[wat0n]

You didn't go to high school in America, did you?

Regardless, so you have two kids with so called perfect scores. One also has a 20hr job, or some other obligation like volunteering work, etc. The other, just went to class and went home. The kid that managed everything else is still equivalent to the other that did nothing?

No, but extracurriculars don't really prove this either.

The kid working part time to support his family has had it much harder than the kid who's just taken violin clases.

However, I'd say having perfect grades by itself proves both have the right character if you are just defining that as being able to manage time.

Many don't bother, if they are not requirements. They should precisely not be requirements. Character becomes apparent when no one is looking, or when no one requires it. But it should be looked for.

Shouldn't college also form character? Or they should try to get students who have that sorted out?

[Rancid]

Shouldn't college also form character? Or they should try to get students who have that sorted out?

Both

[Rancid]

The kid working part time to support his family has had it much harder than the kid who's just taken violin clases.

Right, but the kid with the job, is likely not to get selected. Universities at least when I was applying, didn't give a shit about part time jobs.

So, we need to open that up.

[wat0n]

Both

I think the former is more important than the latter.

I agree schools should consider applicants who had to work and study under a different standard, since they had it harder. But it shouldn't be under the "extracurriculars" part, but more under the "disadvantaged" label.

[Unthinking Majority]

Right, but the kid with the job, is likely not to get selected. Universities at least when I was applying, didn't give a shit about part time jobs.

So, we need to open that up.

What if you just factor parent income into it? If you factor jobs then rich kids (and parents) are going to just say on their application that they worked for their uncle's landscaping business when in fact they just sat on their butts all summer. But even with income, you can sometimes fudge those numbers going back a handful of years, especially if you have your own business or connections with who you work for. The solutions here are difficult.

[Unthinking Majority]

Both

How is college going to form character? You go to class, and either do your assignments or you don't. The proof will be in the pudding at the end of the day.

I think this whole thing is beyond the scope of these post-secondary institutions. These are adults. These are adult institutions for higher learning. You form character and hold their hand in grades K-12. University they're on their own, their fate is their own, sink or swim, that will in itself form some character. Academia is not the workplace, and not a job factory. Maybe if this was trade school etc it would make more sense.

Maybe academia has it all backwards. Maybe people should be going to university when they're 50 years old, then they'll have the wisdom and street smarts of life to better help solve human problems instead of PhD's who often never had a real job outside a campus coffee shop. Maybe when people retire they should go to university. When they're 18 maybe they should attend a job factory.

[Potemkin]

How is college going to form character? You go to class, and either do your assignments or you don't. The proof will be in the pudding at the end of the day.

I think this whole thing is beyond the scope of these post-secondary institutions. These are adults. These are adult institutions for higher learning. You form character and hold their hand in grades K-12. University they're on their own, their fate is their own, sink or swim, that will in itself form some character. Academia is not the workplace, and not a job factory. Maybe if this was trade school etc it would make more sense.

Maybe academia has it all backwards. Maybe people should be going to university when they're 50 years old, then they'll have the wisdom and street smarts of life to better help solve human problems instead of PhD's who often never had a real job outside a campus coffee shop. Maybe when people retire they should go to university. When they're 18 maybe they should attend a job factory.

Universities are places of vocational training, just like an apprenticeship scheme. A PhD, for example, is definitely a form of vocational training. When they examine you during the viva voce to decide whether to give you your doctorate or not, they are testing your practical skills. They’re testing what you can do, not just what you know. A doctorate is vocational training for your future career, no matter how ‘academic’ the subject matter of your thesis may be. It’s the academic version of an apprenticeship - you learn how to do research, how to write a dissertation, how to publish.

But yeah, I agree with you about universities not forming character. Your character is already formed by that age, or it should be. In fact, even most schools don’t bother to form character. And who gets to decide what ‘character’ is anyway? What does it even mean to have ‘good character’ anyway? Who decides what that is? And how are they supposed to impart it to some snot-nosed obnoxious brat anyway?

[late]

This got neglected during the debate. It's not surprising since almost no one here is familiar with the subject. Universities should be more diverse than they have been. There are a number of reasons why. One reason is Republicans, we used to have the brightest kids on the planet come here to get educated. Many stayed, and contributed mightily..

Another reason is that schools get stuck between competing priorities. But that's a discussion for another day, a time when sanity has returned.

[Rancid]

I think the former is more important than the latter.

I agree schools should consider applicants who had to work and study under a different standard, since they had it harder. But it shouldn't be under the "extracurriculars" part, but more under the "disadvantaged" label.

Sure, that works.

What if you just factor parent income into it? If you factor jobs then rich kids (and parents) are going to just say on their application that they worked for their uncle's landscaping business when in fact they just sat on their butts all summer. But even with income, you can sometimes fudge those numbers going back a handful of years, especially if you have your own business or connections with who you work for. The solutions here are difficult.

That works.

How is college going to form character? You go to class, and either do your assignments or you don't. The proof will be in the pudding at the end of the day.

Sure, but I'd much rather we improve the rate at which students that can handle life at university and fail out. We shouldn't have to wait until "the end of the day" because if that student fails, that means he/she took the spot of anotehr that wouldn't have failed.

[Rancid]

And who gets to decide what ‘character’ is anyway?

Me

Anyway, I think factoring income level is probably sufficient.

[Potemkin]

Me

Anyway, I think factoring income level is probably sufficient.

The only test of character which can be objectively measured. If someone is rich, then they must have good character. After all, God has seen fit to make sure they were born to rich parents. If even God is vouching for their good character, then what more do you need?

[wat0n]

How is college going to form character? You go to class, and either do your assignments or you don't. The proof will be in the pudding at the end of the day.

College helps because students have to get out of their confort zone by bursting the bubble. Many even move across states, live away from their parents, etc.

Basically, they're not sheltered anymore. That alone helps shape character.

Then, you have to add the intellectual aspects of college and specifically that you are exposed to concepts you may have never heard about before. That helps too.

[Rich]

The only test of character which can be objectively measured. If someone is rich, then they must have good character. After all, God has seen fit to make sure they were born to rich parents. If even God is vouching for their good character, then what more do you need?

To be fair, that would be much more accurate presentation of Hinduism and its off shoot Buddhism. Undoubtedly many Christians have thought the way you described, there is a strong human tendency to defer to the powerful.

However the after life plays almost an opposite role in the Plato-Christian tradition to the Hindu Buddhist one. The after life seems to have been brought into the western tradition by Plato (or perhaps one of his unaccredited predecessors) in-order to give justice for the injustices in this life. For Hindu / Buddhists the purpose of other lives is to say that there is no systemic injustice in the world what so ever. You deserve your lot. The belief in an after life in the Christian tradition is fundamentally revolutionary, while in Hindu-Buddhism it is fundamentally reactionary.

To be fair to the Jews on the other hand, it should be noted that the Christians changed the injunction "Thou shalt not kidnap" to "Thou shalt not steal"

[Rancid]

The only test of character which can be objectively measured. If someone is rich, then they must have good character. After all, God has seen fit to make sure they were born to rich parents. If even God is vouching for their good character, then what more do you need?

It has been shown that that single determining factor of a child's success as an adult is two things:

- Parents level of education
- Family income

Hence why we need to create more opportunity for lower income, and lower education families. THere are lots and lots of bright kids in poor neighborhoods. I grew up with many of them.

[Unthinking Majority]

Universities are places of vocational training, just like an apprenticeship scheme. A PhD, for example, is definitely a form of vocational training. When they examine you during the viva voce to decide whether to give you your doctorate or not, they are testing your practical skills. They’re testing what you can do, not just what you know. A doctorate is vocational training for your future career, no matter how ‘academic’ the subject matter of your thesis may be. It’s the academic version of an apprenticeship - you learn how to do research, how to write a dissertation, how to publish.

There are some fields, like some in STEM or law school or social work etc, where universities are vocational training. But many, and probably most, that aren't. You don't study English or philosophy for vocational training, it is the pursuit of knowledge and understanding. The original purpose of the university was definitely not to create a job factory, it's the pursuit of knowledge through research, study, debate etc.

[Unthinking Majority]

Sure, but I'd much rather we improve the rate at which students that can handle life at university and fail out. We shouldn't have to wait until "the end of the day" because if that student fails, that means he/she took the spot of anotehr that wouldn't have failed.

Sure, but this would be the job of high schools to prepare kids for college. Colleges have student success centers to help them too. If you get into party culture that's on you.

[Rancid]

If you get into party culture that's on you.

OF course, but I bet the kind of person that isn't going to take college seriously can be selected out in favor of someone (possibly disadvantage) that would take it seriously. If you wait until they fail out, the system is inefficient, because some asshat that has no business being there is taking up a spot.

[Tainari88]

OF course, but I bet the kind of person that isn't going to take college seriously can be selected out in favor of someone (possibly disadvantaged) that would take it seriously. If you wait until they fail out, the system is inefficient, because some asshat that has no business being there is taking up a spot.

The vast majority of elimination of the lower classes from higher education that is of high quality happens in K-12 education Rancid. If a kid goes to a very poor public education system they will be ill-prepared for an IHE of any sort whether it is public or private. If you were snowed into thinking you got a decent public school education and you found out they never really did the job and gave you some diploma from a diploma mill....to reprogram that student to be critical thinkers with the right habits and means and resources at the uni level is not realistic.

You break or make a student in three different points. By third grade in elementary school. If the kid does not read at grade level by 3rd grade? They are going to be struggling and it will snowball. The next level will be by eighth grade. If they drop out in 8th grade it is highly unlikely they go back for another ten years. And the other one is sophomore year. They got to get to 11th and 12th grade on time. If they are more than two years behind by then? They will feel left out and odd being older with teens graduating younger than they are and to not be socially embarrassed dropout.

But if they go and get their GED or High School Equivalency in their early twenties they can do well. They just need the mental maturity to understand that if they are bad at conventional and timed testing they will have a hard time trying to finish their GED. It is all timed testing and if they are dyslexic they can still do it. They just need special accommodations. There are so many great programs adjusted for all types of learners. It is fantastic. What is important is maintaining a curious mind. Being good listeners and being organized in their ability to narrate and conclude and summarize meaning.

If they have the right tools many students and learners can do well. But they got to realize it is about make or break first in K-12.

I had a really outstanding formation in K-12 to the point that the college work was not hard at all. I think I skipped 7,8,9th grades and actually was homeschooled and my father created a curriculum for me. I did it on my own. Spent the rest of my time in the arts and sports and travel and independent reading.

College students do better when they are highly organized, and focused and do not waste time on drugs or drinking or getting involved in bad relationships with the opposite sex. Just focus on your work there and go home. Have fun on your own and do not waste time on socializing if your friends are a bunch of fools.

[wat0n]

OF course, but I bet the kind of person that isn't going to take college seriously can be selected out in favor of someone (possibly disadvantage) that would take it seriously. If you wait until they fail out, the system is inefficient, because some asshat that has no business being there is taking up a spot.

I agree, and schools are not in fact selecting for that. As I mentioned, being perceived as "disadvantaged" just slightly helps applicants to Harvard and UNC.

Now there's a more recent (and systematic) paper showing that schools, in fact, give a premium to super rich students even after controlling for academics that is reminiscent to that given by Harvard and UNC to African-American and Hispanic applicants:

Abstract

Leadership positions in the U.S. are disproportionately held by graduates of a few highly selective private colleges. Could such colleges — which currently have many more students from high-income families than low-income families — increase the socioeconomic diversity of America’s leaders by changing their admissions policies? We use anonymized admissions data from several private and public colleges linked to income tax records and SAT and ACT test scores to study this question. Children from families in the top 1% are more than twice as likely to attend an Ivy-Plus college (Ivy League, Stanford, MIT, Duke, and Chicago) as those from middle-class families with comparable SAT/ACT scores. Two-thirds of this gap is due to higher admissions rates for students with comparable test scores from high-income families; the remaining third is due to differences in rates of application and matriculation. In contrast, children from high-income families have no admissions advantage at flagship public colleges. 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. Using a new research design that isolates idiosyncratic variation in admissions decisions for waitlisted applicants, we show that attending an Ivy-Plus college instead of the average highly selective public flagship institution increases students’ chances of reaching the top 1% of the earnings distribution by 60%, nearly doubles their chances of attending an elite graduate school, and triples their chances of working at a prestigious firm. Ivy-Plus colleges have much smaller causal effects on average earnings, reconciling our findings with prior work that found smaller causal effects using variation in matriculation decisions conditional on admission. 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. We conclude that highly selective private colleges currently amplify the persistence of privilege across generations, but could diversify the socioeconomic backgrounds of America’s leaders by changing their admissions practices.

Emphasis added in bold.

I haven't read the whole 125-page long paper, but this plot here should consist on just roughly flat lines if the admissions system wasn't as fucked up as it currently is:



This is basically the ratio between the admit rates of applicants with the same SAT scores by different household income percentiles (according to tax data, which can certainly be problematic on its own right) and the "average" admit rate of those with the same SAT score. According to that plot, applicants from households at the top 0.1% of income (according to tax data) are a bit over twice as likely to be admitted to selective private universities as those from the average, if they have the same SAT score.

It should also be flat if we plotted race in the x-axis instead of income if the system was working well (but at least the Harvard and UNC cases show it's not for those schools).