistic criteria for admissions because too many Jewish students made it through on academics.
- gautamdivgi 4y ago
  You can make the tests harder. There can be IQ testing to estimate ability to handle out of box thinking. Fwiw - anyone able to fork out $52k/year for their child is wealthy enough so that the child has had enough flexibility for out of box thinking growing up. A lot of out of box thinking is conditioning to the environment. If you are taught not to have constraints your ability to think out of the box is much better.
- kyrra 4y ago
  Can the universities prove that whatever process they have now (or is trying to do) is better than a pure meritocracy? Obviously we would need to agree on what "better" means here (ie: what outcomes they are measuring). The question to you is, how do you measure "needs to be more than that". If this isn't something that you can't quantify, it's just going to let administrators pick students to satisfy whatever the current cultural hot button issue is.
  - throwaway23236 4y ago
    That is a good question. I think the university should decide on the "why" and base candidates off of that. And you are are right, much like picking a hire, a best friend, your spouse, there is a lot that isn't quantifiable. 4.0 student who you interview and they come off as a Jerk, they are smart as hell or a 3.93 student who is passionate about learning, wants to be there, and is a humble person. Which do you want affecting your school's culture?
- dbingham 4y ago
  There is so much classism, elitism, and unsupported effect therefor cause reasoning in this comment I don't even know where to start with it. Which is ironic, because I am also generally against the idea of colleges basing their admissions solely on standardized tests. Those tests have their roots in the eugenics movement, have been shown to be deeply problematic and biased, and have completely failed to predict future success when you remove confounding factors. > I would challenge that these schools are looking for people who think better than most people. Yes they need to be smart when it comes to doing school work, but they need to be more than that to attend an elite university. I would argue that far more people who "think better than most" people come out of public schools than the "elite" schools. What the elite schools do very well is laundering the mediocrity of the upper class. (See "legacy admissions") > The people that go to these schools go on to be the upper-crust of society. They can think outside of the box and push the envelope of human knowledge. ... https://hbr.org/2020/09/graduates-of-elite-universities-get-paid-more-do-they-perform-better https://hbr.org/2020/09/graduates-of-elite-universities-get-... > Our results offer some solace to the traditional recruiters. After controlling for age, gender, and the year of study, we found that graduates from higher-ranked universities performed better, but only nominally and only on some dimensions of performance. Specifically, the overall performance improved by only 1.9% for every 1,000 positions in the Webometrics global university rankings. When comparing the performance of candidates whose universities rank further apart — a graduate from a top university versus a “global average” university — the performance differential jumps to 19%. > The 19% difference in performance between the top and the average seems significant, but keep in mind that this is for graduates from universities that are 10,000 university ranking positions apart. At a given organization, candidates are likely to be selected from within a much narrower pool, perhaps from universities whose rankings differ by a couple of hundred positions. In this more realistic case, the predicted difference in performance would be closer to 1%. Keep in mind, this[1] is the ranking they are using. The top 10 includes public universities and omits several Ivy league "elite" universities. [1] https://www.webometrics.info/en/world https://www.webometrics.info/en/world
  - sokoloff 4y ago
    > have completely failed to predict future success when you remove confounding factors. It seems to me that measuring/estimating the scholastic ability/preparedness of a prospective student has value independent of whether that preparedness is correlated with some other variables (wealth, neighborhood, childhood nutrition, other socioeconomic markers). “Are they prepared/do they have the aptitude to succeed here?” matters much more than the underlying reasons why they might or might not be prepared.
- elgar1212 4y ago
  > The people that go to these schools go on to be the upper-crust of society. They can think outside of the box and push the envelope of human knowledge. Yeah, kind of like SBF > I would challenge that these schools are looking for people who think better than most people. Yes they need to be smart when it comes to doing school work, but they need to be more than that to attend an elite university. I'd counter this and say the insistence on qualitative standards just opens the door for classist decision making. The second you allow people to introduce qualitative standards, it opens the door for discrimination
  - throwaway23236 4y ago
    Training someone to pass a test to get in is not the same as finding the right person to go there. Does this open up the possibility of discrimination? Yes. Tell me about how many people I know who went to a CISSP bootcamp, passed the test, and walk around not knowing shit? It's the same in a lot of universities too. Elite universities are looking for people who fit their image and who they believe are going somewhere in life. Universities, especially universities are looking for people that are going places. They are looking for people who will bring recognition, money, and fame back to the university.
    - elgar1212 4y ago
      > Tell me about how many people I know who went to a CISSP bootcamp, passed the test, and walk around not knowing shit? It's the same in a lot of universities too. So because bootcamps are an insufficient means of testing, standardized testing in general is inadequate? And not just this specific test in particular? > Training someone to pass a test to get in is not the same as finding the right person to go there. Only if the test is insufficient. "finding the right person" is just a racist, classist dog whistle from a group of people that feel entitled to the right to discriminate You want to see a living example of this entitlement? Listen to the audio from the recent Supreme court verbal argument regarding the Harvard case. Specifically the "oboe players" comment. Juxtapose this with the historical racist and antisemitic discrimination and ask yourself whether Harvard should be trusted to "find the right person" in this sort of way
- throwaway894345 4y ago
  > Most standardized tests are just rote learning and memorization. Most of the non-standardized test stuff is subjective and lends itself pretty directly to classist and racial prejudice. No one is arguing that standardized tests are the perfect way to test for aptitude, but the pro-standardized-test folks argue that the alternatives are significantly worse.
  - HDThoreaun 4y ago
    Harvard admissions are classist on purpose. They want to admit mostly upper class people because they want every single one of their graduates to become upper class, and the easiest way to do that is to start upper class.
- chinchilla2020 4y ago
  The issue with the essay system is coming up with an evaluation criteria that isn't completely biased and prone to manipulation. The essay system favors people who hire admissions consultants to write them, or who study the online guides about what types of essays get into Harvard. They also tend to chase sensational sob stories - the claims within those stories are never verified by admissions officers. I can't find the study at the moment on google, but I recall some work asking to end essays in admissions packages since it discriminates against Black and Hispanic applicants who do not have the background resources to write appropriate admissions essays.
  - throwaway23236 4y ago
    You are right, it is not. I totally get that and I think we should work to remove bias out of the process. Maybe removing names and genders from the essays or similar entry requirements. There are ways to reduce bias without resorting to some kind of standardized test which only shows that they can pass a test. Elite Universities are looking for people of character, that could be anyone from any walk of life. But it is self-serving, they are looking for people who will end up bringing money, recognition, and fame back to the school. They are looking for people who want to go there, who will go far in life and talk about how X university is where it all started. I get that this is a difficult topic, and I want everyone in the world to be a lifelong learner, reader, and more. But not everyone is built the same, that doesn't mean they won't go far in life. And I don't think recognizing that difference is racist or discriminatory. Not everyone will become a Harvard grad, the president, CEO of a company, etc. Some people are dealt a shittier hands in life and get less draws from the deck, we should work to fix that, but we shouldn't lump everyone into one basket.
    - RestlessMind 4y ago
      > we should work to remove bias out of the process. How would you remove the biggest bias of money? People with money will throw it at gaming anything used by college admission process.
      - 4y ago
Loughla 4y ago
The problem is that standardized tests are more a measurement of access to resources and parental support than raw knowledge or future success. It does feel nice to say that everyone is equal, but not everyone has an equal chance. In theory, squishy admissions processes exist to identify those students who have raw potential, but may not be identified by standardized test scores. High school GPA and class rank are a more accurate indicator of success in postsecondary (but I could also argue that's really just a measure of how well you 'conform' to standard educational expectations early in life, not really how 'able to succeed' you are, but that's a different conversation).
- tester756 4y ago
  >The problem is that standardized tests are more a measurement of access to resources and parental support than raw knowledge or future success. It does feel nice to say that everyone is equal, but not everyone has an equal chance. Feel free to figure out better system. Tests while not perfect, are in my opinion at least fair and relatively transparent. >High school GPA and class rank are a more accurate indicator of success in postsecondary jesus christ - GPA. I honestly don't know any more biased metric than GPA. Even if GPA is better predictor of how hardworking you are, then I still don't care, there's too much bias in this metric. Standarized tests are "pure", they aren't your average not 100% emotionally stable teacher
  - HDThoreaun 4y ago
    > Feel free to figure out better system. Harvard has. It involves making students write essays and considering all of their accomplishments. Harvard isn't just looking for the smartest people. They're not looking for the most academically successful. They are looking for people who will be powerful and wealthy. Is it fair that harvard admits people just because their parents have money and power? I guess not, but they're not trying to be fair. They're trying to admit people who will have money and power.
    - tester756 4y ago
      education system should have different objectives than "get already powerful and wealthy people and make them more wealthy and powerful", so I don't think that Harvard "figured it out"
paxys 4y ago
Standardized testing is the reason why India – despite its billion strong population and heavy cultural emphasis on science and engineering – is unable to produce a single ounce of innovation. Students are only taught rote memorization from primary school onwards. They spend their formative years in before-school and after-school coaching doing more of the same, all to crack that single test which will determine their future (and a large number are driven to suicide because of it). No curiosity, no outside interests, no social skills, no independent thought. All of these are discouraged in favor of memorizing equations. Institutions like Harvard, Yale, MIT, Stanford produce leaders and entrepreneurs. India's top engineering colleges (IITs) are meanwhile ranked nowhere globally, and its top graduates dream of getting a cushy job at Google, nothing more. There are a lot of problems with American universities, but the lack of entrance exams is a feature, not a bug.
- gautamdivgi 4y ago
  I would differ on this. It’s access to capital and connections. For the longest time access to capital in India has been limited and children are expected to support parents in their old age. Hence, the heavy move towards the cushy job at google. To be fair a large cohort of IIT & IISc grads come to top American universities. I actually think standardized tests create more equality than other methods. The whole recommendation letter/essay/interview is an eyewash.
  - idontpost 4y ago
  - geodel 4y ago
    > To be fair a large cohort of IIT & IISc grads come to top American universities. Why are they coming to American universities when IITs and IISC have GATE exam for post graduate courses and none of the ridiculous process for admission?
    - oefrha 4y ago
      Must be because they love ridiculous admission processes, not because American income is higher.
bachmeier 4y ago
I believe the plan is to finish the sufficiently smart compiler before starting on the sufficiently useful standardized test.
criddell 4y ago
Harvard's freshman class is around 2000 people. They probably get more than that many applicants with perfect test scores. I suspect if you apply to Harvard and can point to a film you made with your friends that placed well in some film festival or have some success with your music on Spotify or have done some stand up comedy or painted a mural in your city or something else that showcases talents that are more rare than high grades, you have a much better chance at being accepted. They want an interesting and diverse freshman class. To succeed there academically you really don't need perfect test scores. There really isn't any point in focusing solely on that.
fnordpiglet 4y ago
I’m glad my daughter doesn’t have to aspire to take a grueling east/south asian style admissions test for her life to not be extreme poverty. It doesn’t measure intelligence or aptitude or ability to conduct research, it measures the ability to take a high stakes test effectively. That’s useless once the test has been taken. I have had a very successful career as a computer scientist, but my standardized test scores were abysmal due to some childhood ADD and a late in life diagnosed bipolar disorder (which is very common in highly intelligent people). While my intelligence tests consistently put me in the 99.9+ percentile, my standardized test scores placed me pumping gas for a living. I’m certain my daughter will have my challenges, and I am glad for me, her, and all like her we didn’t grow up in India.
- webmobdev 4y ago
  > It doesn’t measure intelligence or aptitude or ability to conduct research, it measures the ability to take a high stakes test effectively. You are being too harsh and dismissive. These high stake tests often are a good indicator of certain characteristics and aptitude in a student. These students work hard, study hard with a consistent methodology to understand the subject of the test. They know they are competing with others and the rewards are high. All this requires a disciplined personality and aptitude (there are different kinds of intelligence). And most of those who succeed in this actually do well in life. Ofcourse, it doesn't mean that your criticisms against the current model isn't justified or without merit on some aspects, providing you judge it from the right perspective. For example, India is a developing country and our education system isn't looking to identify and groom the next genius. We don't have the resources for that. So it is currently aimed to create an educated working professional class from all sections of our society that can uplift the economy of the country by generating wealth and decrease the growing wealth gap between the rich and the poor (to create an egalitarian society). And what do any industry look for - a hard working, consistent performer, who has the capability to understand how a system / process works and can adapt to it well. That is why indians, and asians in general, are known and respected for their work ethics around the world in most industries. But yes, people like you and me would struggle in this system, because the system isn't designed to accommodate the needs of those who aren't "normal" / psychologically healthy. (Hopefully that will change with economical growth and development in education). Note though that this doesn't mean that students who fail to adapt to this system all necessarily end up as failures in life. This is where the social culture also comes into picture in many asian societies. The family and social network of person in the society all try to help them too, both in trying to get access to best education they can afford and in trying to professionally help someone. (A good example of this is how parents make sacrifices and pay for their kids education. And thanks to that, the majority of us with a degree enter the professional world debt-free. (If you are in the US, can you afford to pay for your daughter's education and will you?) It's not all black and white as you think ...
xkcd-sucks 4y ago
The thing here is that elite universities aren't necessarily "best" at education in all cases, rather their value is in networking which makes them more like clubs/societies with an educational component.
booleandilemma 4y ago
Since when is India a country the US should be emulating? Run standardized tests and admit based on actual knowledge and ability. The rest is bullshit. Isn't that what India does, and isn't the system rife with cheaters?
- debacle 4y ago
  I understand and mostly agree with what you're trying to say, but your first statement seems a bit prejudiced.
- RestlessMind 4y ago
  > Isn't that what India does, Yes. > and isn't the system rife with cheaters? That's an orthogonal point. Even the American system is rife with cheaters, either explicit[1] or legalized cheating aka College Prep industry which helps you with everything including essays if you pay enough. So again, what is the US achieving exactly? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Varsity_Blues_scandal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Varsity_Blues_scandal
  - throwaway23236 4y ago
    I feel like one is a cultural problem and one was an isolated incident. See my above comment on really some east vs west culture.
    - janalsncm 4y ago
      There’s a larger point about institutionalized unfairness, though. Sure, it may have been an isolated incident of some students pretending to be athletes, but the larger question is why are athletes being given preferential admission to Harvard in the first place? And whatever the answer to that question is, it’s going to require a bloated admissions department to make it happen.
    - RestlessMind 4y ago
      > an isolated incident what? US has legalized cheating in so many ways (athletes, college preps, dean's lists, legacies...). People with enough resources and/or enough motivation will always find a way to get what they want. US gives them a paved road while in the East, they have to cheat. When they can't find a paved road, they cheat in the West as well.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
idontpost 4y ago

throwaway23236 4y ago

While you might be right on some of this. I think the colleges are looking for people not based on standardized tests alone. Most standardized tests are just rote learning and memorization. I would challenge that these schools are looking for people who think better than most people. Yes they need to be smart when it comes to doing school work, but they need to be more than that to attend an elite university. The people that go to these schools go on to be the upper-crust of society. They can think outside of the box and push the envelope of human knowledge. Can other people do that without going to these schools? Sure. But these schools are looking for those people.

unmole 4y ago
I was under the impression that elite universities first switched to holistic criteria for admissions because too many Jewish students made it through on academics.
gautamdivgi 4y ago
You can make the tests harder. There can be IQ testing to estimate ability to handle out of box thinking. Fwiw - anyone able to fork out $52k/year for their child is wealthy enough so that the child has had enough flexibility for out of box thinking growing up. A lot of out of box thinking is conditioning to the environment. If you are taught not to have constraints your ability to think out of the box is much better.
kyrra 4y ago
Can the universities prove that whatever process they have now (or is trying to do) is better than a pure meritocracy? Obviously we would need to agree on what "better" means here (ie: what outcomes they are measuring). The question to you is, how do you measure "needs to be more than that". If this isn't something that you can't quantify, it's just going to let administrators pick students to satisfy whatever the current cultural hot button issue is.
- throwaway23236 4y ago
  That is a good question. I think the university should decide on the "why" and base candidates off of that. And you are are right, much like picking a hire, a best friend, your spouse, there is a lot that isn't quantifiable. 4.0 student who you interview and they come off as a Jerk, they are smart as hell or a 3.93 student who is passionate about learning, wants to be there, and is a humble person. Which do you want affecting your school's culture?
dbingham 4y ago
There is so much classism, elitism, and unsupported effect therefor cause reasoning in this comment I don't even know where to start with it. Which is ironic, because I am also generally against the idea of colleges basing their admissions solely on standardized tests. Those tests have their roots in the eugenics movement, have been shown to be deeply problematic and biased, and have completely failed to predict future success when you remove confounding factors. > I would challenge that these schools are looking for people who think better than most people. Yes they need to be smart when it comes to doing school work, but they need to be more than that to attend an elite university. I would argue that far more people who "think better than most" people come out of public schools than the "elite" schools. What the elite schools do very well is laundering the mediocrity of the upper class. (See "legacy admissions") > The people that go to these schools go on to be the upper-crust of society. They can think outside of the box and push the envelope of human knowledge. ... https://hbr.org/2020/09/graduates-of-elite-universities-get-paid-more-do-they-perform-better https://hbr.org/2020/09/graduates-of-elite-universities-get-... > Our results offer some solace to the traditional recruiters. After controlling for age, gender, and the year of study, we found that graduates from higher-ranked universities performed better, but only nominally and only on some dimensions of performance. Specifically, the overall performance improved by only 1.9% for every 1,000 positions in the Webometrics global university rankings. When comparing the performance of candidates whose universities rank further apart — a graduate from a top university versus a “global average” university — the performance differential jumps to 19%. > The 19% difference in performance between the top and the average seems significant, but keep in mind that this is for graduates from universities that are 10,000 university ranking positions apart. At a given organization, candidates are likely to be selected from within a much narrower pool, perhaps from universities whose rankings differ by a couple of hundred positions. In this more realistic case, the predicted difference in performance would be closer to 1%. Keep in mind, this[1] is the ranking they are using. The top 10 includes public universities and omits several Ivy league "elite" universities. [1] https://www.webometrics.info/en/world https://www.webometrics.info/en/world
- sokoloff 4y ago
  > have completely failed to predict future success when you remove confounding factors. It seems to me that measuring/estimating the scholastic ability/preparedness of a prospective student has value independent of whether that preparedness is correlated with some other variables (wealth, neighborhood, childhood nutrition, other socioeconomic markers). “Are they prepared/do they have the aptitude to succeed here?” matters much more than the underlying reasons why they might or might not be prepared.
elgar1212 4y ago
> The people that go to these schools go on to be the upper-crust of society. They can think outside of the box and push the envelope of human knowledge. Yeah, kind of like SBF > I would challenge that these schools are looking for people who think better than most people. Yes they need to be smart when it comes to doing school work, but they need to be more than that to attend an elite university. I'd counter this and say the insistence on qualitative standards just opens the door for classist decision making. The second you allow people to introduce qualitative standards, it opens the door for discrimination
- throwaway23236 4y ago
  Training someone to pass a test to get in is not the same as finding the right person to go there. Does this open up the possibility of discrimination? Yes. Tell me about how many people I know who went to a CISSP bootcamp, passed the test, and walk around not knowing shit? It's the same in a lot of universities too. Elite universities are looking for people who fit their image and who they believe are going somewhere in life. Universities, especially universities are looking for people that are going places. They are looking for people who will bring recognition, money, and fame back to the university.
  - elgar1212 4y ago
    > Tell me about how many people I know who went to a CISSP bootcamp, passed the test, and walk around not knowing shit? It's the same in a lot of universities too. So because bootcamps are an insufficient means of testing, standardized testing in general is inadequate? And not just this specific test in particular? > Training someone to pass a test to get in is not the same as finding the right person to go there. Only if the test is insufficient. "finding the right person" is just a racist, classist dog whistle from a group of people that feel entitled to the right to discriminate You want to see a living example of this entitlement? Listen to the audio from the recent Supreme court verbal argument regarding the Harvard case. Specifically the "oboe players" comment. Juxtapose this with the historical racist and antisemitic discrimination and ask yourself whether Harvard should be trusted to "find the right person" in this sort of way
throwaway894345 4y ago
> Most standardized tests are just rote learning and memorization. Most of the non-standardized test stuff is subjective and lends itself pretty directly to classist and racial prejudice. No one is arguing that standardized tests are the perfect way to test for aptitude, but the pro-standardized-test folks argue that the alternatives are significantly worse.
- HDThoreaun 4y ago
  Harvard admissions are classist on purpose. They want to admit mostly upper class people because they want every single one of their graduates to become upper class, and the easiest way to do that is to start upper class.
chinchilla2020 4y ago
The issue with the essay system is coming up with an evaluation criteria that isn't completely biased and prone to manipulation. The essay system favors people who hire admissions consultants to write them, or who study the online guides about what types of essays get into Harvard. They also tend to chase sensational sob stories - the claims within those stories are never verified by admissions officers. I can't find the study at the moment on google, but I recall some work asking to end essays in admissions packages since it discriminates against Black and Hispanic applicants who do not have the background resources to write appropriate admissions essays.
- throwaway23236 4y ago
  You are right, it is not. I totally get that and I think we should work to remove bias out of the process. Maybe removing names and genders from the essays or similar entry requirements. There are ways to reduce bias without resorting to some kind of standardized test which only shows that they can pass a test. Elite Universities are looking for people of character, that could be anyone from any walk of life. But it is self-serving, they are looking for people who will end up bringing money, recognition, and fame back to the school. They are looking for people who want to go there, who will go far in life and talk about how X university is where it all started. I get that this is a difficult topic, and I want everyone in the world to be a lifelong learner, reader, and more. But not everyone is built the same, that doesn't mean they won't go far in life. And I don't think recognizing that difference is racist or discriminatory. Not everyone will become a Harvard grad, the president, CEO of a company, etc. Some people are dealt a shittier hands in life and get less draws from the deck, we should work to fix that, but we shouldn't lump everyone into one basket.
  - RestlessMind 4y ago
    > we should work to remove bias out of the process. How would you remove the biggest bias of money? People with money will throw it at gaming anything used by college admission process.
    - 4y ago

Loughla 4y ago

The problem is that standardized tests are more a measurement of access to resources and parental support than raw knowledge or future success. It does feel nice to say that everyone is equal, but not everyone has an equal chance. In theory, squishy admissions processes exist to identify those students who have raw potential, but may not be identified by standardized test scores. High school GPA and class rank are a more accurate indicator of success in postsecondary (but I could also argue that's really just a measure of how well you 'conform' to standard educational expectations early in life, not really how 'able to succeed' you are, but that's a different conversation).

tester756 4y ago
>The problem is that standardized tests are more a measurement of access to resources and parental support than raw knowledge or future success. It does feel nice to say that everyone is equal, but not everyone has an equal chance. Feel free to figure out better system. Tests while not perfect, are in my opinion at least fair and relatively transparent. >High school GPA and class rank are a more accurate indicator of success in postsecondary jesus christ - GPA. I honestly don't know any more biased metric than GPA. Even if GPA is better predictor of how hardworking you are, then I still don't care, there's too much bias in this metric. Standarized tests are "pure", they aren't your average not 100% emotionally stable teacher
- HDThoreaun 4y ago
  > Feel free to figure out better system. Harvard has. It involves making students write essays and considering all of their accomplishments. Harvard isn't just looking for the smartest people. They're not looking for the most academically successful. They are looking for people who will be powerful and wealthy. Is it fair that harvard admits people just because their parents have money and power? I guess not, but they're not trying to be fair. They're trying to admit people who will have money and power.
  - tester756 4y ago
    education system should have different objectives than "get already powerful and wealthy people and make them more wealthy and powerful", so I don't think that Harvard "figured it out"

paxys 4y ago

Standardized testing is the reason why India – despite its billion strong population and heavy cultural emphasis on science and engineering – is unable to produce a single ounce of innovation. Students are only taught rote memorization from primary school onwards. They spend their formative years in before-school and after-school coaching doing more of the same, all to crack that single test which will determine their future (and a large number are driven to suicide because of it). No curiosity, no outside interests, no social skills, no independent thought. All of these are discouraged in favor of memorizing equations. Institutions like Harvard, Yale, MIT, Stanford produce leaders and entrepreneurs. India's top engineering colleges (IITs) are meanwhile ranked nowhere globally, and its top graduates dream of getting a cushy job at Google, nothing more. There are a lot of problems with American universities, but the lack of entrance exams is a feature, not a bug.

gautamdivgi 4y ago
I would differ on this. It’s access to capital and connections. For the longest time access to capital in India has been limited and children are expected to support parents in their old age. Hence, the heavy move towards the cushy job at google. To be fair a large cohort of IIT & IISc grads come to top American universities. I actually think standardized tests create more equality than other methods. The whole recommendation letter/essay/interview is an eyewash.
- idontpost 4y ago
- geodel 4y ago
  > To be fair a large cohort of IIT & IISc grads come to top American universities. Why are they coming to American universities when IITs and IISC have GATE exam for post graduate courses and none of the ridiculous process for admission?
  - oefrha 4y ago
    Must be because they love ridiculous admission processes, not because American income is higher.

bachmeier 4y ago

I believe the plan is to finish the sufficiently smart compiler before starting on the sufficiently useful standardized test.

criddell 4y ago

Harvard's freshman class is around 2000 people. They probably get more than that many applicants with perfect test scores. I suspect if you apply to Harvard and can point to a film you made with your friends that placed well in some film festival or have some success with your music on Spotify or have done some stand up comedy or painted a mural in your city or something else that showcases talents that are more rare than high grades, you have a much better chance at being accepted. They want an interesting and diverse freshman class. To succeed there academically you really don't need perfect test scores. There really isn't any point in focusing solely on that.

fnordpiglet 4y ago

I’m glad my daughter doesn’t have to aspire to take a grueling east/south asian style admissions test for her life to not be extreme poverty. It doesn’t measure intelligence or aptitude or ability to conduct research, it measures the ability to take a high stakes test effectively. That’s useless once the test has been taken. I have had a very successful career as a computer scientist, but my standardized test scores were abysmal due to some childhood ADD and a late in life diagnosed bipolar disorder (which is very common in highly intelligent people). While my intelligence tests consistently put me in the 99.9+ percentile, my standardized test scores placed me pumping gas for a living. I’m certain my daughter will have my challenges, and I am glad for me, her, and all like her we didn’t grow up in India.

webmobdev 4y ago
> It doesn’t measure intelligence or aptitude or ability to conduct research, it measures the ability to take a high stakes test effectively. You are being too harsh and dismissive. These high stake tests often are a good indicator of certain characteristics and aptitude in a student. These students work hard, study hard with a consistent methodology to understand the subject of the test. They know they are competing with others and the rewards are high. All this requires a disciplined personality and aptitude (there are different kinds of intelligence). And most of those who succeed in this actually do well in life. Ofcourse, it doesn't mean that your criticisms against the current model isn't justified or without merit on some aspects, providing you judge it from the right perspective. For example, India is a developing country and our education system isn't looking to identify and groom the next genius. We don't have the resources for that. So it is currently aimed to create an educated working professional class from all sections of our society that can uplift the economy of the country by generating wealth and decrease the growing wealth gap between the rich and the poor (to create an egalitarian society). And what do any industry look for - a hard working, consistent performer, who has the capability to understand how a system / process works and can adapt to it well. That is why indians, and asians in general, are known and respected for their work ethics around the world in most industries. But yes, people like you and me would struggle in this system, because the system isn't designed to accommodate the needs of those who aren't "normal" / psychologically healthy. (Hopefully that will change with economical growth and development in education). Note though that this doesn't mean that students who fail to adapt to this system all necessarily end up as failures in life. This is where the social culture also comes into picture in many asian societies. The family and social network of person in the society all try to help them too, both in trying to get access to best education they can afford and in trying to professionally help someone. (A good example of this is how parents make sacrifices and pay for their kids education. And thanks to that, the majority of us with a degree enter the professional world debt-free. (If you are in the US, can you afford to pay for your daughter's education and will you?) It's not all black and white as you think ...

xkcd-sucks 4y ago

The thing here is that elite universities aren't necessarily "best" at education in all cases, rather their value is in networking which makes them more like clubs/societies with an educational component.

booleandilemma 4y ago

Since when is India a country the US should be emulating? Run standardized tests and admit based on actual knowledge and ability. The rest is bullshit. Isn't that what India does, and isn't the system rife with cheaters?

debacle 4y ago
I understand and mostly agree with what you're trying to say, but your first statement seems a bit prejudiced.
RestlessMind 4y ago
> Isn't that what India does, Yes. > and isn't the system rife with cheaters? That's an orthogonal point. Even the American system is rife with cheaters, either explicit[1] or legalized cheating aka College Prep industry which helps you with everything including essays if you pay enough. So again, what is the US achieving exactly? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Varsity_Blues_scandal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Varsity_Blues_scandal
- throwaway23236 4y ago
  I feel like one is a cultural problem and one was an isolated incident. See my above comment on really some east vs west culture.
  - janalsncm 4y ago
    There’s a larger point about institutionalized unfairness, though. Sure, it may have been an isolated incident of some students pretending to be athletes, but the larger question is why are athletes being given preferential admission to Harvard in the first place? And whatever the answer to that question is, it’s going to require a bloated admissions department to make it happen.
  - RestlessMind 4y ago
    > an isolated incident what? US has legalized cheating in so many ways (athletes, college preps, dean's lists, legacies...). People with enough resources and/or enough motivation will always find a way to get what they want. US gives them a paved road while in the East, they have to cheat. When they can't find a paved road, they cheat in the West as well.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

idontpost 4y ago