5 ms·

Agree, when school is there just to mark elite status. For those pursuing expertise though, schools can provide a lot of value through offering access to other

by onos 4y ago

Agree, when school is there just to mark elite status. For those pursuing expertise though, schools can provide a lot of value through offering access to others with talent and to some degree infrastructure. That these schools serve both sets of demand is a problem: Sure hand out the elite status tokens to favored groups, they dont matter much anyways. But if society actually believes that there are pressing problems that need to be solved (global warming perhaps etc) training resources should be aimed at those who can best go on to make use of them.

lapcat 4y ago
> For those pursuing expertise though, schools can provide a lot of value through offering access to others with talent and to some degree infrastructure. I think you misunderstood what I meant. When I was referring to schools, I meant high school and earlier. In other words, the schools that should presumably give you an education relevant to the standardized tests.
- ngc248 4y ago
  OP is not saying Only standardized tests are relevant, what he is saying is after your education, SATs are the level playing field which you can prepare for, the preparation is within the student's control. Otherwise its all fuzzy and vague extra-curriculars etc which will decide who gets in. The Elites will still get in and the people at the other extreme will also get in, but its the ones in the middle who will suffer.
  - lapcat 4y ago
    > after your education I don't think one can just hand-wave away the primary school in this way and at the same time talk about a level playing field and dismiss extra-curriculars. They're all related. Moreover, for better or worse, college is not a purely academic exercise. Colleges are looking for applicants who will participate in the social life of the campus, not just robotically go to class. They want students to participate in college extra-curriculars too.
    - mrangle 4y ago
      People can participate in the social life of campus at any college. The problem with using this supposed socializing metric at the expense of more academically qualified kids is that it just shuffles the more academically talented kids to a lesser University. Where they what? Supposedly socialize less. Why should the social kids go to the academically rigorous college and the academic talents go to a lesser University? In the end, this socializing metric is bs cover in order to juke admissions for the purposes of legacy and diversity criteria. The notion also relies on an inaccurate stereotype of what smart looks like. In practice, you are as or more likely to see an Ivy-level academic talent that looks like a leader than not. Its rare to find lesser academic talents who will have better extra-curriculars than the best academically inclined candidates. The latter's prep schools will generally offer far more opportunity in that regard, and moreover any excellence in EC's is in a competitive environment that is often more intense.
      - lapcat 4y ago
        > Why should the social kids go to the academically rigorous college and the academic talents go to a lesser University? I was speaking from the perspective of college admissions, not from the perspective of applicants. Note also that I said "for better or worse". I wasn't making an overall judgment of the university system, merely noting that colleges themselves find extra-curricular activities important. I personally would abolish the invitation-only university system and provide continuing state-supported education to everyone. What is the purpose of the current university system, other than a largely non-educational social purpose? The selectivity of admissions inevitably results in further disparity among citizens, between the club members and non-members, the haves and have nots. > The notion also relies on an inaccurate stereotype of what smart looks like. In practice, you are as or more likely to see an Ivy-level academic talent that looks like a leader than not. > Its rare to find lesser academic talents who will have better extra-curriculars than the best academically inclined candidates. I'm confused. You seem to be suggesting that extra-curricular activites are in fact an accurate indicator, contrary to the SAT proponents?
        mrangle 4y ago

by onos 4y ago

lapcat 4y ago

> For those pursuing expertise though, schools can provide a lot of value through offering access to others with talent and to some degree infrastructure. I think you misunderstood what I meant. When I was referring to schools, I meant high school and earlier. In other words, the schools that should presumably give you an education relevant to the standardized tests.

ngc248 4y ago
OP is not saying Only standardized tests are relevant, what he is saying is after your education, SATs are the level playing field which you can prepare for, the preparation is within the student's control. Otherwise its all fuzzy and vague extra-curriculars etc which will decide who gets in. The Elites will still get in and the people at the other extreme will also get in, but its the ones in the middle who will suffer.
- lapcat 4y ago
  > after your education I don't think one can just hand-wave away the primary school in this way and at the same time talk about a level playing field and dismiss extra-curriculars. They're all related. Moreover, for better or worse, college is not a purely academic exercise. Colleges are looking for applicants who will participate in the social life of the campus, not just robotically go to class. They want students to participate in college extra-curriculars too.
  - mrangle 4y ago
    People can participate in the social life of campus at any college. The problem with using this supposed socializing metric at the expense of more academically qualified kids is that it just shuffles the more academically talented kids to a lesser University. Where they what? Supposedly socialize less. Why should the social kids go to the academically rigorous college and the academic talents go to a lesser University? In the end, this socializing metric is bs cover in order to juke admissions for the purposes of legacy and diversity criteria. The notion also relies on an inaccurate stereotype of what smart looks like. In practice, you are as or more likely to see an Ivy-level academic talent that looks like a leader than not. Its rare to find lesser academic talents who will have better extra-curriculars than the best academically inclined candidates. The latter's prep schools will generally offer far more opportunity in that regard, and moreover any excellence in EC's is in a competitive environment that is often more intense.
    - lapcat 4y ago
      > Why should the social kids go to the academically rigorous college and the academic talents go to a lesser University? I was speaking from the perspective of college admissions, not from the perspective of applicants. Note also that I said "for better or worse". I wasn't making an overall judgment of the university system, merely noting that colleges themselves find extra-curricular activities important. I personally would abolish the invitation-only university system and provide continuing state-supported education to everyone. What is the purpose of the current university system, other than a largely non-educational social purpose? The selectivity of admissions inevitably results in further disparity among citizens, between the club members and non-members, the haves and have nots. > The notion also relies on an inaccurate stereotype of what smart looks like. In practice, you are as or more likely to see an Ivy-level academic talent that looks like a leader than not. > Its rare to find lesser academic talents who will have better extra-curriculars than the best academically inclined candidates. I'm confused. You seem to be suggesting that extra-curricular activites are in fact an accurate indicator, contrary to the SAT proponents?
      - mrangle 4y ago