5 ms·

The data has been studied in all kinds of outlets. When they reported that the top 1% are 200% likelier to be admitted my reaction was only 200%?! Then I read

The data has been studied in all kinds of outlets. When they reported that the top 1% are 200% likelier to be admitted my reaction was only 200%?! Then I read closer and realized that this is after accounting for academic performance, extra curriculars, class rank, etc. Apparently the top 1% make up 14% of Ivy League undergraduates [1]. This doest directly translate into 1,300% more likely to be admitted (wealthier people are more likely to apply) but at a glance it would seem that the very rich are advantaged in college decisions mostly because they've got strong academics, test scores, extracurriculars, etc. 1. https://www.cnbc.com/2019/03/22/college-applicants-from-families-in-the-1-percent-have-a-big-edge.html https://www.cnbc.com/2019/03/22/college-applicants-from-fami...

wrp 3y ago
The "dumb|lazy rich kid" stereotype is very old and no doubt has some basis, but in the few rich families I've known, the kids were pushed extremely hard to achieve academically.
- BoorishBears 3y ago
  This doesn't counter the stereotype much, if you take two dumb/lazy kids and stick one in a middle class household offering the necessities, then take the other and stick them in a 1% household that can afford tutors and private schools and supporting year-round extracurriculars, who's going to do better? Both households can try to "push hard" but what the rich household can do for a child is a strict superset of what the middle class one can.
  - pfannkuchen 3y ago
    Sure, but isn’t the purpose of college to educate the most qualified students? If they are actually better academically, why does it matter how they got to be that way? It is corrupt if they aren’t actually good academically and yet still get in to whatever school above more qualified students.
    - BoorishBears 3y ago
      No, the purpose of academia is to enable an educated society. If we let things fall into a reinforcement loop the result is a bimodally educated society: from there does the intelligentsia then go and rule over the rubble?
      - pfannkuchen 3y ago
        I mean, if people from the same families are actually consistently more qualified than the commoners over long spans of time, then sure, let’s have an aristocracy, why not? The root problem with aristocracy isn’t that it is forbidden for some sacred moral reason, it’s that it functionally doesn’t work well. Differentiation based on traits is not stable across many generations, and the commoners will always eventually generate individuals who are better along whatever dimensions than the aristocracy does. I don’t think we have to worry about this problem, so long as we prevent the actual corruption. If we are really looking at merit, the families will cycle out after a few generations (again, we do have to prevent the actual corruption).
        BoorishBears 3y ago
        > let’s have an aristocracy, why not? You answered that: > it functionally doesn’t work well. We're not talking about taking the dregs of society and throwing them into ivy league schools: we're talking about people who didn't have 4 years of debate team and lacrosse and water polo but still managed to do quite well for themselves. It creates a better environment for everyone involved, since like you noted, creating an aristocracy has traditionally not worked out for either side of the coin.
        pfannkuchen 3y ago
        > let’s have an aristocracy, why not? /s (if that wasn’t obvious) My point is that letting in applicants by (aspirational) merit does not create an aristocracy, even if some of the high performing applicants are wealthy. Aristocracy is created through corruption of (aspirational) meritocracy, because you need some non-(aspirationally-)meritocratic force to hold the same families in place generation after generation. They won’t continue to perform well forever. If they did perform well forever (again, they don’t), then aristocracy would be a more workable system than it is.
- tapatio 3y ago
  How were they pushed extremely hard? Private tutors? What else?
  - wrp 3y ago
    You are thinking about it backwards. It's not a matter of what was done for the kids, but what was expected of them. Parents would not tolerate low effort. Also, I didn't know any who employed private tutors, but they did arrange to send their kids to the best schools within reach.
    - P_I_Staker 3y ago
      They had tutors. I think tutors aren't necessarily that out of reach, but I know lots of people don't have money for that. They may not have had teams of tutors, one for each subject, but I guarantee you that they worked with people at some point in their academic careers.
      - wrp 3y ago
        I don't understand this obsession with tutors. If the kids have good teachers at a school with high standards, the only time for tutors is if the kids need remedial help. I'm speculating this focus on tutors comes from the belief that rich kids can achieve at higher levels only because they are getting something extra. I think there is also an underestimation of how much more demanding the better schools are.
- ahzhou 3y ago
  I’ve known both. Some kids have a huge chip on their shoulder to carry the family legacy or exceed their parents, while some were happy to coast on their trust fund. I think the biggest difference is that kids without family money don’t have the option to coast.
carabiner 3y ago
Yeah so the article isn't about the general comparative application strength of rich vs poor, it's about whether a wealthy advantage exists when controlled for other factors. A meritocratic admission process should not consider family wealth, but these data show that it does. That line chart should, theoretically, be a straight horizontal line; instead we see strong effects of wealth. The Economist once said that a dumb rich kid has a better chance at going to an elite college than a brilliant poor one, and that seems to be the case here.
- s1artibartfast 3y ago
  That logic doesn't follow. Do it in be interesting to perform an analysis on the data to see where exactly the break-even point is. Is 200% higher acceptance greater than 0.1 GPA or 10 sat points?
Hermitian909 3y ago
It's funny, the Ivies are actually quite up front that they're goal is to pick "future leaders" of the country, not the most academically gifted students (though this is an important sub-group). The fact that there's a quota of students who are chosen for purely academic talents is particularly telling. If you have enough drive to get good grades and your parents are worth many millions of dollars you have an excellent chance of being one of society's future leaders, you're they're perfect candidate.
- midoridensha 3y ago
  >It's funny, the Ivies are actually quite up front that they're goal is to pick "future leaders" of the country, not the most academically gifted students (though this is an important sub-group). The fact that there's a quota of students who are chosen for purely academic talents is particularly telling. Yep, they sure did a "heckuva job" picking America's President when Yale picked George W. Bush.
  - stcroixx 3y ago
    For every high profile failure like W, there are likely numerous other unqualified morons anointed by these institutions as ‘leaders’ running companies and doing overall much more damage. The Ivies are ripe to be burned to the ground.
  - polski-g 3y ago
    They had a ~1500 in 310m chance of picking someone who would become president. That is a pretty good job given its a 0.00048387096% chance of getting it right.
  - ahzhou 3y ago
    If the goal is to pick “future leaders”, Yale succeeded as far as admissions are concerned. I think it’s unreasonable to expect that an institution can predict what decisions a teenager will make in their 60’s.
whimsicalism 3y ago
And even with the 200%... count me skeptical that these modelers are able to control for the other specific factors of performance. When I did certain extra curriculars, there were certain achievements that were particularly noteworthy. The admissions counselors understood this, but did the modelers in 'all kinds of outlets' catch that?
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]

wrp 3y ago

The "dumb|lazy rich kid" stereotype is very old and no doubt has some basis, but in the few rich families I've known, the kids were pushed extremely hard to achieve academically.

BoorishBears 3y ago
This doesn't counter the stereotype much, if you take two dumb/lazy kids and stick one in a middle class household offering the necessities, then take the other and stick them in a 1% household that can afford tutors and private schools and supporting year-round extracurriculars, who's going to do better? Both households can try to "push hard" but what the rich household can do for a child is a strict superset of what the middle class one can.
- pfannkuchen 3y ago
  Sure, but isn’t the purpose of college to educate the most qualified students? If they are actually better academically, why does it matter how they got to be that way? It is corrupt if they aren’t actually good academically and yet still get in to whatever school above more qualified students.
  - BoorishBears 3y ago
    No, the purpose of academia is to enable an educated society. If we let things fall into a reinforcement loop the result is a bimodally educated society: from there does the intelligentsia then go and rule over the rubble?
    - pfannkuchen 3y ago
      I mean, if people from the same families are actually consistently more qualified than the commoners over long spans of time, then sure, let’s have an aristocracy, why not? The root problem with aristocracy isn’t that it is forbidden for some sacred moral reason, it’s that it functionally doesn’t work well. Differentiation based on traits is not stable across many generations, and the commoners will always eventually generate individuals who are better along whatever dimensions than the aristocracy does. I don’t think we have to worry about this problem, so long as we prevent the actual corruption. If we are really looking at merit, the families will cycle out after a few generations (again, we do have to prevent the actual corruption).
      - BoorishBears 3y ago
        > let’s have an aristocracy, why not? You answered that: > it functionally doesn’t work well. We're not talking about taking the dregs of society and throwing them into ivy league schools: we're talking about people who didn't have 4 years of debate team and lacrosse and water polo but still managed to do quite well for themselves. It creates a better environment for everyone involved, since like you noted, creating an aristocracy has traditionally not worked out for either side of the coin.
        pfannkuchen 3y ago
        > let’s have an aristocracy, why not? /s (if that wasn’t obvious) My point is that letting in applicants by (aspirational) merit does not create an aristocracy, even if some of the high performing applicants are wealthy. Aristocracy is created through corruption of (aspirational) meritocracy, because you need some non-(aspirationally-)meritocratic force to hold the same families in place generation after generation. They won’t continue to perform well forever. If they did perform well forever (again, they don’t), then aristocracy would be a more workable system than it is.
tapatio 3y ago
How were they pushed extremely hard? Private tutors? What else?
- wrp 3y ago
  You are thinking about it backwards. It's not a matter of what was done for the kids, but what was expected of them. Parents would not tolerate low effort. Also, I didn't know any who employed private tutors, but they did arrange to send their kids to the best schools within reach.
  - P_I_Staker 3y ago
    They had tutors. I think tutors aren't necessarily that out of reach, but I know lots of people don't have money for that. They may not have had teams of tutors, one for each subject, but I guarantee you that they worked with people at some point in their academic careers.
    - wrp 3y ago
      I don't understand this obsession with tutors. If the kids have good teachers at a school with high standards, the only time for tutors is if the kids need remedial help. I'm speculating this focus on tutors comes from the belief that rich kids can achieve at higher levels only because they are getting something extra. I think there is also an underestimation of how much more demanding the better schools are.
ahzhou 3y ago
I’ve known both. Some kids have a huge chip on their shoulder to carry the family legacy or exceed their parents, while some were happy to coast on their trust fund. I think the biggest difference is that kids without family money don’t have the option to coast.

carabiner 3y ago

Yeah so the article isn't about the general comparative application strength of rich vs poor, it's about whether a wealthy advantage exists when controlled for other factors. A meritocratic admission process should not consider family wealth, but these data show that it does. That line chart should, theoretically, be a straight horizontal line; instead we see strong effects of wealth. The Economist once said that a dumb rich kid has a better chance at going to an elite college than a brilliant poor one, and that seems to be the case here.

s1artibartfast 3y ago
That logic doesn't follow. Do it in be interesting to perform an analysis on the data to see where exactly the break-even point is. Is 200% higher acceptance greater than 0.1 GPA or 10 sat points?

Hermitian909 3y ago

It's funny, the Ivies are actually quite up front that they're goal is to pick "future leaders" of the country, not the most academically gifted students (though this is an important sub-group). The fact that there's a quota of students who are chosen for purely academic talents is particularly telling. If you have enough drive to get good grades and your parents are worth many millions of dollars you have an excellent chance of being one of society's future leaders, you're they're perfect candidate.

midoridensha 3y ago
>It's funny, the Ivies are actually quite up front that they're goal is to pick "future leaders" of the country, not the most academically gifted students (though this is an important sub-group). The fact that there's a quota of students who are chosen for purely academic talents is particularly telling. Yep, they sure did a "heckuva job" picking America's President when Yale picked George W. Bush.
- stcroixx 3y ago
  For every high profile failure like W, there are likely numerous other unqualified morons anointed by these institutions as ‘leaders’ running companies and doing overall much more damage. The Ivies are ripe to be burned to the ground.
- polski-g 3y ago
  They had a ~1500 in 310m chance of picking someone who would become president. That is a pretty good job given its a 0.00048387096% chance of getting it right.
- ahzhou 3y ago
  If the goal is to pick “future leaders”, Yale succeeded as far as admissions are concerned. I think it’s unreasonable to expect that an institution can predict what decisions a teenager will make in their 60’s.

whimsicalism 3y ago

And even with the 200%... count me skeptical that these modelers are able to control for the other specific factors of performance. When I did certain extra curriculars, there were certain achievements that were particularly noteworthy. The admissions counselors understood this, but did the modelers in 'all kinds of outlets' catch that?

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]