3 ms·

Because universities are academic institutions, not track-and-field training facilities (or at least they are in countries that take education seriously, unlike

Because universities are academic institutions, not track-and-field training facilities (or at least they are in countries that take education seriously, unlike the US). Who cares how boring it is?

dfadsadsf 3y ago
With that, the US is widely recognized to have the best universities in the world. A lot of countries claim to take education seriously, but the result is often very mediocre. Very few people will pick IIT or Beijing University if they are offered spot at Harvard.
- ativzzz 3y ago
  People go to Harvard not for the excellence of the education, which I'm sure is good but is pretty much equivalent to top state public schools, but for the network and the signaling. Network - one of the best things you can do is put a bunch of intelligent, highly motivated people in one room and have them work on stuff together. Top tier universities are basically this. The actual education offered on top isn't that relevant as long as it's passable - these people will find a way to educate themselves Signaling - having Hardvard on your resume is a global signal of your status and opens up so many more doors by simply having it listed by your name
  - largeluke 3y ago
    There are plenty of academic opportunities at Harvard that are not available at state schools. Because they attract many of the top students in the world, they're able to offer highly accelerated or advanced courses that other schools can't.
- School-Cotton 3y ago
  > the US is widely recognized to have the best universities in the world Recognized by whom? I would certainly be more impressed if someone went to ENS Paris than Harvard.
thebradbain 3y ago
I don’t think it’s a stretch to say an Olympiad 4.0 student — many of whom exist, I went to school with a few — has a much more promising academic career than someone who managed to get good-not-great grades and a single perfect test score. Aside from the dedication of waking up to practice a sport every morning, think of how much time and discipline is it takes to balance being an amazing athlete with being a great student. They likely have all the mental fortitude and academic talent they need to succeed in college, no question, regardless of if they had a bad test day, or their pencil broke, or they had to use the bathroom and ran out of time, etc. Someone with As and Bs, maybe a C, who did nothing else of note and managed to get a perfect test score one time doesn’t seem near as surefire a bet. If anything it shows you didn’t apply yourself.
- triceratops 3y ago
  What's the difference between training for track meets and training for a standardized test? In either case the student is applying themselves to excellence in a very niche skill - running really fast, or taking a test.
  - School-Cotton 3y ago
    The difference is that one has to do with academic study, and one doesn't. Edit: you’re acting like performance on the test is completely arbitrary. Clearly, it should be designed to avoid this, and to actually test academic mastery. For example, someone planning to study physics should be asked to solve difficult physics and math problems. Someone planning to study history or literature should be asked to write long-form essays on those topics. And so on. I feel like a lot of people in this thread are only familiar with the American system and thus assume that “standardized tests” all have to be like the SAT, i.e. answering a ton of relatively basic multiple-choice questions as quickly and accurately as possible. That is not the case.
- janalsncm 3y ago
  In this scenario where you have a track star with a 4.0 and a “boring” student who happened to luck out and get a perfect SAT score, did these students take the same classes? Because maybe the reason the track star didn’t do as well is because they don’t know as much as the athlete.

Because universities are academic institutions, not track-and-field training facilities (or at least they are in countries that take education seriously, unlike the US). Who cares how boring it is?

dfadsadsf 3y ago

With that, the US is widely recognized to have the best universities in the world. A lot of countries claim to take education seriously, but the result is often very mediocre. Very few people will pick IIT or Beijing University if they are offered spot at Harvard.

ativzzz 3y ago
People go to Harvard not for the excellence of the education, which I'm sure is good but is pretty much equivalent to top state public schools, but for the network and the signaling. Network - one of the best things you can do is put a bunch of intelligent, highly motivated people in one room and have them work on stuff together. Top tier universities are basically this. The actual education offered on top isn't that relevant as long as it's passable - these people will find a way to educate themselves Signaling - having Hardvard on your resume is a global signal of your status and opens up so many more doors by simply having it listed by your name
- largeluke 3y ago
  There are plenty of academic opportunities at Harvard that are not available at state schools. Because they attract many of the top students in the world, they're able to offer highly accelerated or advanced courses that other schools can't.
School-Cotton 3y ago
> the US is widely recognized to have the best universities in the world Recognized by whom? I would certainly be more impressed if someone went to ENS Paris than Harvard.

thebradbain 3y ago

I don’t think it’s a stretch to say an Olympiad 4.0 student — many of whom exist, I went to school with a few — has a much more promising academic career than someone who managed to get good-not-great grades and a single perfect test score. Aside from the dedication of waking up to practice a sport every morning, think of how much time and discipline is it takes to balance being an amazing athlete with being a great student. They likely have all the mental fortitude and academic talent they need to succeed in college, no question, regardless of if they had a bad test day, or their pencil broke, or they had to use the bathroom and ran out of time, etc. Someone with As and Bs, maybe a C, who did nothing else of note and managed to get a perfect test score one time doesn’t seem near as surefire a bet. If anything it shows you didn’t apply yourself.

triceratops 3y ago
What's the difference between training for track meets and training for a standardized test? In either case the student is applying themselves to excellence in a very niche skill - running really fast, or taking a test.
- School-Cotton 3y ago
  The difference is that one has to do with academic study, and one doesn't. Edit: you’re acting like performance on the test is completely arbitrary. Clearly, it should be designed to avoid this, and to actually test academic mastery. For example, someone planning to study physics should be asked to solve difficult physics and math problems. Someone planning to study history or literature should be asked to write long-form essays on those topics. And so on. I feel like a lot of people in this thread are only familiar with the American system and thus assume that “standardized tests” all have to be like the SAT, i.e. answering a ton of relatively basic multiple-choice questions as quickly and accurately as possible. That is not the case.
janalsncm 3y ago
In this scenario where you have a track star with a 4.0 and a “boring” student who happened to luck out and get a perfect SAT score, did these students take the same classes? Because maybe the reason the track star didn’t do as well is because they don’t know as much as the athlete.