undefined | Better HN

0 pointslapcat3y ago0 comments

> Why should the social kids go to the academically rigorous college and the academic talents go to a lesser University?

I was speaking from the perspective of college admissions, not from the perspective of applicants. Note also that I said "for better or worse". I wasn't making an overall judgment of the university system, merely noting that colleges themselves find extra-curricular activities important. I personally would abolish the invitation-only university system and provide continuing state-supported education to everyone. What is the purpose of the current university system, other than a largely non-educational social purpose? The selectivity of admissions inevitably results in further disparity among citizens, between the club members and non-members, the haves and have nots.

> The notion also relies on an inaccurate stereotype of what smart looks like. In practice, you are as or more likely to see an Ivy-level academic talent that looks like a leader than not.

> Its rare to find lesser academic talents who will have better extra-curriculars than the best academically inclined candidates.

I'm confused. You seem to be suggesting that extra-curricular activites are in fact an accurate indicator, contrary to the SAT proponents?

0 comments

mrangle3y ago

>I'm confused. You seem to be suggesting that extra-curricular activites are in fact an accurate indicator, contrary to the SAT proponents?

I'm unsure how you arrived at that conclusion. I'll chalk it up to me being unintentionally unclear.

What I am saying is that its largely a fallacy that Universities are commonly put to the decision of a more social candidate versus a more academically talented candidate.

The more common reality being that the leading academically talented candidates are as or more qualified in their extra-curricular participation.

At least within a deviation of academic and social metrics that is meaningful.

Selectivity of admissions allows for selectivity of curriculum. Selectivity of curriculum allows for better trained / educated students.

As well as tailoring of education to meet a student's ability, both on the high and lesser ends.

You may as well ask what the purpose of special education or gifted programs are. To put in in the terminology of those commonly concerned with the plight of haves and have nots, the answer is educational justice.

Last, maximizing the education of elite academic performers tends to maximize results for the nation in the real world in a manner that raises the living standards for have nots.

lapcatOP3y ago

> What I am saying is that its largely a fallacy that Universities are commonly put to the decision of a more social candidate versus a more academically talented candidate.

> The more common reality being that the leading academically talented candidates are as or more qualified in their extra-curricular participation.

I have no particular objection to this, but doesn't it imply that the SAT requirement is superfluous, with the combination of grades and extra-curriculars adequately measuring what the colleges want to measure?

> You may as well ask what the purpose of special education or gifted programs are... the answer is educational justice.

I don't feel that's an answer. It's just a couple of words that sound nice.

(I was in a gifted program in junior high school, by the way. In retrospect, it's not clear to me what purpose it served, other than to separate us socially from other students. Maybe it wasn't a very good gifted program, but I did live in a fairly well-off school district, so I don't think that was from lack of funding. In high school we had Advanced Placements courses, which are obviously more practically useful, though I wouldn't place them under the category of "educational justice".)

> in a manner that raises the living standards for have nots.

That's the issue. It sounds nice, reminiscent of the Rawlsian difference principle, but empirically I'm not seeing it in the world. What I see is largely self-enrichment of the minority, without much regard for everyone else.

mrangle3y ago

>I have no particular objection to this, but doesn't it imply that the SAT requirement is superfluous, with the combination of grades and extra-curriculars adequately measuring what the colleges want to measure? No. You are making an unfounded judgement call that grades and extra-curriculars adequately measure what the colleges want to measure, in total.

>I don't feel that's an answer. It's just a couple of words that sound nice.

It's a developmental clinician's perceptive (myself) that has its root in the long standing educational and clinical view that curriculums should be tailored to meet student ability. The most obvious every-day example being in the special education classroom (which enjoys the protection of hefty federal law), and which is also mirrored in the less obvious gifted programs.

>I was in a gifted program in junior high school, by the way. In retrospect, it's not clear to me what purpose it served, other than to separate us socially from other students. Maybe it wasn't a very good gifted program, but I did live in a fairly well-off school district, so I don't think that was from lack of funding. In high school we had Advanced Placements courses, which are obviously more practically useful, though I wouldn't place them under the category of "educational justice".

You can't see the purpose of a child with a 150 IQ having a unique curriculum apart from other students? That may or may not be you, but it doesn't mean that it isn't someone. Controlling for any lack in your specific gifted program.

Unless highly organized and driven, the average admissions non-advantaged (no affirmative action, etc) successful Ivy candidate is likely 140 IQ+. With 150 not being uncommon.

There is an ethical parallel to providing these individuals with a unique curriculum and providing one to special education students.

>That's the issue. It sounds nice, reminiscent of the Rawlsian difference principle, but empirically I'm not seeing it in the world. What I see is largely self-enrichment of the minority, without much regard for everyone else.

That's because you lack context on the history of living standards and poverty.

2 more replies

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse