Outside Topic "The War at Stanford"

Outside Topic "The War at Stanford" - Printable Version

+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Outside Topic "The War at Stanford" (/thread-24871.html)

Pages: 1 2 3 4

RE: "The War at Stanford" - newguy - 09-14-2024

(09-14-2024, 04:49 PM)Mick Wrote:
(09-14-2024, 03:44 PM)Treebound Wrote:
(09-14-2024, 02:03 PM)old spanish trail Wrote:
(09-14-2024, 11:23 AM)newguy Wrote:
(09-14-2024, 09:08 AM)Mick Wrote: - USC had the most legacy admissions in 2023 with 1,791.

i'm in shock.

LOL

The legacy numbers for SC likely game the system yet again, as it is well known that many legacy applicants to SC go through the unofficial or maybe quasi-official "Trojan Transfer" process. SC, always trying to pump up their admissions numbers for each incoming freshman class (SAT, GPA, class rank etc...), informs those legacy applicants that might pull down their admissions numbers that they can matriculate 1-3 semesters later after they have gone to "feeder schools" like Orange Coast College, Chapman, Univ of Colorado and SMU. Many of these students actually pledge fraternities and sororities at the feeder schools freshman fall so that they can gain access to their desired house upon trojan transferring to U$C. It's a very well known path by many trojan families. Welcome to the "trojan family" and learn how to "game the system" from such a fine institution.

When my older son was applying to colleges, I suggested USC because, you know...good school. He replied "I'd rather go to a JC."

When my younger son and I were returning from SoCal on a trip, I convinced him to tour the USC campus because, you know...good school. We were on the campus for all of 11 minutes when he turned on his heel and headed back to the car. I said "Wait, don't you want to see the public service building?" Without breaking stride, he called over his shoulder "you can, if you want. I'm not going here..."

i'll go out on a limb and say that your kids showed wisdom (and judgment) beyond their years.

RE: "The War at Stanford" - cctop - 09-15-2024

(09-14-2024, 04:49 PM)Mick Wrote: When my older son was applying to colleges, I suggested USC because, you know...good school. He replied "I'd rather go to a JC."

When my younger son and I were returning from SoCal on a trip, I convinced him to tour the USC campus because, you know...good school. We were on the campus for all of 11 minutes when he turned on his heel and headed back to the car. I said "Wait, don't you want to see the public service building?" Without breaking stride, he called over his shoulder "you can, if you want. I'm not going here..."

My younger son, currently a high school junior in San Francisco, tells me that USC is one of the hottest schools among his classmates.

He is both baffled and amused by the disdain his mom (a UCLA grad) and I express for the place.

This past summer we visited a lot of California schools -- Cal, Stanford, Cal Poly, UCSB, UCLA, USC, the Claremont schools. Didn't get to SDSU or UCSD yet.

Of all of them he actually liked Cal Poly the most. He noticed that at Cal Poly the kids were sitting in groups of 3 or 4 eating lunch or working on schoolwork, while at UCLA for example the kids were all wearing headphones and staring at devices. Also two of his cousins recently got rejected by Cal Poly so they went to UCSB instead.

EDIT: I asked him what are the most popular schools among his classmates. He says, "Cal and UCLA are the reach schools. Everyone talks about wanting to go to USC but it's known to be really expensive. Cal Poly is popular with kids who want to do engineering. Community college is really popular; at least half the kids are thinking about going to JC for two years for free then transferring. Some kids are even taking JC classes now so they can transfer after one year. Nobody mentions the Ivies or Stanford because they're ridiculous to get into."

RE: "The War at Stanford" - TrumpCard - 09-15-2024

I completely agree with everything you say. I have a nephew at CPSLO, and he’s a smart kid with big goals.

But I’ll take the opportunity to spin things a different way for the tiger parents out there.

In the US, there are ~4 million kids of any given age. There are ~40,000 seats at the top 20 private schools combined. Those ~40,000 seats go disproportionately to kids graduating from elite private schools. Some public magnets get seats as well.

I tell my kids that it’s fine to not shoot for Stanford or other top school. But if they want to go to an elite school, then they should set interim goals that put them in the ballpark, else they set themselves up for disappointment.

In a graduating high school class of 500 at a non-magnet public school, there might be 2 other kids going to a top 20 private school. That’s for the whole top 20, not for the top ~5, which is a more realistic group for kids hoping to go to Stanford. In that context, it doesn’t make sense to calibrate their interim academic goals based on what other kids in that type of school are doing. For kids in non-magnet public schools, getting into Stanford means setting goals in a different league from everyone else and completely tuning out the talk that they hear from other kids.

RE: "The War at Stanford" - Mick - 09-15-2024

(09-15-2024, 12:54 PM)TrumpCard Wrote: In a graduating high school class of 500 at a non-magnet public school, there might be 2 other kids going to a top 20 private school. That’s for the whole top 20, not for the top ~5, which is a more realistic group for kids hoping to go to Stanford. In that context, it doesn’t make sense to calibrate their interim academic goals based on what other kids in that type of school are doing. For kids in non-magnet public schools, getting into Stanford means setting goals in a different league from everyone else and completely tuning out the talk that they hear from other kids.

In the late 1970s, I went to a (charitably) non-magnet private high school. The valedictorian of our high school class got into her first choice/reach school...UC-Davis. I was salutatorian. I knew I wasn't getting into Stanford (I applied anyway) not because of my grades or test scores, but when I first saw the application and realized, for the first time, how phenomenally unprepared I was. My school didn't have AP classes or honors classes, or frankly, even challenging classes or decent teachers. In the entire history of the school (22 years), only one student got into Stanford. Happily, the miserable high school closed down in 1986.

It's a different world today. The stakes are so brobdingnagian. High school kids work incredibly hard. Kids who finish second get steak knives, so to speak. The pressure is boiler room-level. It's hard to get into the UC's and the top CSU's. My neighbor has two daughters, one goes to a JC, one goes to Hawaii.

RE: "The War at Stanford" - martyup - 09-15-2024

I attended Los Olivos (Calif) grammar school. That's the little town made famous by the movie Sideways and the closest town to Michael Jackson's former Neverland Ranch. We had 8 kids in our 8th grade class and three of us ended up being accepted into Stanford in 1979. What are the odds of that?

I credit Principal Gates Foss for this result. Not only was he the Principal, but he also taught math. When we were in 6th grade, he recognized that the three of us had the ability to learn rapidly. He accelerated our math curriculum so we could finish 8th grade math by the end of our 7th grade year. Then he arranged with Santa Ynez Valley High School for us to take Algebra 1 while in the 8th grade. To get to the high school, which was about 10 miles away, we rode the early afternoon kindergarten bus that dropped us off in time to make the last period.

Chip Kuns and I graduated from Santa Ynez HS, and he ended up walking on and playing football at Stanford. I participated on the Stanford wrestling team under coach Chris Horpel. Sharon Thompson attended Dunn High School and ended up passing on Stanford and attending Clairmont. This was a surprise since her brother David Thompson was a member of Stanford's 1978 National Championship water polo team.

RE: "The War at Stanford" - 82lsju - 09-15-2024

I think admissions has also had a great deal of randomness.

There are two people from my high school in the suburbs of Cincinnati to attend Stanford, both Stanford class of '82. We had no AP classes, but did have calculus and two years of chemistry and one of physics. We both applied for admission in Sept 1978, only one was accepted (not me). I told John to do well and I'd transfer the next year, he did and I did (although I did not get the good news until Aug 1979).

RE: "The War at Stanford" - martyup - 09-15-2024

(09-15-2024, 08:22 PM)82lsju Wrote: I think admissions has also had a great deal of randomness.

There are two people from my high school in the suburbs of Cincinnati to attend Stanford, both Stanford class of '82. We had no AP classes, but did have calculus and two years of chemistry and one of physics. We both applied for admission in Sept 1978, only one was accepted (not me). I told John to do well and I'd transfer the next year, he did and I did (although I did not get the good news until Aug 1979).

When I got to Stanford and heard people talking about AP credits I asked "What are AP credits?" I had never heard of them. My HS guidance counselor tried to discourage me from applying to Stanford, Berkeley, and Princeton. She said it was a waste of time, even though I had a 3.9 GPA (stinking French) and a high SAT score.

RE: "The War at Stanford" - 2006alum - 09-15-2024

Here's the thing that has become a little befuddling for me: I've taught both undergrads and graduate students at multiple top 10 universities, and on the whole, I've been pretty unimpressed by the average student's writing, reasoning, effort, and work ethic. I've taught kids at top Ivies that I wouldn't hire to draft my Christmas letter. Do they just phone it in once they get the big envelope? Am I just too harsh? I have interacted with a ton of my parents friends in their 60s-80s who went to completely "average" schools in their day and whom I'd be infinitely more trusting to execute on something that matters to me...

RE: "The War at Stanford" - TrumpCard - 09-15-2024

(09-15-2024, 09:55 PM)2006alum Wrote: Here's the thing that has become a little befuddling for me: I've taught both undergrads and graduate students at multiple top 10 universities, and on the whole, I've been pretty unimpressed by the average student's writing, reasoning, effort, and work ethic. I've taught kids at top Ivies that I wouldn't hire to draft my Christmas letter. Do they just phone it in once they get the big envelope? Am I just too harsh? I have interacted with a ton of my parents friends in their 60s-80s who went to completely "average" schools in their day and whom I'd be infinitely more trusting to execute on something that matters to me...

College kids are . . . kids.
A person's brain doesn't fully mature until age ~25.
Few of these *kids* have ever made their own rules until they hit college.
Plus, as I read your post, you're talking about the "average" student at elite schools.
The average kid is not the one who attended Phillips Academy.
These days, elite schools are shooting to maximize their population of first generation college students.
So, yeah, you're a little harsh on these kids.
When they graduate, the top 20% will be well-suited to a grunt job in investment banking or management consulting.
Even those kids get kicked out of their firms in 2-3 years as a matter of course because they need more education before advancing.
The same scenario plays out routinely for pre-law students.
Those kids know nothing when they graduate college, and barely anything when they graduate law school.
Many graduates from elite law schools last only a few years at a big firm, never getting out of document review or other grunt work.
The people who succeed in these highly competitive professions have a lot going for them beyond what's necessary for college admission.
I'm assuming the same is true in the sciences, though I don't know those career tracks as well as I know the fuzzy career tracks.
All that leads me back to your comparison between your 18-25 year old students and your parents friends.
Since you went to Stanford, I'm guessing your parents are successful professionals and that their friends are too.
I'd always take a successful 60+ year old professional with 40+ years of work experience over an average student at any college.
It's a totally unfair comparison. Give the kids 40 years, or even 10, and some of them will start to measure up.

Mudhead - Mudhead - 09-15-2024

(09-15-2024, 08:22 PM)82lsju Wrote: I think admissions has also had a great deal of randomness.

There are two people from my high school in the suburbs of Cincinnati to attend Stanford, both Stanford class of '82. We had no AP classes, but did have calculus and two years of chemistry and one of physics. We both applied for admission in Sept 1978, only one was accepted (not me). I told John to do well and I'd transfer the next year, he did and I did (although I did not get the good news until Aug 1979).

Agree completely regarding randomness. Two of our sons applied to Stanford. The one who, in my opinion was less qualified, got in. The second was wait listed but not admitted . Apparently , admission depended a great deal on class mix.,geography, interests, special skills. So much so that a student admitted in year one might be turned down in year two . That’s not to say the process is unfair or biased (it may be but that is another question) just to say there is a degree of chance.

Does anyone else find it ironic and slightly concerning that just about the time minority graduates with children of admission age are becoming a significant % of the total, there is a push to do away with any credit for being a legacy? Again, I don’t have enough data to even hint at a cause and effect .

RE: "The War at Stanford" - fullmetal - 09-20-2024

The anti-legacy push has largely come from outside the institutions. I think selective universities with smaller class sizes understand the importance of legacy admits and family donations that go with school spirit. They wouldn't turn off that spigot if they had a chance.

RE: Mudhead - OCcardinal - 09-20-2024

(09-15-2024, 11:58 PM)Mudhead Wrote: Does anyone else find it ironic and slightly concerning that just about the time minority graduates with children of admission age are becoming a significant % of the total, there is a push to do away with any credit for being a legacy? Again, I don’t have enough data to even hint at a cause and effect .

I had this exact thought, but hadn't seen anyone raise it until now. I, like you, am frustrated by the lack of data on legacy admissions. I think it's impossible to reach any clear cut conclusions based on information that is publicly available.

Stanford and other California colleges are required by law to report the % of enrolled students that are legacies. But the bare percentage of legacies doesn't tell us the really pertinent info, such as:

1) How many legacies applied, what was their actual admit rate, and what was their yield rate?
2) What percentage of legacy admits were overtly given a legacy advantage in admission decisions? Clearly someone like Christian McCaffrey wasn't admitted based on legacy status. I'm sure many non-athlete legacies are uniquely exceptional in their own way too. Given their parents' background in higher education (and elite athletics or other activities that are generally attractive to top universities) legacy kids on the whole have tons of advantages. Far more legacies get rejected than admitted, but the odds of one of Ed and Lisa's kids getting admitted surely was always going to be higher than for the general population, legacy or no.
3) What exactly is the profile of the applicants who were edged out of an admission spot due to that legacy preference (was it mostly private school kids or actually applicants from more disadvantaged backgrounds)?

I've seen people assume (or try to indirectly determine) answers to the above, but no direct verification. The colleges know the answers to those questions, but I've never seen them share it (either voluntarily or involuntarily).

RE: "The War at Stanford" - JJJ - 09-20-2024

I have heard many minority alumni voice this complaint recently…”now that it’s finally *our* time to reap the benefits of legacy admissions, you want to take it away?!?!”
I sympathize with them.

N.B. I had previously read that legacies were admitted at about twice the rate of non-legacies. So instead of 4%, it would be 8%. Even then, 9 of 10 legacy parents are left unhappy.

RE: "The War at Stanford" - chrisk - 09-20-2024

(09-15-2024, 09:55 PM)2006alum Wrote: Here's the thing that has become a little befuddling for me: I've taught both undergrads and graduate students at multiple top 10 universities, and on the whole, I've been pretty unimpressed by the average student's writing, reasoning, effort, and work ethic. I've taught kids at top Ivies that I wouldn't hire to draft my Christmas letter. Do they just phone it in once they get the big envelope? Am I just too harsh? I have interacted with a ton of my parents friends in their 60s-80s who went to completely "average" schools in their day and whom I'd be infinitely more trusting to execute on something that matters to me...

I have to think that the decline in writing is connected to the rise of phones and social media. Social media is a cesspool of bad writing.

RE: "The War at Stanford" - fullmetal - 09-21-2024

I think kids are reading less prose and losing exposure to good style and eloquence. The internet doesn't incentivize for publishing quality writing.

RE: "The War at Stanford" - TrumpCard - 09-21-2024

ebooks are a wonderful thing. All the prose in the world right at your fingertips.

RE: "The War at Stanford" - 82lsju - 09-21-2024

(09-20-2024, 05:28 PM)chrisk Wrote:
(09-15-2024, 09:55 PM)2006alum Wrote: Here's the thing that has become a little befuddling for me: I've taught both undergrads and graduate students at multiple top 10 universities, and on the whole, I've been pretty unimpressed by the average student's writing, reasoning, effort, and work ethic. I've taught kids at top Ivies that I wouldn't hire to draft my Christmas letter. Do they just phone it in once they get the big envelope? Am I just too harsh? I have interacted with a ton of my parents friends in their 60s-80s who went to completely "average" schools in their day and whom I'd be infinitely more trusting to execute on something that matters to me...
I have to think that the decline in writing is connected to the rise of phones and social media. Social media is a cesspool of bad writing.

and the use of powerpoint (and other similar apps) as a major communication tool at many companies does not help....

RE: "The War at Stanford" - qwerty49 - 09-21-2024

(09-21-2024, 09:23 AM)82lsju Wrote:
(09-20-2024, 05:28 PM)chrisk Wrote:
(09-15-2024, 09:55 PM)2006alum Wrote: Here's the thing that has become a little befuddling for me: I've taught both undergrads and graduate students at multiple top 10 universities, and on the whole, I've been pretty unimpressed by the average student's writing, reasoning, effort, and work ethic. I've taught kids at top Ivies that I wouldn't hire to draft my Christmas letter. Do they just phone it in once they get the big envelope? Am I just too harsh? I have interacted with a ton of my parents friends in their 60s-80s who went to completely "average" schools in their day and whom I'd be infinitely more trusting to execute on something that matters to me...
I have to think that the decline in writing is connected to the rise of phones and social media. Social media is a cesspool of bad writing.

and the use of powerpoint (and other similar apps) as a major communication tool at many companies does not help....

Agree on quality of written expression. Definitely not what it used to be, and a lost art indeed.

BUT Powerpoint is an important and effective communication tool. Those who use it well know how to condense a complicated argument into very succinct discussion points -- and presenting the presentation live (or these days, online) is every bit as important a communications skill.

Save the joys of reading great prose for leisure or detailed expression for reference textbooks. But face reality -- Horses for Courses -- when you are tasked with communicating for business, influencing opinions, or, especially, eliciting actions or decisions, it's a multimedia world, whether we like it or not. And learning how to use these tools, whether they be Powerpoint or web platforms, is a very important skill. And yes, our universe firmly includes sound bites, Tik Tok clips, and other systems that tap into everyone's inner ADHD.

And I say this as an alumnus of both Stanford's Creative Writing Program and its Business School.

RE: "The War at Stanford" - fullmetal - 09-21-2024

"The medium is the message."

"Keep the main thing, the main thing."

"Show, don't tell."

and my favorite...

"More signal, less noise."

RE: "The War at Stanford" - BostonCard - 09-21-2024

Agree with qwerty, but I suspect the person complaining about PowerPoint is complaining about how it is used. Just like prose can be well-written (rare, but great when you see it) or a literary disaster, PowerPoint is a communication tool, not an end in itself. Way too often, corporate presentations are a disorganized disaster, and when not used properly, PowerPoint can contribute to that. But if you have ever seen an engaging speaker ((rare, but great when you do see it), you realize that a well-put together talk can actually be great.

BC