quote:

Originally posted by jon-nyc]
The ironic thing is the elite schools would lose much of their appeal.

Most of their appeal is in conferring status, and much of their ability to do that is based on the fact that the kids of the elite go there. If they all became CalTechs, they would lose much of their ability to confer status.

(obviously CalTech is an impressive place, don't get me wrong, but it just doesn't mark status like Yale or Harvard)

Hey, Jon, I disagree with this last.

Last I heard, Cal-Tech and MIT are rated back and forth for the best tech schools in the world (with Cal-Tech rising in status).

I dare say, though, that it's loads harder to graduate (much less with top grades) from either one without REALLY having the creds than from the Ivies.

True, however, that one would be less able to "network" there than at the Ivies - a major plus for future success, including frat connections where they still exist.

Cindy

quote:

:
Originally posted by Cindysphinx:
You know what would be great fun? If college admissions were completely blind.

You submit your essays, your scores, your transcript, class rank, your other soft qualities. College knows nothing about you otherwise.

I'll bet a lot of rich kids would get left out. They would all have these carefully crafted profiles, but they wouldn't have legacy or admission based on connections or donations. Poor babies.

I think we would wind up with some really interesting, deserving people getting admitted, and diversity would take care of itself.

You're forgetting the effect of names which are cultural and gender cues.

Not to mention the huge clue provided by Asian last names (excluding the biracials whose Asian parent is the mother and whose children inherited the "white" surname). A minus for Ivy acceptance, these days.

Blind would mean blind. Each application would have a number, no name.

quote:

Originally posted by Amanda:

quote:

Originally posted by jon-nyc]
The ironic thing is the elite schools would lose much of their appeal.

Most of their appeal is in conferring status, and much of their ability to do that is based on the fact that the kids of the elite go there. If they all became CalTechs, they would lose much of their ability to confer status.

(obviously CalTech is an impressive place, don't get me wrong, but it just doesn't mark status like Yale or Harvard)

Hey, Jon, I disagree with this last.

Last I heard, Cal-Tech and MIT are rated back and forth for the best tech schools in the world (with Cal-Tech rising in status).

I dare say, though, that it's loads harder to graduate (much less with top grades) from either one without REALLY having the creds than from the Ivies.

True, however, that one would be less able to "network" there than at the Ivies - a major plus for future success, including frat connections where they still exist.

MIT is the CalTech of the east.

Not so sure about the networking opportunities. The CalTech-zians I know seem to have no problem with getting spiffy jobs. If you're a STEM graduate, a CalTech or MIT degree is far superior to one from the Ivies.

Obviously CalTech is tops in science and math (well, with MIT and perhaps even IIT fighting it out). So in that context it conveys all the status in the world, but they simply don’t have a history -and a present - of being finishing schools for the ruling class.


A lot more people have the desire and ability to join the ruling class than have the ability and desire to be math and physics stars.

I cannot imagine how anyone is surprised by this. Money has always talked. Before money it was wampum, gold and jewels.

quote:

Originally posted by jon-nyc:
Obviously CalTech is tops in science and math (well, with MIT and perhaps even IIT fighting it out). So in that context it conveys all the status in the world, but they simply don’t have a history -and a present - of being finishing schools for the ruling class.


A lot more people have the desire and ability to join the ruling class than have the ability and desire to be math and physics stars.

I think Princeton and Yale and maybe Harvard and Stanford and Harvey Mudd would want to slap you set you straight.

quote:

I think Princeton and Yale and maybe Harvard and Stanford and Harvey Mudd would want to slap you set you straight.

Just took a gander at US News and World Report's top engineering schools, because that list just didn't sound right to me.

Stanford is #2, behind #1 MIT, and Cal Tech is #5.

Princeton is lower at #17, although I certainly think of them at the top in physics. Harvard is #21. Yale is #38.

Harvey Mudd is not on that list at all, although it is #1 on the list of "undergraduate engineering programs at schools where doctorate not offered," which sounds to me like damning with faint praise. That's not just comparing apples and oranges. It's kind of like comparing apples and petunias.

quote:

Originally posted by Mary Anna:

quote:

I think Princeton and Yale and maybe Harvard and Stanford and Harvey Mudd would want to slap you set you straight.

Just took a gander at US News and World Report's top engineering schools, because that list just didn't sound right to me.

Stanford is #2, behind #1 MIT, and Cal Tech is #5.

Princeton is lower at #17, although I certainly think of them at the top in physics. Harvard is #21. Yale is #38.

Harvey Mudd is not on that list at all, although it is #1 on the list of "undergraduate engineering programs at schools where doctorate not offered," which sounds to me like damning with faint praise. That's not just comparing apples and oranges. It's kind of like comparing apples and petunias.

jon didn't say engineering. He said science and math.

Sorry, I misremembered the original comment, which was math and science (and also math and physics) and not engineering. I went googling to check the Harvey Mudd thing and got distracted.

In physics, the top 5 are MIT, Stanford, Cal Tech, Harvard*, Princeton*, Berkeley*

*Tied for #3

There's no generic "science" ranking, but I'll look up math.

US News gives these rankings for math--

Princeton, Harvard*, MIT*, Stanford*, Berkeley*

*Tied for #2

Today, Muffin and her brother were picking on me, telling me that, after some discussion, they'd determined that their mom apparently doesn't love them because she didn't buy their way into fancy colleges.



I told them that, if they recall the years when Muffin and her sister looked easily three years younger than their age, they will remember that I wouldn't even lie to get them the cheaper kids' tickets at Disney. I just couldn't see myself standing in front of my kids and selling my integrity for thirty bucks.

Then I pointed out that now they know for sure that they earned everything they've got.

But maybe they still wish I'd bought them into those fancy schools...

That topic hasn't come up at Chez Nina (yet). I think our kids are afraid that if they did, they'd be subjected to another one of Mom's long-winded harangues on character and ethics, now featuring an extended riff on Trump and his minions.

Or maybe they’re afraid to hear how much you paid to get them into their schools.

Or the opposite: "Stanford would have accepted you for $3.95, but we thought that was overpriced."