3 ms·

Thanks for your answer. I do know a little bit about gradschool admisions in computer science and you're right, there's a lot more faculty involvement but I kn

by ajju 18y ago

Thanks for your answer. I do know a little bit about gradschool admisions in computer science and you're right, there's a lot more faculty involvement but I know nothing about more popular programs like the MBA. So I should have phrased my question better. What I meant to ask was whether in popular graduate programs such as the MBA, factors such as being the kid of a potential donor or a politician carry equally high weightage as they do in undergraduate admissions. Based, anecdotally, on George Bush having gone to Yale, it would seem that they do.

brandnewlow 18y ago
I would assume they do, but have no evidence or experience to suggest so. Again, admitting really rich, prominent kids is something that just has to be done to keep the school afloat. If all you have is a bunch of eggheads, then you're an egghead school. For better or worse, eggheads don't run the world. Elite colleges can't ignore kids who might go on to run the free world someday.
- time_management 18y ago
  Elite colleges can't ignore kids who might go on to run the free world someday. They could try to fight the current world order, though, instead of admitting some Skull and Bones cocksuckers who go on to destroy the country and world economy. They could show a lot more spine on that one.
  - brandnewlow 18y ago
    You admit the "skull and bones" kid because he will bring money and influence to the school...money that can then be spent on kids with more "g," as you put it. The skull and bones kid is probably going to do alright in the world, even if he is a jerk (I'm playing along with your sterotypes here). The kids with high "g" are, like startups, a bit of a crapshoot. You might get David Foster Wallace, but probably not. Either way, the "g" kids aren't going to bring home the bacon.
    - time_management 18y ago
      Either way, the "g" kids aren't going to bring home the bacon. This is how things work now, but you are at least in a position to change this, admittedly in a very small way. Why aren't you trying to bring about a world where the "g kids", so to speak, are able to bring home the bacon, instead of the children of the caste that brought us Bush and subprime?
- scott_s 18y ago
  I'm a CS PhD student at a large state school, and I used to be a CS PhD student at a small state school. From what I know from talking to my adviser, our grad school admissions are done entirely by the faculty, and such things as money and parents have no effect. I'm not arguing it's anymore fair and meritorious, just that the rules are different. What they're trying to optimize is different. Basically, they're trying to evaluate if the applicant will be able to crank out a lot of research papers - this is what benefits themselves (if they take the student on) and the department. Money does come into play, but indirectly. It's those research papers that let professors get grant money.
  - brandnewlow 18y ago
    Exactly. You're optimizing for a different outcome with graduate school. The undergrads at Princeton were largely all generalists. The PhD students were all specialists.

by ajju 18y ago

brandnewlow 18y ago

I would assume they do, but have no evidence or experience to suggest so. Again, admitting really rich, prominent kids is something that just has to be done to keep the school afloat. If all you have is a bunch of eggheads, then you're an egghead school. For better or worse, eggheads don't run the world. Elite colleges can't ignore kids who might go on to run the free world someday.

time_management 18y ago
Elite colleges can't ignore kids who might go on to run the free world someday. They could try to fight the current world order, though, instead of admitting some Skull and Bones cocksuckers who go on to destroy the country and world economy. They could show a lot more spine on that one.
- brandnewlow 18y ago
  You admit the "skull and bones" kid because he will bring money and influence to the school...money that can then be spent on kids with more "g," as you put it. The skull and bones kid is probably going to do alright in the world, even if he is a jerk (I'm playing along with your sterotypes here). The kids with high "g" are, like startups, a bit of a crapshoot. You might get David Foster Wallace, but probably not. Either way, the "g" kids aren't going to bring home the bacon.
  - time_management 18y ago
    Either way, the "g" kids aren't going to bring home the bacon. This is how things work now, but you are at least in a position to change this, admittedly in a very small way. Why aren't you trying to bring about a world where the "g kids", so to speak, are able to bring home the bacon, instead of the children of the caste that brought us Bush and subprime?
scott_s 18y ago
I'm a CS PhD student at a large state school, and I used to be a CS PhD student at a small state school. From what I know from talking to my adviser, our grad school admissions are done entirely by the faculty, and such things as money and parents have no effect. I'm not arguing it's anymore fair and meritorious, just that the rules are different. What they're trying to optimize is different. Basically, they're trying to evaluate if the applicant will be able to crank out a lot of research papers - this is what benefits themselves (if they take the student on) and the department. Money does come into play, but indirectly. It's those research papers that let professors get grant money.
- brandnewlow 18y ago
  Exactly. You're optimizing for a different outcome with graduate school. The undergrads at Princeton were largely all generalists. The PhD students were all specialists.