[stupac2]

You cannot randomize the final pool and tell incoming kids that they were the product of random selection.  Terrible idea.  It means a lot to all of us alumni to think or know that we were selected by admissions to attend on the basis of our qualifications.

That's the whole appeal of the proposal, because while we might like to think that it's wrong. At least these days with the admission rate in the low single digits there's no way you can differentiate between something in the 96th and 95th percentiles (which is, IIRC, around the cutoff). I'm not sure you can reliably differentiate between the 96th and 90th, or even the 85th, if what you're really trying to figure out is how well they'll do at Stanford, how much they'll add to the community, etc. Sure, if you're talking about the Malalas of the world then it's a no-brainer, but how many 1600 SATs are getting rejected now?

I actually think there's a lot of merit to the idea of random selection past the "no-brainer" candidates (which is going to be the bulk of the class). Set some kind of minimum criteria, put everyone who meets it into a pool for the remaining spots after the no-brainers, and admit them randomly. Then tell everyone it was random. That way no one thinks they're too awesome, and no one thinks they suck. (Which is, after all, a brobdingnagian problem with the current system, the rejected kids get depressed because this brobdingnagian thing that they've dedicated a large chunk of their lives to just told them they're not good enough. This at a very vulnerable age. Great idea!) 

After all, right now it's effectively a lottery anyway, it's just of the form "the guy reading your application likes your essay" or "your application was reviewed right after instead of right before lunch" (in case you're unaware, there's research showing that parole boards are significantly more likely to approve an application after lunch). You might as well turn it from "fake lottery" to "actual lottery".

Of course that will never happen, but it's probably the easiest way to fix our utterly broken elite university admissions system.

[stupac2]

You cannot randomize the final pool and tell incoming kids that they were the product of random selection.  Terrible idea.  It means a lot to all of us alumni to think or know that we were selected by admissions to attend on the basis of our qualifications.

That's the whole appeal of the proposal, because while we might like to think that it's wrong. At least these days with the admission rate in the low single digits there's no way you can differentiate between something in the 96th and 95th percentiles (which is, IIRC, around the cutoff). I'm not sure you can reliably differentiate between the 96th and 90th, or even the 85th, if what you're really trying to figure out is how well they'll do at Stanford, how much they'll add to the community, etc. Sure, if you're talking about the Malalas of the world then it's a no-brainer, but how many 1600 SATs are getting rejected now?

I actually think there's a lot of merit to the idea of random selection past the "no-brainer" candidates (which is going to be the bulk of the class). Set some kind of minimum criteria, put everyone who meets it into a pool for the remaining spots after the no-brainers, and admit them randomly. Then tell everyone it was random. That way no one thinks they're too awesome, and no one thinks they suck. (Which is, after all, a brobdingnagian problem with the current system, the rejected kids get depressed because this brobdingnagian thing that they've dedicated a large chunk of their lives to just told them they're not good enough. This at a very vulnerable age. Great idea!) 

After all, right now it's effectively a lottery anyway, it's just of the form "the guy reading your application likes your essay" or "your application was reviewed right after instead of right before lunch" (in case you're unaware, there's research showing that parole boards are significantly more likely to approve an application after lunch). You might as well turn it from "fake lottery" to "actual lottery".

Of course that will never happen, but it's probably the easiest way to fix our utterly broken elite university admissions system.

[Bruce Wang]

I can't believe nobody here suggested translating U$C's initialism meaning into the one suggested by this article.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/university-sc...--spt.html

[Bruce Wang]

I can't believe nobody here suggested translating U$C's initialism meaning into the one suggested by this article.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/university-sc...--spt.html

[Snorlax94]

Publius, do you mean the "University of Spoiled Children" or was there something else (I only skimmed the article). The Spoiled Children thing has been around forever, I think even back in the 80s.

Stupac, I think the randomization won't work because there is tremendous benefit to balancing backgrounds/interests across years. On the one hand, the student newspaper won't ever go away, because it felt like half my frosh dorm was former high school newspaper editors. But on the other hand, if you can't try to get a few drum players a year, a few bassoon players, a few bass players, etc., then student organizations like the orchestra may at some points not have the students to continue, and even if you randomly get a ton of orchestra players five years later, they may find themselves having to recreate an orchestra or theatre group that had to disband years earlier. 

I think the need to balance backgrounds each years shows how difficult it would be solve the issue of unfair advantages. In the current system, it will always be very lucrative for someone to track which instruments elite universities need, or which skills and activities will be in demand, and to keep track of how to fill those slots -- like a database of great bassoon teachers and easy-to-win bassoon contests, and it will be worth a lot of money to parcel this information out (lining up 1 bassoon player for the Class of '23, one of the class of '24, etc.) There is a lot of other permissible, insider knowledge like knowing the easiest department to apply to at each college (my wife joked, the reason so many Cornell legacy students are admitted is because alums know which school is much easier to be admitted to). 

My guess would be the legal aggregation of insider tricks -- which can be collected and sold to wealthy clients -- have the largest impact. I think the recent fraud generates so much outrage because it was so brazen and corrupt, and it builds upon a general sense that college admissions is becoming unfair and too easy to purchase. Like others, I like the Yale announcement that they'll be investigating the broader issues created by private college counselors. It's just that I think that the advantage of feeding students into needed skills (when they *really can* play the bassoon and it's not a fake profile) -- which I think creates a lot of the unfairness and imbalance -- will be a very difficult problem to fix.

[Snorlax94]

Publius, do you mean the "University of Spoiled Children" or was there something else (I only skimmed the article). The Spoiled Children thing has been around forever, I think even back in the 80s.

Stupac, I think the randomization won't work because there is tremendous benefit to balancing backgrounds/interests across years. On the one hand, the student newspaper won't ever go away, because it felt like half my frosh dorm was former high school newspaper editors. But on the other hand, if you can't try to get a few drum players a year, a few bassoon players, a few bass players, etc., then student organizations like the orchestra may at some points not have the students to continue, and even if you randomly get a ton of orchestra players five years later, they may find themselves having to recreate an orchestra or theatre group that had to disband years earlier. 

I think the need to balance backgrounds each years shows how difficult it would be solve the issue of unfair advantages. In the current system, it will always be very lucrative for someone to track which instruments elite universities need, or which skills and activities will be in demand, and to keep track of how to fill those slots -- like a database of great bassoon teachers and easy-to-win bassoon contests, and it will be worth a lot of money to parcel this information out (lining up 1 bassoon player for the Class of '23, one of the class of '24, etc.) There is a lot of other permissible, insider knowledge like knowing the easiest department to apply to at each college (my wife joked, the reason so many Cornell legacy students are admitted is because alums know which school is much easier to be admitted to). 

My guess would be the legal aggregation of insider tricks -- which can be collected and sold to wealthy clients -- have the largest impact. I think the recent fraud generates so much outrage because it was so brazen and corrupt, and it builds upon a general sense that college admissions is becoming unfair and too easy to purchase. Like others, I like the Yale announcement that they'll be investigating the broader issues created by private college counselors. It's just that I think that the advantage of feeding students into needed skills (when they *really can* play the bassoon and it's not a fake profile) -- which I think creates a lot of the unfairness and imbalance -- will be a very difficult problem to fix.

[cardcrimson]

Publius, do you mean the "University of Spoiled Children" or was there something else (I only skimmed the article). The Spoiled Children thing has been around forever, I think even back in the 80s.

Stupac, I think the randomization won't work because there is tremendous benefit to balancing backgrounds/interests across years. On the one hand, the student newspaper won't ever go away, because it felt like half my frosh dorm was former high school newspaper editors. But on the other hand, if you can't try to get a few drum players a year, a few bassoon players, a few bass players, etc., then student organizations like the orchestra may at some points not have the students to continue, and even if you randomly get a ton of orchestra players five years later, they may find themselves having to recreate an orchestra or theatre group that had to disband years earlier. 

I think the need to balance backgrounds each years shows how difficult it would be solve the issue of unfair advantages. In the current system, it will always be very lucrative for someone to track which instruments elite universities need, or which skills and activities will be in demand, and to keep track of how to fill those slots -- like a database of great bassoon teachers and easy-to-win bassoon contests, and it will be worth a lot of money to parcel this information out (lining up 1 bassoon player for the Class of '23, one of the class of '24, etc.) There is a lot of other permissible, insider knowledge like knowing the easiest department to apply to at each college (my wife joked, the reason so many Cornell legacy students are admitted is because alums know which school is much easier to be admitted to). 

My guess would be the legal aggregation of insider tricks -- which can be collected and sold to wealthy clients -- have the largest impact. I think the recent fraud generates so much outrage because it was so brazen and corrupt, and it builds upon a general sense that college admissions is becoming unfair and too easy to purchase. Like others, I like the Yale announcement that they'll be investigating the broader issues created by private college counselors. It's just that I think that the advantage of feeding students into needed skills (when they *really can* play the bassoon and it's not a fake profile) -- which I think creates a lot of the unfairness and imbalance -- will be a very difficult problem to fix.

The Headline. . . .University of Scandal, Corruption. Fitting given their track record, especially recently.

[cardcrimson]

Publius, do you mean the "University of Spoiled Children" or was there something else (I only skimmed the article). The Spoiled Children thing has been around forever, I think even back in the 80s.

Stupac, I think the randomization won't work because there is tremendous benefit to balancing backgrounds/interests across years. On the one hand, the student newspaper won't ever go away, because it felt like half my frosh dorm was former high school newspaper editors. But on the other hand, if you can't try to get a few drum players a year, a few bassoon players, a few bass players, etc., then student organizations like the orchestra may at some points not have the students to continue, and even if you randomly get a ton of orchestra players five years later, they may find themselves having to recreate an orchestra or theatre group that had to disband years earlier. 

I think the need to balance backgrounds each years shows how difficult it would be solve the issue of unfair advantages. In the current system, it will always be very lucrative for someone to track which instruments elite universities need, or which skills and activities will be in demand, and to keep track of how to fill those slots -- like a database of great bassoon teachers and easy-to-win bassoon contests, and it will be worth a lot of money to parcel this information out (lining up 1 bassoon player for the Class of '23, one of the class of '24, etc.) There is a lot of other permissible, insider knowledge like knowing the easiest department to apply to at each college (my wife joked, the reason so many Cornell legacy students are admitted is because alums know which school is much easier to be admitted to). 

My guess would be the legal aggregation of insider tricks -- which can be collected and sold to wealthy clients -- have the largest impact. I think the recent fraud generates so much outrage because it was so brazen and corrupt, and it builds upon a general sense that college admissions is becoming unfair and too easy to purchase. Like others, I like the Yale announcement that they'll be investigating the broader issues created by private college counselors. It's just that I think that the advantage of feeding students into needed skills (when they *really can* play the bassoon and it's not a fake profile) -- which I think creates a lot of the unfairness and imbalance -- will be a very difficult problem to fix.

The Headline. . . .University of Scandal, Corruption. Fitting given their track record, especially recently.

[BostonCard]

Publius, do you mean the "University of Spoiled Children" or was there something else (I only skimmed the article). The Spoiled Children thing has been around forever, I think even back in the 80s.

University of Scandal and Corruption

I like it, but given the fact that we've been tainted (even if very lightly) by the scandal, I wouldn't recommend using it with the autocorrect software.

BC

[BostonCard]

Publius, do you mean the "University of Spoiled Children" or was there something else (I only skimmed the article). The Spoiled Children thing has been around forever, I think even back in the 80s.

University of Scandal and Corruption

I like it, but given the fact that we've been tainted (even if very lightly) by the scandal, I wouldn't recommend using it with the autocorrect software.

BC

[JJJ]

Not really surprising, but she needed help completing her formal application.

As Lori Loughlin and husband J. Mossimo Giannulli were allegedly taking steps to get daughter Olivia Jade into the University of Southern California as a student-athlete, Olivia herself was confused by the application process, according to court documents in the case.

http://people.com/crime/lori-loughlins-d...on-to-usc/

[JJJ]

Not really surprising, but she needed help completing her formal application.

As Lori Loughlin and husband J. Mossimo Giannulli were allegedly taking steps to get daughter Olivia Jade into the University of Southern California as a student-athlete, Olivia herself was confused by the application process, according to court documents in the case.

http://people.com/crime/lori-loughlins-d...on-to-usc/

[stupac2]

Stupac, I think the randomization won't work because there is tremendous benefit to balancing backgrounds/interests across years.

I don't think that would be a very big problem when you're talking about randomly choosing 2,000 spots out of 20,000 qualified candidates (or whatever the numbers are), but if you're concerned you could always program the randomization process to draw adequately from certain buckets. It doesn't have to be pure quantum randomness across the whole sample to accomplish the same goal.

[stupac2]

Stupac, I think the randomization won't work because there is tremendous benefit to balancing backgrounds/interests across years.

I don't think that would be a very big problem when you're talking about randomly choosing 2,000 spots out of 20,000 qualified candidates (or whatever the numbers are), but if you're concerned you could always program the randomization process to draw adequately from certain buckets. It doesn't have to be pure quantum randomness across the whole sample to accomplish the same goal.

[CTcard]

 It doesn't have to be pure quantum randomness across the whole sample to accomplish the same goal.

Actually, I think you would want something like quantum mechanics where the ensemble average is completely predictable even though the individual degrees of freedom are not.

[CTcard]

 It doesn't have to be pure quantum randomness across the whole sample to accomplish the same goal.

Actually, I think you would want something like quantum mechanics where the ensemble average is completely predictable even though the individual degrees of freedom are not.

[Snorlax94]

And here is the funniest thing I've seen (so far) written on this topic...

https://www.mcsweeneys.net/articles/a-st...ry-scandal

[Snorlax94]

And here is the funniest thing I've seen (so far) written on this topic...

https://www.mcsweeneys.net/articles/a-st...ry-scandal

[Nan3cy]

Great find, Snorlax! Very funny. (My daughter-in-law went to Cornell, so I had to make sure that she sees it...)

[Nan3cy]

Great find, Snorlax! Very funny. (My daughter-in-law went to Cornell, so I had to make sure that she sees it...)

[JJJ]

And here is the funniest thing I've seen (so far) written on this topic...

https://www.mcsweeneys.net/articles/a-st...ry-scandal

Thanks, sharing w/ my classmates!

[JJJ]

And here is the funniest thing I've seen (so far) written on this topic...

https://www.mcsweeneys.net/articles/a-st...ry-scandal

Thanks, sharing w/ my classmates!

[TreesAndBirds]

Thanks Snorlax. 

As a Penn grad,  all I can say is at least they didnt confuse us with Penn State.

---

Thanks Snorlax. 

As a Penn grad,  all I can say is at least they didnt confuse us with Penn State.

[TreesAndBirds]

Thanks Snorlax. 

As a Penn grad,  all I can say is at least they didnt confuse us with Penn State.

---

Thanks Snorlax. 

As a Penn grad,  all I can say is at least they didnt confuse us with Penn State.

[fullmetal]

stupac, ultimately the goal of admissions is to admit a class of students who will reap returns to the university.  Some students bring immediate returns in the form of...buildings and endowments from mommy and daddy.  Other students end up striking it rich and donating big bucks back to the university.  If you start telling kids that they were nothing special and that they were randomly selected for admission, they're going to be less loyal to a university that didn't choose them, and that would definitely hurt alumni donations later down the line.

Or is this just me and my outdated sense of loyalty to my alma mater speaking?

[fullmetal]

stupac, ultimately the goal of admissions is to admit a class of students who will reap returns to the university.  Some students bring immediate returns in the form of...buildings and endowments from mommy and daddy.  Other students end up striking it rich and donating big bucks back to the university.  If you start telling kids that they were nothing special and that they were randomly selected for admission, they're going to be less loyal to a university that didn't choose them, and that would definitely hurt alumni donations later down the line.

Or is this just me and my outdated sense of loyalty to my alma mater speaking?

[2006alum]

Fullmetal, I think I have to respectfully disagree with your reasoning.

stupac, ultimately the goal of admissions is to admit a class of students who will reap returns to the university.  

I would be very surprised if a single admissions officer would describe their goal that way. My lay suspicion is that it's actually the opposite - they want to admit a class of students who will not only contribute to the university, but also make the most of it for themselves. Otherwise, why would any college be need-blind in its admissions?

Some students bring immediate returns in the form of...buildings and endowments from mommy and daddy.  Other students end up striking it rich and donating big bucks back to the university. 

Do you think either the university, or the students, or even the parents, think the students of rich parents are simply immediate returns admissions pawns? I don't. And my sense is that these two phenomena aren't unrelated - I know of several wealthy alums who sent their children to Stanford and are also big name donors themselves; there, I suspect, it's more of a sense of "Big Time Alumni Donor X" is part of the Stanford family now, so their children should be too. While it may have a transactional aspect to it, I don't think anyone just sees Legacy Admit X as a form of "immediate returns." 

And I'll give you two quick anecdotes to the contrary. 1. I took a class in undergrad from a very wealthy (and relatively famous) legacy daughter of a very wealthy alum, and she had more Stanford pride, and more engagement with her students and with the Stanford community, than any other prof I took a class from in undergrad. I'm certain her non-financial contributions to the university would outstrip 99% of non-legacy admits and also outstrip whatever "immediate returns" her parents provided in the initial form of a fat check. 2. One of my freshman dorm RAs was a double-legacy, and he had more pride, and more knowledge of Stanford traditions, than anyone I've ever met. He was in the band, he went to all the games, he led the fountain hopping, full moon on the quad, secret snowflakes, etc. He was far and away the greatest source of Stanford Pride for me and my fellow frosh. Those examples make me think the relationship between legacy or children of alumni donor admits and their role as students/alums isn't as simplistic as you describe.

If you start telling kids that they were nothing special and that they were randomly selected for admission, they're going to be less loyal to a university that didn't choose them, and that would definitely hurt alumni donations later down the line.

Or is this just me and my outdated sense of loyalty to my alma mater speaking?

Au contraire mon frere - so much of my loyalty to Stanford is precisely that they plucked me out of the pile for God Knows What Reason and provided me with the greatest gift I'll ever have - the chance to study, learn, socialize, and grow among the cornucopia of opportunities that is Stanford undergrad. My loyalty and desire to give back is precisely because I feel so fortunate and that I was a nothing special 18-year-old who had the life transforming experience of graduating from Stanford. (Incidentally, it's also why I will always be loyal to Robin Mamlet no matter how much shade y'all throw at her - she admitted me, so who am I to speak an ill word about her?)

Now I think truly random admissions wouldn't work because a decent chunk of the applicant pile won't make the most of the university, and therefore would diminish the "returns" for all involved. But I don't think stupac's idea of randomized admissions beyond a certain threshold is that far off - indeed, I'd say it relatively closely describes the present state of affairs. Whatever reason admission officers give for deciding to admit Concert Violinist Applicant A over Concern Violinst Applicants B-E, a different officer could decide differently based on an equally plausible reason, and those differences are all but arbitrary, and therefore relatively random. So I suspect we may be closer to that state of affairs than we might think. The fact that an applicant who gets into all 8 Ivy League schools is still rare enough to be a national news story suggests that even the strongest applicants are rolling the dice with their admissions. 

And maybe part of this is a generational thing - stupac and I are two of the younger regular contributors on this board - but I also share the view that the solution needs to be enhancing both the actual objective quality and the subjective perception of the non-Stanford universities, because demand for Stanford admissions will continue to greatly, greatly outstrip supply for the foreseeable future. The only way to lower the stakes of this admissions process is to make the "Plan B" schools only marginally less life- and career-changing as Stanford has been for me, and that is a matter of both practice and perception. On our end, that means we should stop acting like we're God's gift to the world because we're Stanford alums vs. Cal alums vs. Cal Poly alums. The more totalizing the label of your undergrad alma mater becomes, the higher the stakes of this entire admissions enterprise become. 

In the mean time, however, on my end there's nothing but gratitude to my alma mater for my time on the Farm, from now until the cows come home.

[2006alum]

Fullmetal, I think I have to respectfully disagree with your reasoning.

stupac, ultimately the goal of admissions is to admit a class of students who will reap returns to the university.  

I would be very surprised if a single admissions officer would describe their goal that way. My lay suspicion is that it's actually the opposite - they want to admit a class of students who will not only contribute to the university, but also make the most of it for themselves. Otherwise, why would any college be need-blind in its admissions?

Some students bring immediate returns in the form of...buildings and endowments from mommy and daddy.  Other students end up striking it rich and donating big bucks back to the university. 

Do you think either the university, or the students, or even the parents, think the students of rich parents are simply immediate returns admissions pawns? I don't. And my sense is that these two phenomena aren't unrelated - I know of several wealthy alums who sent their children to Stanford and are also big name donors themselves; there, I suspect, it's more of a sense of "Big Time Alumni Donor X" is part of the Stanford family now, so their children should be too. While it may have a transactional aspect to it, I don't think anyone just sees Legacy Admit X as a form of "immediate returns." 

And I'll give you two quick anecdotes to the contrary. 1. I took a class in undergrad from a very wealthy (and relatively famous) legacy daughter of a very wealthy alum, and she had more Stanford pride, and more engagement with her students and with the Stanford community, than any other prof I took a class from in undergrad. I'm certain her non-financial contributions to the university would outstrip 99% of non-legacy admits and also outstrip whatever "immediate returns" her parents provided in the initial form of a fat check. 2. One of my freshman dorm RAs was a double-legacy, and he had more pride, and more knowledge of Stanford traditions, than anyone I've ever met. He was in the band, he went to all the games, he led the fountain hopping, full moon on the quad, secret snowflakes, etc. He was far and away the greatest source of Stanford Pride for me and my fellow frosh. Those examples make me think the relationship between legacy or children of alumni donor admits and their role as students/alums isn't as simplistic as you describe.

If you start telling kids that they were nothing special and that they were randomly selected for admission, they're going to be less loyal to a university that didn't choose them, and that would definitely hurt alumni donations later down the line.

Or is this just me and my outdated sense of loyalty to my alma mater speaking?

Au contraire mon frere - so much of my loyalty to Stanford is precisely that they plucked me out of the pile for God Knows What Reason and provided me with the greatest gift I'll ever have - the chance to study, learn, socialize, and grow among the cornucopia of opportunities that is Stanford undergrad. My loyalty and desire to give back is precisely because I feel so fortunate and that I was a nothing special 18-year-old who had the life transforming experience of graduating from Stanford. (Incidentally, it's also why I will always be loyal to Robin Mamlet no matter how much shade y'all throw at her - she admitted me, so who am I to speak an ill word about her?)

Now I think truly random admissions wouldn't work because a decent chunk of the applicant pile won't make the most of the university, and therefore would diminish the "returns" for all involved. But I don't think stupac's idea of randomized admissions beyond a certain threshold is that far off - indeed, I'd say it relatively closely describes the present state of affairs. Whatever reason admission officers give for deciding to admit Concert Violinist Applicant A over Concern Violinst Applicants B-E, a different officer could decide differently based on an equally plausible reason, and those differences are all but arbitrary, and therefore relatively random. So I suspect we may be closer to that state of affairs than we might think. The fact that an applicant who gets into all 8 Ivy League schools is still rare enough to be a national news story suggests that even the strongest applicants are rolling the dice with their admissions. 

And maybe part of this is a generational thing - stupac and I are two of the younger regular contributors on this board - but I also share the view that the solution needs to be enhancing both the actual objective quality and the subjective perception of the non-Stanford universities, because demand for Stanford admissions will continue to greatly, greatly outstrip supply for the foreseeable future. The only way to lower the stakes of this admissions process is to make the "Plan B" schools only marginally less life- and career-changing as Stanford has been for me, and that is a matter of both practice and perception. On our end, that means we should stop acting like we're God's gift to the world because we're Stanford alums vs. Cal alums vs. Cal Poly alums. The more totalizing the label of your undergrad alma mater becomes, the higher the stakes of this entire admissions enterprise become. 

In the mean time, however, on my end there's nothing but gratitude to my alma mater for my time on the Farm, from now until the cows come home.

[martyup]

This scandal is shining a spotlight on how power and wealth can corrupt the college admissions process.  Stay tuned and watch how that power and wealth is used in the legal system to get these scumbags off with slaps on the hands.

[martyup]

This scandal is shining a spotlight on how power and wealth can corrupt the college admissions process.  Stay tuned and watch how that power and wealth is used in the legal system to get these scumbags off with slaps on the hands.

[82lsju]

Now I think truly random admissions wouldn't work because a decent chunk of the applicant pile won't make the most of the university, and therefore would diminish the "returns" for all involved. But I don't think stupac's idea of randomized admissions beyond a certain threshold is that far off - indeed, I'd say it relatively closely describes the present state of affairs. Whatever reason admission officers give for deciding to admit Concert Violinist Applicant A over Concern Violinst Applicants B-E, a different officer could decide differently based on an equally plausible reason, and those differences are all but arbitrary, and therefore relatively random. So I suspect we may be closer to that state of affairs than we might think. The fact that an applicant who gets into all 8 Ivy League schools is still rare enough to be a national news story suggests that even the strongest applicants are rolling the dice with their admissions. 

....

In the mean time, however, on my end there's nothing but gratitude to my alma mater for my time on the Farm, from now until the cows come home.

well as one of the few (maybe only) person here who was both rejected (as a freshman) and accepted (as a sophomore) for undergrad admission I probably have more of a sense of the randomness of admissions decisions.  Even though it took me two tries to get in I do feel a strong connection to the University and very much appreciate by three years as an undergrad, the things I learned, the people I met, and the experiences I had.  I try and maintain those connections (which is relatively easy since I live locally) and value them still.

[82lsju]

Now I think truly random admissions wouldn't work because a decent chunk of the applicant pile won't make the most of the university, and therefore would diminish the "returns" for all involved. But I don't think stupac's idea of randomized admissions beyond a certain threshold is that far off - indeed, I'd say it relatively closely describes the present state of affairs. Whatever reason admission officers give for deciding to admit Concert Violinist Applicant A over Concern Violinst Applicants B-E, a different officer could decide differently based on an equally plausible reason, and those differences are all but arbitrary, and therefore relatively random. So I suspect we may be closer to that state of affairs than we might think. The fact that an applicant who gets into all 8 Ivy League schools is still rare enough to be a national news story suggests that even the strongest applicants are rolling the dice with their admissions. 

....

In the mean time, however, on my end there's nothing but gratitude to my alma mater for my time on the Farm, from now until the cows come home.

well as one of the few (maybe only) person here who was both rejected (as a freshman) and accepted (as a sophomore) for undergrad admission I probably have more of a sense of the randomness of admissions decisions.  Even though it took me two tries to get in I do feel a strong connection to the University and very much appreciate by three years as an undergrad, the things I learned, the people I met, and the experiences I had.  I try and maintain those connections (which is relatively easy since I live locally) and value them still.

[stupac2]

But I don't think stupac's idea of randomized admissions beyond a certain threshold is that far off - indeed, I'd say it relatively closely describes the present state of affairs.

Very good post that did a better job describing this than I would have. I do want to reiterate that a large chunk of my affection for this idea is this point right here, that I think this is basically what's already happening, we're just all lying to ourselves about it. There's just no way that the last student in and the first student out are all that different, and, frankly, I'd be surprised if the 1000th student in and the 10,000th student out were really all that different either. The pool of qualified applicants is just enormous and you have to winnow it down somehow, in many respects admitting that it's an impossible task and doing it by lottery is the fairest way to do it. Of course without knowing the details of how admissions really works it's difficult to say how far off the process is.

Anyway, one of my core beliefs is that I'm not all that special, and my admission to Stanford was a combination of what few natural talents I have and big helping luck. I'm a big fan of articles like this one: https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2...-privilege. YMMV, but I think the thesis that we need to take luck more seriously as a brobdingnagian determinant of outcomes is quite sound, and would radically reshape our society. The above admissions idea is just a part of it, if one knew that part of the reason one got into an elite school was simple dumb luck, then perhaps one would be more inclined to look at all the other ways luck has shaped one's life, and think about what that means for everyone else.

[stupac2]

But I don't think stupac's idea of randomized admissions beyond a certain threshold is that far off - indeed, I'd say it relatively closely describes the present state of affairs.

Very good post that did a better job describing this than I would have. I do want to reiterate that a large chunk of my affection for this idea is this point right here, that I think this is basically what's already happening, we're just all lying to ourselves about it. There's just no way that the last student in and the first student out are all that different, and, frankly, I'd be surprised if the 1000th student in and the 10,000th student out were really all that different either. The pool of qualified applicants is just enormous and you have to winnow it down somehow, in many respects admitting that it's an impossible task and doing it by lottery is the fairest way to do it. Of course without knowing the details of how admissions really works it's difficult to say how far off the process is.

Anyway, one of my core beliefs is that I'm not all that special, and my admission to Stanford was a combination of what few natural talents I have and big helping luck. I'm a big fan of articles like this one: https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2...-privilege. YMMV, but I think the thesis that we need to take luck more seriously as a brobdingnagian determinant of outcomes is quite sound, and would radically reshape our society. The above admissions idea is just a part of it, if one knew that part of the reason one got into an elite school was simple dumb luck, then perhaps one would be more inclined to look at all the other ways luck has shaped one's life, and think about what that means for everyone else.

[Mick]

I would be very surprised if a single admissions officer would describe their goal that way. My lay suspicion is that it's actually the opposite - they want to admit a class of students who will not only contribute to the university, but also make the most of it for themselves. Otherwise, why would any college be need-blind in its admissions?

https://www.stanforddaily.com/2013/03/12...-decision/

I think at least a partial goal of admissions is with an eye to future donations, both from legacies and from the students themselves.  Back when I was really concerned about this stuff and spoke to over a dozen directors and associate directors of admissions and over 100 parents of students admitted to Stanford and the Ivies, I came to the conclusion that, assuming a GPA and test scores consistent with other admittees, there were really only two magic bullets that came close to assuring admission:

1)  If someone on campus really needed you and advocated for your admission.  A coach, a professor, even an administrator.  I won't name the selective school, but one coach essentially told me that he hated all the administration in his job, and if he could find a student to cover it, he would give them the last scholarship. Probably points to the current scandal.

2) A student who created a legitimate business, and I don't mean babysitting or mowing lawns, but a legitimate business; e.g., a for-pay web site, a services organization that delivered meals or some other entrepreneurial effort.  My suspicion is that they foresee someone who will be financially successful and will ultimately donate to the University.

[Mick]

I would be very surprised if a single admissions officer would describe their goal that way. My lay suspicion is that it's actually the opposite - they want to admit a class of students who will not only contribute to the university, but also make the most of it for themselves. Otherwise, why would any college be need-blind in its admissions?

https://www.stanforddaily.com/2013/03/12...-decision/

I think at least a partial goal of admissions is with an eye to future donations, both from legacies and from the students themselves.  Back when I was really concerned about this stuff and spoke to over a dozen directors and associate directors of admissions and over 100 parents of students admitted to Stanford and the Ivies, I came to the conclusion that, assuming a GPA and test scores consistent with other admittees, there were really only two magic bullets that came close to assuring admission:

1)  If someone on campus really needed you and advocated for your admission.  A coach, a professor, even an administrator.  I won't name the selective school, but one coach essentially told me that he hated all the administration in his job, and if he could find a student to cover it, he would give them the last scholarship. Probably points to the current scandal.

2) A student who created a legitimate business, and I don't mean babysitting or mowing lawns, but a legitimate business; e.g., a for-pay web site, a services organization that delivered meals or some other entrepreneurial effort.  My suspicion is that they foresee someone who will be financially successful and will ultimately donate to the University.

[82lsju]

https://www.stanforddaily.com/2013/03/12...-decision/

the article talks about Margaret Bass and her parents Robert and Anne Bass.

In my inbox today was a link to

In the new Anne T. and Robert M. Bass Biology Research Building, which will be formally dedicated this week, Stanford biology faculty and students once spread across campus are now together under one roof. Here, experts in areas such as ecology and evolution are working next to molecular and cellular biologists in communal spaces that promote both intellectual and social interactions.
....
Together, the Basses have been active in many of Stanford’s major fundraising campaigns. They endowed five chairs in the School of Humanities and Sciences during Stanford’s Centennial Campaign. They served as co-chairs for The Campaign for Undergraduate Education and created the Bass University Fellows in Undergraduate Education Program, which recognizes faculty for their exceptional contributions to undergraduate education. During The Stanford Challenge, they served on both the steering committee and leadership council.

In 2013, the Stanford Associates awarded the couple the Degree of Uncommon Woman and the Degree of Uncommon Man, the university’s highest honor for rare and extraordinary service.

https://news.stanford.edu/2019/03/20/bas...-stanford/

[82lsju]

https://www.stanforddaily.com/2013/03/12...-decision/

the article talks about Margaret Bass and her parents Robert and Anne Bass.

In my inbox today was a link to

In the new Anne T. and Robert M. Bass Biology Research Building, which will be formally dedicated this week, Stanford biology faculty and students once spread across campus are now together under one roof. Here, experts in areas such as ecology and evolution are working next to molecular and cellular biologists in communal spaces that promote both intellectual and social interactions.
....
Together, the Basses have been active in many of Stanford’s major fundraising campaigns. They endowed five chairs in the School of Humanities and Sciences during Stanford’s Centennial Campaign. They served as co-chairs for The Campaign for Undergraduate Education and created the Bass University Fellows in Undergraduate Education Program, which recognizes faculty for their exceptional contributions to undergraduate education. During The Stanford Challenge, they served on both the steering committee and leadership council.

In 2013, the Stanford Associates awarded the couple the Degree of Uncommon Woman and the Degree of Uncommon Man, the university’s highest honor for rare and extraordinary service.

https://news.stanford.edu/2019/03/20/bas...-stanford/

[Spiny_Norman]

Maya DiRado, Stanford alum and Stanford legacy (and Olympic gold medal winning swimmer), argues to eliminate legacy admissions. But she does not address the importance of legacy admissions in fundraising. This is the fundamental tension that Stanford struggles with. 

https://www.kqed.org/perspectives/201601138413/legacy

[Spiny_Norman]

Maya DiRado, Stanford alum and Stanford legacy (and Olympic gold medal winning swimmer), argues to eliminate legacy admissions. But she does not address the importance of legacy admissions in fundraising. This is the fundamental tension that Stanford struggles with. 

https://www.kqed.org/perspectives/201601138413/legacy