Readit NewsI don't, because it doesn't matter what the authors of that paper assert / wishcast in regard to decades old admissions standards.
The only people that take virtually any social science paper seriously are people without science training. Or people with an agenda who are willing to overlook the fact that the so-called science is garbage.
There's no way that these authors were able to meaningfully statistically parse that elite school non-academic credentials / athletics are negatively correlated to outcomes in comparison to low income SAT only students. How you know is that they aren't even parsing the "three key factors" to arrive at their conclusion.
The other part of this that you are missing is that public school academic credentials and private school credentials are in no way 1:1.
As someone from a poor background I went to an elite prep school when the academic standards were still as high as ever, but attended a public college that was known for its academics. Prep school was much harder than college, and college was no cakewalk.
Good students, most of whom went Ivy and who were about 15-20% of my graduating class, had estimated IQs in the 140s and all were athletes. As the school had a sports participation requirement. Two sports per year until high school, at which point it dropped to at least one sport per year. I played three sports per year. The top students had estimated 150+ IQs, though it gets hard to estimate at that level. Also athletes.
You aren't dealing with dumb jocks in the Ivy league. You're dealing with hyper-smart, well-rounded leaders who deserve to be there. Because everything that they've done since kindergarten has made them impressive people by high school. And not just in the classroom.
>The only people that take virtually any social science paper seriously are people without science training. Or people with an agenda who are willing to overlook the fact that the so-called science is garbage.
The "nuh-uh" defense typically begins needing some additional ammo outside of grade school. So what concrete reasons do you have to dismiss the authors' work?
Focusing on SAT scores advances a false narrative, and serves to try to exert outside influence on adjusting admissions criteria to be more robotic.
While I admit that legacy and donations can be a factor as they always have been across all institutions, admissions always have been predicated on finding students who are most likely to find true high level success in the real world. This means finding well rounded students: those that excel in leadership positions, extra curriculars, and athletics as well as in the classroom.
What that means is that these students are more often found in elite prep schools. But what is also true is that never in the modern history of elite colleges have they refused entrance to a truly high level candidate coming out of public schools.
Though I agree that there is definitely a common difference of opinion as to what such a candidate's profile looks like. If one doesn't have much experience in the Ivy competition pool, for example, it's hard to understand your specific competitiveness.
The paper says that the three main causes for Ivy-plus admission rates among the 1% are:
"The high-income admissions advantage at private colleges is driven by three factors: (1) preferences for children of alumni, (2) weight placed on non-academic credentials, which tend to be stronger for students applying from private high schools that have affluent student bodies, and (3) recruitment of athletes, who tend to come from higher-income families"
But are these oh-so-important factors what make for successful students? Let's ask the authors.
"Adjusting for the value-added of the colleges that students attend, the three key factors that give children from high-income families an admissions advantage are uncorrelated or negatively correlated with post-college outcomes, whereas SAT/ACT scores and academic credentials are highly predictive of post-college success."
Hm. I guess you'll need a new excuse.
As one of the consumers of a "semantic layer" for many years now, I am firmly convinced that a "single source of truth" must either be useless or a lie.
Ok, the DBA has produced some joins that I can count up to decide how many "customers" we have. We immediately have the issue that a "customer count" from the semantic layer cannot always be the meaningful or relevant figure. In my experience, outside of the exllicit context it was written it, it cannot be the correct figure. So, I have my single source of truth customer count, but my revenue per customer needs to to use a different count that's slightly off. Another analyst needs to produce customer calls to our call center and that uses a slightly different definition. And so on, until the semantic layer is just a special database for pre-defined executive KPI dashboards and no more.
If you don't have an investment program, the best time to start is right now.
It's like saying everyone has access to clean water, look over there, there's a drop.
It shouldn’t be payment processors doing it unilaterally, I’ll grant that. But I’m not (and I’m sure a great many more of a silent majority) wholly opposed to the outcome.
I beg you to pause, take a deep breath, look at any of Trump's terms, and compare it with the output of Biden's administration.
Do that, and you simply cannot say with a straight face that there was no choice or difference in outcomes. Not even as a joke.
If you are honest with yourself and with everyone, you will acknowledge how outlandish that idea is.
Let's be serious.