4 ms·

Two things: - They are just as happy with a random selection of 7% from the top 15-20% of applications - There is zero "error". They select who they select, a

by aneth4 14y ago

Two things: - They are just as happy with a random selection of 7% from the top 15-20% of applications - There is zero "error". They select who they select, and are not just looking for exactly the top applicants - in fact that has little meaning. What does top mean? Is someone with incredible musical talent but slightly weaker than another applicant in math better or worse? They want a solid diverse group of amazing students. This is not angel investing, where they are afraid of missing out on the one big hit.

just2n 14y ago
Unless there is a 100% pass rate, there is definitely "error." Picking someone who you couldn't find a problem with but who is incapable of passing your courses counts as picking the wrong person.
- barry-cotter 14y ago
  The only elite college in the US with a failure rate higher than 2% is Cal Tech. Everyone else provides ample opportunities to switch to less rigorous majors with lower standards. Given that they're admitting 18 year olds with no previous experience of living away from home they're not realisitically going to approach elite professional school levels of graduation unless they make it really easy to pass.
  - duaneb 14y ago
    Lower standards or a better fit? I would find some subjects, like studio art, prohibitively difficult.
  - ohazi 14y ago
    I went to Caltech for undergrad. I know people who got "burnt out" and switched to non-science majors, but the core curriculum would still require everyone (even an English major) to take quantum mechanics, differential equations, etc. They've made some changes to the core curriculum requirements in the last few years, but I think this is still the case.
- mtpearce 14y ago
  The six year completion rate of the 2006 cohort was 95% (http://ucomm.stanford.edu/cds/2012 http://ucomm.stanford.edu/cds/2012). This rate has been consistent, both over time and at other top schools. Of the 5% that don't complete, it's rare that the student is incapable of completing (aaron swartz, tiger woods, etc). The admissions department will be the first to tell you that they pass on _a lot_ of qualified people. Even though most people believe that they were an 'admissions mistake', I still don't think that 'error' is the right term.
- aneth4 14y ago
  Even if the admission process had no "error" as you call it, there would still be kids who fail. Future behavior and circumstances are not predictable or controllable to that extent, no matter how good the admissions process is. Regardless, the goal of admissions is not to pick the exact top students, but to create a solid class. That may involve taking some chances on kids who provide diversity or experience in areas other than pure academics. If those kids fail, it is not error, but intentional risk. Even the "best" (whatever that means) kid carries some risk, and may fail due to personal or incidental circumstances that could not have been known during the admissions process.

by aneth4 14y ago

just2n 14y ago

Unless there is a 100% pass rate, there is definitely "error." Picking someone who you couldn't find a problem with but who is incapable of passing your courses counts as picking the wrong person.

barry-cotter 14y ago
The only elite college in the US with a failure rate higher than 2% is Cal Tech. Everyone else provides ample opportunities to switch to less rigorous majors with lower standards. Given that they're admitting 18 year olds with no previous experience of living away from home they're not realisitically going to approach elite professional school levels of graduation unless they make it really easy to pass.
- duaneb 14y ago
  Lower standards or a better fit? I would find some subjects, like studio art, prohibitively difficult.
- ohazi 14y ago
  I went to Caltech for undergrad. I know people who got "burnt out" and switched to non-science majors, but the core curriculum would still require everyone (even an English major) to take quantum mechanics, differential equations, etc. They've made some changes to the core curriculum requirements in the last few years, but I think this is still the case.
mtpearce 14y ago
The six year completion rate of the 2006 cohort was 95% (http://ucomm.stanford.edu/cds/2012 http://ucomm.stanford.edu/cds/2012). This rate has been consistent, both over time and at other top schools. Of the 5% that don't complete, it's rare that the student is incapable of completing (aaron swartz, tiger woods, etc). The admissions department will be the first to tell you that they pass on _a lot_ of qualified people. Even though most people believe that they were an 'admissions mistake', I still don't think that 'error' is the right term.
aneth4 14y ago
Even if the admission process had no "error" as you call it, there would still be kids who fail. Future behavior and circumstances are not predictable or controllable to that extent, no matter how good the admissions process is. Regardless, the goal of admissions is not to pick the exact top students, but to create a solid class. That may involve taking some chances on kids who provide diversity or experience in areas other than pure academics. If those kids fail, it is not error, but intentional risk. Even the "best" (whatever that means) kid carries some risk, and may fail due to personal or incidental circumstances that could not have been known during the admissions process.