Why do Colleges Want "Well Rounded" Students?

[russ_watters]

There is no need to prove anything. Just completely ignore all that nonsense in admissions. The problem will not completely go away since the real problem is the very existence of these expensive "elite" institutions, but it will at least help. If a criterion isn't selecting for what it is supposed to, but selecting for something else entirely, then you don't need it.

You're really just yelling at clouds here.

 

[AndreasC]

You're really just yelling at clouds here.

I am saying how it is and what I think of it. You are entitled to like how it is, and I am entitled to disagree.

 

[Vanadium 50]

the real problem is the very existence of these expensive "elite" institutions

First, even if this is "the real problem", it's not what the OP asked about.

Second, if the problem is that the well-off have more access to a limited resource than the less well-off it is hard to believe that the solution is to make the resource even more limited.

Finally, there have been attempts to improve equality by disposing of elite institutions and the well-off. The Khmer Rouge tried it in the 1970's in Cambodia. It did not end well.

 

[russ_watters]

I am saying how it is and what I think of it. You are entitled to like how it is, and I am entitled to disagree.

Yep. It's just... It's disjointed, illogical, pointless, and self-contradictory/self-defeating. Practically nobody actually thinks this way - that's why those institutions are so hard to get into!

 

[russ_watters]

Second, if the problem is that the well-off have more access to a limited resource than the less well-off it is hard to believe that the solution is to make the resource even more limited.

I don't think that's what they are after: they want to create more equality by damaging institutions with higher quality. The problem is, if you succeed, what have you won? If you're mad you didn't get in and you damage the institution to the point that nobody wants to go there anymore except you, do you really still want to go? As a great philosopher once said: I'd never join a club that would have me as a member.

 

[AndreasC]

First, even if this is "the real problem", it's not what the OP asked about.

The Khmer Rouge isn't what the op asked for either and yet here you are coming up with bizarre non sequiturs.

Second, if the problem is that the well-off have more access to a limited resource than the less well-off it is hard to believe that the solution is to make the resource even more limited.

I can't see how that, or the Khmer Rouge, follows from any of my posts. Maybe in the sense that the Khmer Rouge could follow from Kissinger and Kissinger could follow from Harvard but I don't think that's the point you are trying to make. But like Kissinger, it's probably time for this train of thought to finally stop. If you don't like what I say, you can just say what it is specifically you disagree with instead of making weird associations or trying to muddy the waters.

 

[AndreasC]

I don't think that's what they are after: they want to create more equality by damaging institutions with higher quality. The problem is, if you succeed, what have you won? If you're mad you didn't get in and you damage the institution to the point that nobody wants to go there anymore except you, do you really still want to go? As a great philosopher once said: I'd never join a club that would have me as a member.

That's not at all what I am saying. Quality and elite don't mean the same thing, and perhaps it's my fault I didn't make that clearer.

 

[russ_watters]

That's not at all what I am saying. Quality and elite don't mean the same thing, and perhaps it's my fault I didn't make that clearer.

No, that's a lot of the problem with what you are saying; they do mean the same thing (or at least one follows from the other). Wanting to get rid of the elite status without getting rid of the quality is not possible.
[edit]
Even if you declare or create artificial equality it still doesn't work:

I live in Pennsylvania. We have a pretty good state college. Part of the point of state college is that almost anyone can go (they are huge, inexpensive and have relatively low admissions standards). This particular state college has one main campus and a bunch of satellite campuses. The satellite campuses are mostly feeders into the main campus after 2 years, but there are some where you can get a degree, and all the degrees say the same thing: Penn State. So it doesn't matter if you go to the satellite campus for 2 years or 4 years (vs 4 years at the main campus).

I knew dozens of people in high school who went to Penn State, many of them to satellite campuses at least to start. Nobody wanted to go to a satellite campus (at least without a circumstantial reason like location). Why? Because the main campus is both objectively and intangibly better. Even with a declared equality of output. It's just reality.

 

[AndreasC]

No, that's a lot of the problem with what you are saying; they do mean the same thing (or at least one follows from the other). Wanting to get rid of the elite status without getting rid of the quality is not possible.
[edit]
Even if you declare or create artificial equality it still doesn't work:

I live in Pennsylvania. We have a pretty good state college. Part of the point of state college is that almost anyone can go. This particular state college has one main campus and a bunch of satellite campuses. The satellite campuses are mostly feeders into the main campus after 2 years, but there are some where you can get a degree, and all the degrees say the same thing: Penn State. So it doesn't matter if you go to the satellite campus for 2 years or 4 years (vs 4 years at the main campus).

Nobody wants to go to the satellite campuses. I knew dozens of people in high school who went to Penn State, many of them to satellite campuses at least to start. Nobody wanted to go to a satellite campus. Why? Because the main campus is both objectively and intangibly better. Even with a declared equality of output. It's just reality.

But see, you said it. Everybody wants to go to one university and not the other, because it is BETTER. Not necessarily because it is high quality, but because it is BETTER. In this case, it is also high quality. But go to smaller countries, and you'll see the top students racing to go to universities that are ranked nowhere near top 100 or even top 250 (which doesn't necessarily say everything about quality, but you get my point). Why? Because it is better than the other places that are available to them. So, one factor that makes a place very exclusive and "elite" is comparative advantage to the others. Of course, elite status is not just "better". Elite status is something very special, a very large comparative advantage to the others, or at least a perceived one.

So now one might ask why they have such a large comparative advantage, or why they are perceived that way. And it mostly comes down to funding in the end of the day. All the top researchers want to go that way, all the best infrastructure is there, all the best opportunity. So part of the fix would be figuring out how to distribute these resources to more places, rather than them being effectively hoarded up in the "elite" schools. I am not saying it would ever be feasible for all difference in quality to be erased, but it would definitely be better if it could at least be ameliorated. The "how" is a separate issue.

The perception of large comparative advantage also has to do with rankings, and the "success" of people who go there. This however also has to do with networking, and already being wealthy before going to the school or coming from a certain background, and not uniquely through the educational merits. In some sense it can be a vicious circle, elites go to elite schools because they are elite, and the fact that they go there perpetuates their elite status.

But even large comparative advantage is not all that makes them elite. It's also their culture, that they do everything in their hand to perpetuate (see the legacy admissions, or the criteria I take issue with). MIT and Princeton are both high quality. Many would say MIT is higher quality. But MIT is not as "elite" as Princeton. MIT is still generally considered elite of course, but there are also top quality institutions which generally aren't, at least not in the sense of Ivy League or Oxford or Cambridge etc.

 

[PeroK]

As a great philosopher once said: I'd never join a club that would have me as a member.

Didn't Groucho Marx say that? You must be confusing him with Karl Marx.

 

[russ_watters]

Didn't Groucho Marx say that? You must be confusing him with Karl Marx.

No, I'm definitely not.

 

[gmax137]

Didn't Groucho Marx say that? You must be confusing him with Karl Marx.

I like the one where Groucho ends a long screed by saying, "Those are my principles. If you don't like them, I have others."

 

[russ_watters]

But see, you said it. Everybody wants to go to one university and not the other, because it is BETTER. Not necessarily because it is high quality, but because it is BETTER. In this case, it is also high quality. But go to smaller countries, and you'll see the top students racing to go to universities that are ranked nowhere near top 100 or even top 250 (which doesn't necessarily say everything about quality, but you get my point). Why? Because it is better than the other places that are available to them. So, one factor that makes a place very exclusive and "elite" is comparative advantage to the others. Of course, elite status is not just "better".

When I say "better" I mean higher quality. Mostly education quality, but there are other qualities. What do you mean when you say it?

So now one might ask why they have such a large comparative advantage, or why they are perceived that way. And it mostly comes down to funding in the end of the day. All the top researchers want to go that way, all the best infrastructure is there, all the best opportunity. So part of the fix would be figuring out how to distribute these resources to more places, rather than them being effectively hoarded up in the "elite" schools. I am not saying it would ever be feasible for all difference in quality to be erased, but it would definitely be better if it could at least be ameliorated. The "how" is a separate issue.

The "how" is the a big part of problem. You're arguing against gravity, so the vision of equality is just a pointless fantasy (even if we were to agreed that the fantasy outcome would be a good thing).

 

[AndreasC]

The "how" is the a big part of problem. You're arguing against gravity, so the vision of equality is just a pointless fantasy (even if we were to agreed that the fantasy outcome would be a good thing).

There are a million ways to organize an educational system, hard to believe this one is "gravity".

 

[AndreasC]

When I say "better" I mean higher quality. Mostly education quality, but there are other qualities. What do you mean when you say it?

More or less the same thing, all I'm saying is that elite is not the same as better, and better is not the same as high quality. As you said, better is high-ER quality. Not high quality. Better is comparative. Elite institutions demonstrate a large gap in available resources compared to others. This is what I'm saying. The gap is the problem. Or rather, one problem. But this is not directly related to the original question. The problem I find that is related to the original question is that they use unfair criteria which are biased overwhelmingly in favor of rich people. This is related to their elite-ness, in the cultural sense.

 

[martinbn]

Didn't Groucho Marx say that? You must be confusing him with Karl Marx.

Was Karl the one who didn't talk?

 

[Vanadium 50]

It's a little hard to tell if we are beating up on the Harvards of the world or the Kenyons, as things seem to be shifting every few messages, but it might be worth pointing out that most people who go to college go to places that are less competitive. Most people go to places that are pretty much average.

If yuou have one student who got good but not great grades and good but not greate test scores, and another who got good but not great grades and good but not greate test scores but also edited his school newspaper, is it unreasonable that Average College accepts the second before the first?

 

[gleem]

Getting back to the OP.

But why do admissions offices care about being "well rounded". Lets say a student did lots of extra curricular activities', how does saying being on the high school basketball team, have any effect on their ability to learn their chosen major?

Why should this matter if the student demonstrates her scholastic aptitude? How much time does one spend on practices, meetings, and games? She demonstrates that she can excel at learning in less time than those who do not engage in sports. However, any extracurricular activity takes time away from studying. They put themselves at a disadvantage which helps prepare for the stress of the university experience.

Universities need students to fill seats to be sure but Harvard can only accept about 2000 freshmen out of 60,000 qualified applicants. But why should we want to go to Harvard? Harvard has 385 years to develop its program and produce alumni 63 years (55 graduating classes) more than Yale the next oldest US university and well over 200 years advantage over most other US universities. I think the students are responsible for its fame and success since taking the best students requires the best faculty.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Harvard has 385 years to develop its program

Interesting point.

To some degree, longevity matters. You can't be unsuccessful for centuries without disappearing. But how far should one take this? Bologna is 3x older than Harvard, but I don't think anybody would say it's 3x better. Caltech and Stanford are comparatively young, but no slouches. MIT and Kansas State were formed at about the same time.

Also, things were different back then - no women, no standardized tests, and financial aid - then called "scholarships" - was the exception. Modern college admissions has only been around for a century or less (the SAT is 97 years old),

 

[StatGuy2000]

Also, things were different back then - no women, no standardized tests, and financial aid - then called "scholarships" - was the exception. Modern college admissions has only been around for a century or less (the SAT is 97 years old),

Perhaps I'm being pedantic, but is there not a difference between financial aid and scholarships?

I've always thought of financial aid as being assistance provided to students to ensure they can afford to attend their particular college/university (e.g. grants for low-income students, low-interest loans, grants for veterans, etc.). Pell Grants or the GI Bill being the two best examples in the US.

Whereas scholarships are merit-based financial awards based on specific criteria (e.g. high grades, extracurricular achievements, abilities in sports in the US, etc.)

 

[Vanadium 50]

Perhaps I'm being pedantic, but is there not a difference between financial aid and scholarships?

I think you are. It's the PF way.

Let's not use that word. Back in the day, financial aid was rare, and it was entirely academic merit-based. Now it is common, can be based on need, or the ability to toss a football, or any of a number of things. Probably the most accurate description is that every student pays a different price with this posted tuition being the cap. But it was not always this way.

 

[bhobba]

I guess other countries have Ivies.

I can assure you here in Aus, while we have the group of 8, and they are generally considered more 'prestigious', we don't have what you would call 'Ivies'. In transferring between universities, they consider grades and a group of 8 grades is given a higher weighting. The difference here is it is realised that universities have more significant variance in specific programs. For example, our local group of 8 university, the University of Queensland (last I looked, ranked 35 in the world), is known to be better for physics and pure math. Where I went, the Queensland University of Technology (171 in the world - it dropped from when I went there - it was about 100), is known to be better at Computer Science and Applied Math. UQ has introduced a new Mathematical Physics degree - only time will tell how that is ranked.

Thanks
Bill

 

[bhobba]

Back in the day, financial aid was rare, and it was entirely academic merit-based.

Here in Aus, financial aid is called a Commonwealth Supported Place (CSP) and is entirely merit-based. It has to be said most courses have enough CSP places that nearly everyone gets one, but some high demand ones do not. There is some non-merit-based aid, but it is not called CSP. In Australia, way back in the day when I did it, it was free for everyone, but since then, they have introduced the idea of CSP. The kind of degree people on this site do, like math, only pay something like $4k a year - much more without CSP. Fortunately, I did well in undergrad; if you do well, you automatically get CSP for any further university work you do. And I believe you can go from non-CSP to CSP, and if you are lazy and keep failing, have CSP removed.

I believe in free education (ie paid by the government), but $4k a year is hardly onerous. Oh, and if you do a research-based degree, that is free. The CSP fee for courses like Journalism is about $15k a year. Not sure if I agree or disagree with that - it's based on industry need - it is thought there is a lot of industry need for math, but not much for journalists. Interestingly, my philosophy master's degree is about $10k, but I planned a significant research component in the degree, which is free. It would have been entirely free if 2/3 was research, but since I did not do philosophy undergrad, I had to do more than 1/3 as coursework.

Thanks
Bill

 

[russ_watters]

But see, you said it. Everybody wants to go to one university and not the other, because it is BETTER. Not necessarily because it is high quality, but because it is BETTER. In this case, it is also high quality.

When I say "better" I mean higher quality. Mostly education quality, but there are other qualities. What do you mean when you say it?

More or less the same thing, all I'm saying is that elite is not the same as better, and better is not the same as high quality. As you said, better is high-ER quality. Not high quality.

Well I'm thoroughly confused.

There are a million ways to organize an educational system, hard to believe this one is "gravity".

It's not the system. Gravity drives stratification in a variety of physical systems. Human/animal nature (competitiveness) drives stratification in social/biological systems. You can suppress it somewhat, but I have yet to see a system where it has been successfully eliminated if it has a strong effect (if that's even a desirable thing). Maybe you could invent one, but I doubt it. Anyway, given the prior talking in circles about "better" vs "higher quality" I don't think there's anything productive to discuss here.

 

[bhobba]

Finally, there have been attempts to improve equality by disposing of elite institutions and the well-off. The Khmer Rouge tried it in the 1970's in Cambodia. It did not end well.

I can't believe anybody would believe it was possible - but I would not call the Khmer Rouge objective rationalists. The answer is to realise that elite institutions are not always the best choice for what you want to study.

I will do a separate post about an interesting college called Shimer, which was once ranked the worst in the USA. Its world ranking is nearly 13,000. Yet, it sends 50% of its students to do a Master's, and about 25% get a PhD. Something funny is happening there, so I want to post about it separately. It is now part of the North Central College, and its curriculum has changed slightly (I prefer the old one). And if you want prestige, they had a Shimer in Oxford program (I don't know if they still do). Yet were ranked the worst in the USA. The mind boggles.

Thanks
Bill

 

[Vanadium 50]

Shimer is tiny - a dozen faculty and a hundred students. It is not bad. It has over the years been associated with the University of Chicago and Illinois Tech. It's a Great Books College, which may be OK if you are studying literature or philosophy, but you really don't want to learn your physics from Newton and Maxwell.

(I may be wrong - Roland Winston graduated from there, and as they say he has forgotten more physics than I will ever learn)

I certainly believe a formula might put it at the bottom - or the top - of a list because it is so different, but don't see how looking at an oddball (that nonetheless has similar admissions policies to other schools discussed) will shed a lot of light on the situation.

 

[bhobba]

Shimer is tiny - a dozen faculty and a hundred students. It is not bad. It has over the years been associated with the University of Chicago and Illinois Tech. It's a Great Books College, which may be OK if you are studying literature or philosophy, but you really don't want to learn your physics from Newton and Maxwell.

Now it is integrated into a traditional college. You do it instead of your general ed requirements. It is about 11 subjects, not including a senior thesis, which most good programs have anyway (mine certainly did). It is just historically interesting reading about these past scientists; you learn your actual science from usual courses.

I like the older curriculum better, which had about the same number of courses. The one that would interest people here is the old Bachelor Of Science program. You come in with 40 credits in whatever you like, do two great book subjects - What is Light and Modern Physics and a math subject covering Godel etc. The usual first-year subjects, depending on your 40 credits, you get credit for from an evaluation or test out. Go to Oxford for a year, then work on your final thesis, some self-study subjects, and History and Philosophy of the West a year later.

The details, though, are not the important thing; the important thing is many great schools need not be 'elite'.

I will do a Shimer post a bit later. Others may be interested in this different school.

Winston is a great scientist (specialising in optics if I remember correctly). He started at Shimer at 14 instead of HS using their early entrance program. When he graduated, he went to Chicago for his Bachelor of Science, which he completed in just two years, and then his graduate work. Shimer attracted a lot of students like that - bored or disengaged with HS.

Thanks
Bill

 

[AndreasC]

Well I'm thoroughly confused.

Good doesn't mean better and better doesn't mean good, perhaps that is the source of your confusion.

It's not the system.

It is the system. As I said, differences will exist. But not everywhere has "elite", hyper competitive places with a massive difference from the others, and manage concentrate all the wealthiest people. And some of them have pretty good institutions. In my country we don't have so great institutions because they are very underfunded, but most of them are pretty much at the same level. There are some world famous researchers working in some of the least competitive places here, and although wealth still plays some small part (it's hard for poor people to study in general), it's nothing like the US, because every place is free. This is similar to the situation in many places in Europe, @bhobba will tell you about Australia.

I am not saying that to present my country as a success story, the unis are having a lot of trouble due to overall problems in the country, and there are certainly a lot of downsides to the particulars of the system. My point is to show that differences can exist, elite universities are not a law of nature. In fact to a certain degree this particular culture is only seen in the elite places of the US and UK. That's where every super rich person who gave a damn about education (or at least their parents did) I know went, they didn't go to ETH or Sapienza or god forbid Lomonosov, even though they are very highly ranked.

(The ones who didn't give a damn at all went to some ridiculous degree mills and adult kinder gartens).

 

[gwnorth]

since taking the best students

You are mistaken if you think it is the mission of Harvard to admit the best and brightest students. It is not and that isn't what they claim in their mission statement either

The mission of Harvard College is to educate the citizens and citizen-leaders for our society. We do this through our commitment to the transformative power of a liberal arts and sciences education.

Harvard admits the students who they believe will be future influencers and who will be able to raise their profile and most importantly donate back.

 

[gleem]

You are mistaken if you think it is the mission of Harvard to admit the best and brightest students. It is not and that isn't what they claim in their mission statement either

I never said that was their mission statement. I said they attracted the best and the brightest. (and thus admitted the best and the brightest)

Harvard admits the students who they believe will be future influencers and who will be able to raise their profile and most importantly donate back.

I don't see that in the mission statement but don't all institutions of higher learning seek these types of students? Harvard has almost two hundred years on most schools in forming a huge influential alumni base.

 

[gwnorth]

I never said that was their mission statement. I said they attracted the best and the brightest. (and thus admitted the best and the brightest) I don't see that in the mission statement but don't all institutions of higher learning seek these types of students? Harvard has almost two hundred years on most schools in forming a huge influential alumni base.

If Harvard's goal was to admit the best and brightest then their admissions process would not be holistic. They would base admissions on high school GPA and test scores. They don't. They make allowances for institutional need (ALDC admits) who frequently have lower academic credentials and include subjective personality ratings. Undergraduate education at Harvard is predominantly about social networking. They are the LinkedIn of the university world.

 

[gleem]

If Harvard's goal was to admit the best and brightest then their admissions process would not be holistic. They would base admissions on high school GPA and test scores. They don't. They make allowances for institutional need (ALDC admits) who frequently have lower academic credentials and include subjective personality ratings. Undergraduate education at Harvard is predominantly about social networking. They are the LinkedIn of the university world.

Perhaps you could tell us the source of your insights into Harvard's admission procedures.

There are 3.7 M high school graduates. Harvard has over 55,000 applicants each year,1.5% of HS graduates. They accept 2000 students. They draw from the smartest, most expressive, most involved, most challenged, most ambitious, and most confident students each year. If not the best and or brightest then what are they? We all know academic achievement is but a single element of the profile of the best and brightest (although hardly the best predictor of success) with the other elements reflected in their successes in being recognized for accomplishments and assessed by others.

Harvard wants the best and brightest to apply and entices them by offering them a path to the realization of their ambitions. If it benefits Harvard all the better. All good universities do the same. Like any competition, there is a leader and currently Harvard is it.

 

[vela]

Perhaps you could tell us the source of your insights into Harvard's admission procedures.

There have been many recent news stories about Harvard's admissions criteria because the Supreme Court was expected to rule on a case in which Harvard was defending its practices. The Court ultimately issued a decision earlier this year that ruled affirmative action unconstitutional.

Some Asian-American candidates felt discriminated against because they were rejected even though they were better qualified objectively than students who were admitted. Ironically, it was Harvard's holistic approach that deemed them deficient in "personality" and therefore not suitable for admission.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Students_for_Fair_Admissions_v._Harvard

 

[Vanadium 50]

The Court ultimately issued a decision earlier this year that ruled affirmative action unconstitutional.

I wouldn't say that exactly.

Affirmative action, as it is usually thought of was ruled unconstitutional in Bakke in 1978. This suit did two things - it opened up a lot of the admissions process, and showed that Harvard was deliberately trying to circumvent Baake (hey, what does the Supreme Court know anyway - most of them went to Yale anyway) and it granted standing to Asian-Americans. It had been argued that they were not "real" minorities.

But apart from increasing the transparency of Harvard's process, I am not sure of the relevance, as we have been told that the problem isn't with Harvard. It;s with Kenyon and its ilk: colleges that strive for excellence but have small endowments and thus cannot offer a ton of financial aid.

 

[bhobba]

I still do not get this concern with Harvard. It's a great school - but far from the only one. I believe Harvey Mudd, for example, is not well known at all, but is at least Harvards equal.

Why not simply research schools and aim for the one that suits you best? The US has the most vibrant tertiary sector in the world. The list I would personally look at is the schools that send the most students to graduate schools. Who they are can be surprising:

https://www.collegetransitions.com/dataverse/top-feeders-phd-programs

Harvard is there, but not at the top.

Thanks
Bill