Debating Legacy Admissions at Yale, and Elsewhere

[Bostonian]

http://thechoice.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/04/29/legacy-2/

New York Times

April 29, 2011, 8:14 am

Debating Legacy Admissions at Yale, and Elsewhere

By JENNY ANDERSON

 

True or false: Admitting legacies to colleges and universities is, a) unconstitutional b) unethical c) smart business practice or d) legitimate, since legacies perform better at certain elite institutions?

The answer — at least according to a panel discussion about legacy preferences in college admissions convened at New York University Thursday morning — is actually e) all of the above.

Jeffrey B. Brenzel, dean of undergraduate admissions at Yale University made the case that legacy preference at Yale College is diminishing and what remains is grounded in financial reality. Richard D. Kahlenberg, a senior fellow at the Century Foundation and Daniel Golden, an editor at large at Bloomberg who wrote “The Price of Admission: How America’s Ruling Class Buys its Way into Elite Colleges — and Who Gets Left Outside the Gates†argued that the practice of giving advantages to alumni is both widespread and harmful.

Mr. Kahlenberg, citing research from his book “Affirmative Action for the Rich: Legacy Preferences in College Admissions†made the case that getting into good schools matters — 12 institutions making up less than 1 percent of the U.S. population produced 42 percent of government leaders and 54 percent of corporate leaders.

 

And being a legacy helps improve an applicant’s chances of getting in, with one study finding that being a primary legacy — the son or daughter of an undergraduate alum — increases one’s chance of admission by 45.1 percent.

Mr. Brenzel argued that Mr. Kahlenberg’s data was too broad. At Yale, legacies make up about 10 percent of the 2010-11 undergraduate class compared to 31.4 percent in 1939, he said.

“We turn away 80 percent of our legacies and we feel it every day,†Mr. Brenzel said, adding that he rejected more offspring of the school’s Sterling donors than he took this year (Sterling donors are among the most generous contributors to Yale). He argued that legacies scored 20 points higher on the SAT than the rest of the class as a whole.

Mr. Golden contested this figure, pointing out that the figure for the class as a whole was skewed by other preferences, including those for athletes and underrepresented minorities.

Mr. Brenzel made the case that low-income students represent an increasing size of Yale’s undergraduate class, even though they have less of a track record of success at the university. About 14 percent of the incoming class is supported by Pell Grant students, he said, saying that with respect to preferences, “the trend is down for legacy and up for underrepresented minorities.â€

 

<rest of article at link>

 

It's interesting that legacies scored 20 points higher than the rest of the class.

[Kareni]

It's interesting that legacies scored 20 points higher than the rest of the class.

 

I haven't had a chance to read the article yet, but your statement left me wondering. Is it that the 'accepted' legacies scored 20 points higher than the rest of the class? or that the average score of all the legacies who applied is 20 points higher?

 

Regards,

Kareni

[regentrude]

I do not really find it surprising that children of alumni of an elite school should score significantly better on a standardized test. There should be two factors contributing towards this effect:

first, in order to get in, the parent had to be pretty smart - so the children would statistically be, too.

Second, with an Ivy education the parents should be in a socioeconomic strata where their children receive a very good education - no failing inner city schools for them.

With these factors, I would be surprised if the kids' performance was not clearly higher than the class average, especially if the school uses affirmative action to admit underrepresented groups with lower performance.

[Ester Maria]

Let us call things their real names: accepting students on the grounds of legacy is institutionalized nepotism.

 

The real question is, who has a right to that kind of nepotism and whether you can "prescribe" to private institutions what should be their "purpose" (to educate those with the best academic scores? to educate a diverse sample of population? etc.), i.e. on which grounds they should accept students in the first place.

 

Personally, I am with those who consider that academic institutions should stick to academics and use academic scores, achievement or entrance exams as the only criteria for acceptance among those who can pay, and among those who will receive aid, they should also be accepted from the academically best in that category. Even it if means that 90% of the students will be "legacy". And even if it means that 0% will be. And even if it means that certain groups will be over- or underrepresented.

 

Of course, all of that ultimately means nothing because we speak of private institutions which can set up their criteria as they see fit, but that is my view. Legacy preferences, scholarships based on sports, taking into account one's volunteering experience... are all nonsense in my view. Academic institutions should stick to academics alone and deal exclusively with that aspect when admitting students.

[Bostonian]

Of course, all of that ultimately means nothing because we speak of private institutions which can set up their criteria as they see fit, but that is my view. Legacy preferences, scholarships based on sports, taking into account one's volunteering experience... are all nonsense in my view. Academic institutions should stick to academics alone and deal exclusively with that aspect when admitting students.

 

Colleges want students who will create a better campus environment and who will contribute more to society after they graduate. I think it is reasonable to give SOME weight to non-academic criteria such as sports, music, and volunteer work. If two applicants were the same except that one had an SAT of 2110 and nothing else and another had an SAT of 2100 and significant accomplishments in many other areas, I would prefer the 2100 SAT applicant.

 

Often, universities use "holistic" admissions just as a backhanded way to give racial preferences. That I object to.

[Ester Maria]

Colleges want students who will create a better campus environment and who will contribute more to society after they graduate. I think it is reasonable to give SOME weight to non-academic criteria such as sports, music, and volunteer work. If two applicants were the same except that one had an SAT of 2110 and nothing else and another had an SAT of 2100 and significant accomplishments in many other areas, I would prefer the 2100 SAT applicant.

Good point. I would probably opt for the same applicant in that particular case.

 

However, in my view, colleges do tend to overemphasize "well-rounded student", to the point that getting in becomes a sort of "lottery", rather than search for the best applicants. I am also not sure whether campus environment or contributions to the society should be any acceptance criteria here - I would personally look into educating the best (by admission exams, previous academic record, additional academic accomplishments such as national and international olympiads in various school subjects, or additional accomplishments of that type), while trying to be socioeconomically sensitive with regards to how much those best should pay.

 

I find sports scholarships and stuff like that a travesty, something which should not be happening in academic institutions. An extra "point" (almost literally, not extra number of points), maybe, but acceptance which is largely based on those grounds (or legacy, or volunteering, or whatnot), no.

Maybe I am just too rigid :tongue_smilie:, but I feel extremely strongly about this issue and I really believe we are doing a huge disservice to everyone involved if we accept kids on anything other than academic grounds, as it lowers the quality of studies, closes doors to better applicants without connections or minority status or sports, etc.

 

But again, as those are private institutions, they can define their "purpose" (or not define it) differently and find value in not accepting exclusively those that are academically the best and with the best academic background for the programs they offer.

[Joan in GE]

There should be two factors contributing towards this effect:

first, in order to get in, the parent had to be pretty smart - so the children would statistically be, too.

Second, with an Ivy education the parents should be in a socioeconomic strata where their children receive a very good education - no failing inner city schools for them.

 

I would add the 3rd of the "culture of education" in the home...dinner table discussions, what they do in their free time, books encouraged, what they do on a vacation, guests that pass through, family network which leads to more diverse social experiences, etc, even if they don't have the monetary resources....

 

And I certainly have to agree with EM about the travesty of the elevation of sports, which also encourages "us/them" thinking, as well as the problems of the "well-rounded" student model which promotes a "perfect person" mentality.

 

Joan

[flyingiguana]

[quote name=Bostonian;2673063

Mr. Kahlenberg' date=' citing research from his book “Affirmative Action for the Rich: Legacy Preferences in College Admissions†made the case that getting into good schools matters — 12 institutions making up less than 1 percent of the U.S. population produced 42 percent of government leaders and 54 percent of corporate leaders.

 

 

But was this something these schools did?

 

Or was it because these people were more motivated to get into politics to begin with and that's why they chose these schools?

 

Or because they had connections through their families already and they would have got into politics through those connections whether or not they went to these schools?

 

The Ivy Leagues like to take credit for their alumni, but it may not be anything that happens doing the college years that makes many of those alumni amazing. They may have got in in the first place because they looked like they would make good alumni. And many of the legacy admits already have their connections in place.

 

Do the rich and well connected even connect all that much with the "lower" classes that attend? If they did, I'd expect to hear of more rags to riches marriages coming out of those places. I don't hear of that sort of thing, although I must admit that I'm not paying that much attention.

[In The Great White North]

Mr. Kahlenberg, citing research from his book “Affirmative Action for the Rich: Legacy Preferences in College Admissions†made the case that getting into good schools matters — 12 institutions making up less than 1 percent of the U.S. population produced 42 percent of government leaders and 54 percent of corporate leaders.

 

Anyone find the list of the 12? I'm rather curious.

[Ester Maria]

If it was done on academics, most high schools would never send anyone to college as they aren't preparing anyone to the level that the elite publics do.

Not if the school system is set up the way that weight is still on public schools (the country caring that private school do not start "monopolizing" the good education), into which students get accepted due to academic potential and previous scores (from elementary / middle), with a compulsory program that ALL schools have to offer and teach, thus allowing maximally as possible for all children in the initial stages of education to receive similar educational opportunities.

 

I can dream my "socialist" dreams of the country weighing in to provide for, as much as possible, equal opportunities rather than letting the control to individual districts and allowing private schools to monopolize things, thus creating a system in which the only kids who get good education are those from rich districts or whose parents send them to private schools.

But something like that really does exist in much of Europe, at least for now, even though times seem to be changing too. Too "socialist" for America, I know, but that is my closest-to-ideal. :D

 

In any case legacy admissions are wrong IMO, even if we leave aside the issue of whether acceptance should be exclusively on academic grounds.

[JWSJ]

Talking outside the 12 institutions:

 

Would anyone feel differently if the college/uni was less prestigious/known?

 

If a child of an alumni applied but was on the lower end of acceptance to the "mediocre" school, should legacy make a difference?

 

What if it's a small relatively unknown private college?

 

Doing away with legacy at such an institution would border on cutting future enrollment.

[In The Great White North]

Let us call things their real names: accepting students on the grounds of legacy is institutionalized nepotism.

 

It is only nepotism if they are unqualified.

[Laura Corin]

All but one (I believe) of the universities in the UK are government funded and there aren't such policies. I'm sure that you would still find that a disproportionate number of children of Oxbridge graduates are accepted for Oxbridge, however. They are people with whom the the selectors feel comfortable, whose backgrounds they understand, who will have had the dinner table discussions which make them shine in interviews. I don't know whether abolishing the formal legacy arrangements for the Ivy League would make that much difference.

 

Laura

[FaithManor]

I don't have much for experience with ivies. They are very ill regarded in our area.

 

But, my one close, personal experience with legacy admits was quite negative. My nephew attended the Hun School (private feeder high school for Princeton) as a bording student. His roomate, whose parents attended Princeton and were extravagantly wealthy, was a lousy student with a lousy attitude. Our nephew had to work his tail off to stay at the school - the financial sacrifices his parents made were staggering - and though he ACED his SAT, had recommendations from NASA officials, both senators from his state, etc....just an unbelievable profile, he was not admitted. His roomate, Mr. Legacy admit, scored in the abyss on the SAT and graduated from the Hun with a 2.2 grade point average. He was admitted to Princeton. My nephew was livid and approached the dean of students who told our nephew that his roomate was a guaranteed legacy admit from birth and the only thing that would have kept him out of Princeton was a felony criminal record or a parental loss of wealth!

 

Two other students my nephew went to school with were also lazy students with no achievements of any kind to speak of. Their parents made "handsome donations" to pet projects at Princeton and their children were admitted. So, our limited experience with this particular IVY, legacy admits, and following the trail of money, has been rather negative.

 

But, that's not enough evidence to draw any kind of conclusion about legacy admits in general. I do have to say that my cynical nature tends to believe that one should follow the money and see where that leads. If legacy admits tend to come from wealthy families and those families tend to be generous with their alma maters, well.....

 

My own experience at a top tier LAC at which one member of my senior class who had failed a rather startling number of classes, graduated and was awarded a falsified G.P.A. because his daddy funded a new addition to the library, does leave me to question the integrity, in general, of how many institutions reach both their admission's decisions and many other choices related to family connections. It's the kind of thing that "gobsmacks" you in the face and does not leave you with a favorable impression of the institution.

 

I've talked to 22 parents of college students and many report the same thing at tier one and tier two schools along with an occasional state school thrown in for good measure. It doesn't leave me with much faith in the system. Unfortunately, this is the broken system my children will have to navigate.

 

Faith

[In The Great White North]

My nephew was livid and approached the dean of students who told our nephew that his roomate was a guaranteed legacy admit from birth and the only thing that would have kept him out of Princeton was a felony criminal record or a parental loss of wealth!

 

 

This kid was a Major Donor, not merely a legacy. They are a different question altogether.

[twoforjoy]

It is only nepotism if they are unqualified.

 

But we're talking about schools where the vast majority of applicants are qualified. So they're taking spots from other equally- or more-qualified students.

 

I'd be less concerned about legacy admissions if people weren't so up in arms about affirmative action. I don't see how anybody could be okay with one but not the other; if anything, a far stronger case, morally, can be made for affirmative action than legacy admissions, since with AA we're talking about students who in many cases have been up against social disadvantages, and not students who have had every advantage imaginable.

[FaithManor]

I understand what you are saying In the Great White North, but I have to wonder if the general assumption with legacy admits is that there will be a flow of money due to the guaranteed admit. I questioned whether or not legacy admit policies also discriminate based on which alumni have more money to give, the outcome being that the basis of the student's admit was not that their parents were alumni and the student was worthy, but based on the parent's being wealthy alumni only.

 

Again, I don't have enough experience to draw a conclusion. But, I'd love to see some investigative journalism in this arena. Would the student of Ivy parents who chose not to use their degrees to go make a ton of money, but instead worked for Green Peace or UNICEF or the Red Cross, etc. and have no money to give, still be admitted as a legacy if all other aspects of their achievements with other legacy admits were equal? I would hope that this would be the case. However, the cynical side of me tends to believe that this is not the case.

 

Faith

[Bostonian]

All but one (I believe) of the universities in the UK are government funded and there aren't such policies. I'm sure that you would still find that a disproportionate number of children of Oxbridge graduates are accepted for Oxbridge, however. They are people with whom the the selectors feel comfortable, whose backgrounds they understand, who will have had the dinner table discussions which make them shine in interviews. I don't know whether abolishing the formal legacy arrangements for the Ivy League would make that much difference.

 

Laura

 

Do you think those are the only or even the primary factors? Getting in to Oxford requires certain scores on the A-level exams, and it is likely that children of Oxbridge graduates are more likely to achieve those scores. An article mentioning the A-level requirement is

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/universityeducation/8444418/David-Cameron-brands-all-white-Oxford-University-a-disgrace.html

[Laura Corin]

Do you think those are the only or even the primary factors? Getting in to Oxford requires certain scores on the A-level exams, and it is likely that children of Oxbridge graduates are more likely to achieve those scores. An article mentioning the A-level requirement is

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/universityeducation/8444418/David-Cameron-brands-all-white-Oxford-University-a-disgrace.html

 

For most courses, the admissions office will have many times more people with straight As at A level than they can admit. Out of these I think the children of Oxbridge alumni have an advantage, as the interview process is key.

 

FWIW, I didn't go to Oxbridge as the course I wanted to do was not offered there. My sister (not privately educated) went to Oxford and my mother was offered a place but did war work instead. I think that coming from an Oxbridge-style family definitely gives you a better chance.

 

Laura

[Joan in GE]

I can dream my "socialist" dreams of the country weighing in to provide for, as much as possible, equal opportunities rather than letting the control to individual districts and allowing private schools to monopolize things, thus creating a system in which the only kids who get good education are those from rich districts or whose parents send them to private schools.

 

Two things - Geneva is pretty socialist in this respect and has been for quite a while now and the long term effect seems to be that students only care about passing in jr high and even secondary, not really about doing their best. There is little instructor encouragement to strive for better because that would mean putting others down.

 

There is also a theory among some European homeschoolers that the socialist mentality will then cause leaders to go against homeschoolers who are providing a better than average education for their children who are then not part of a level playing field. And in addition these students might then learn how to think outside the "box" about the "box".

 

So for me, while there are equitable desires that sound beneficial to begin with, their longterm effect is not what encourages a greater number of energetic and enthusiastic students.

 

Sorry to OP, just had to communicate with EM about this...

 

To the OP, the law here forbids "numerus clausus" which means that everyone who is qualified is admitted - then subsequently weeded out in the following years. It makes for very full classrooms (eg 700 seats with 900 students - not all courses of course) at the beginning and drastic exams at the end of the first and second years.

 

Joan

[In The Great White North]

But, I'd love to see some investigative journalism in this arena. Would the student of Ivy parents who chose not to use their degrees to go make a ton of money, but instead worked for Green Peace or UNICEF or the Red Cross, etc. and have no money to give, still be admitted as a legacy if all other aspects of their achievements with other legacy admits were equal?

 

After reading through a ton of comments on his links, I'd say no. All anecdotal, to be sure. Commenters who had worked in admissions offices frequently said legacy didn't really help but Major Donor did.

 

Even more anecdotal, I have yet to meet a non-Major Donor, marginal student who was accepted to an Ivy.

[Ester Maria]

But we're talking about schools where the vast majority of applicants are qualified. So they're taking spots from other equally- or more-qualified students.

 

I'd be less concerned about legacy admissions if people weren't so up in arms about affirmative action. I don't see how anybody could be okay with one but not the other; if anything, a far stronger case, morally, can be made for affirmative action than legacy admissions, since with AA we're talking about students who in many cases have been up against social disadvantages, and not students who have had every advantage imaginable.

Yes, this. My problem with legacies is that they are taking spots or receiving a large amount of points which then helps them take spots, on non-academic grounds, and we are talking about academic institutions. The "qualification" taken into account here is not any type of "qualification" at all. It is worse than taking sports, volunteering and the "whole person" into acccount.

 

(I am also generally against AA. But I do admit I have no idea how to solve social inequalities that rise up that way. If it were up to me, I would try to accept the best academically and have the pay or not pay according to what they can, but the fact remains that many of the best are the best in the first place because of priviledged background and huge disparity between school standards. It is sad, however you turn it, you are either being "correct" to the point of not being truly fair, either trying to be fair to the point of not being academically honest. :()

[twoforjoy]

Yes, this. My problem with legacies is that they are taking spots or receiving a large amount of points which then helps them take spots, on non-academic grounds, and we are talking about academic institutions. The "qualification" taken into account here is not any type of "qualification" at all. It is worse than taking sports, volunteering and the "whole person" into acccount.

 

(I am also generally against AA. But I do admit I have no idea how to solve social inequalities that rise up that way. If it were up to me, I would try to accept the best academically and have the pay or not pay according to what they can, but the fact remains that many of the best are the best in the first place because of priviledged background and huge disparity between school standards. It is sad, however you turn it, you are either being "correct" to the point of not being truly fair, either trying to be fair to the point of not being academically honest. :()

 

I don't know. On the one hand, I do understand these sorts of decisions, both legacies and affirmative action. When you've got thousands of applications from valedictorians with high SAT scores who were president of the student council, you need some criteria to determine who will get in and who won't, and I do think to some extent it's going to have to involve taking non-academic factors into consideration. My main issue is just that so many people who get up in arms about AA tend to not care or think at all about legacy admissions, even though legacy admissions tend to constitute many more spots.

 

On the other hand, I think it could be argued that legacy admissions, given the reality of these institutions--how many politicians they produce, how many people involved in the banking industry come out of them--seem like a way to maintain an American form of aristocracy, where real power never has any chance of falling into the hands of the average person, no matter how hard they work or how skilled they are.

[Ester Maria]

There is also a theory among some European homeschoolers that the socialist mentality will then cause leaders to go against homeschoolers who are providing a better than average education for their children who are then not part of a level playing field. And in addition these students might then learn how to think outside the "box" about the "box".

Most of the time they could care less as long as you satisfy their little "box". Whether you only replicate the "box" at home or add in other things in addition to it is your choice. You do have to train the kids how to think inside the "box" for examinations, but during the rest of the school year, you can do as you please.

 

But the outside of the "box" thinking about the "box" has been occuring for generations even without homeschooling. Pretty much everyone I know who came from a family even remotely interested in their children's education learned a lot via some sort of informal "afterschooling" with their parents and their colleagues, via international travel (those whose parents could afford it and had contacts with abroad, so kids were naturally exposed to different "boxes" and ways of doing things too), frequenting all sorts of events, etc. In my view, homeschooling is not all that different, you do have to satisfy the same "box" but without sitting in the classroom while doing so, and the amount of parental influence is maybe bigger, but it was pretty big before too. A lot of people turned out "overeducated" while having attended schools as a result of all that outside work. It does take teaching some wisdom to your kids (the whole when to let on those outside influences and when not), but generally, not that different than regular schooling. I believe it depends mostly on the family, not on whether kids are in the institution or no; most of the "out of box" people I know still send to state schools. A few of them to private or international schools, but frankly, more often than not they do so if kids cannot meet the expectations in a "regular" school.

To the OP, the law here forbids "numerus clausus" which means that everyone who is qualified is admitted - then subsequently weeded out in the following years. It makes for very full classrooms (eg 700 seats with 900 students - not all courses of course) at the beginning and drastic exams at the end of the first and second years.

I actually think is a brilliant system, in much of Italy it goes by the same rules (though sometimes qualification exams are needed, especially in skill-based areas).

I know, socialist mentality :lol:, but I would much rather give most everyone a chance, and then more-than-halve the student body by brutal exams in the first and the second year, thus allowing some "filtering" of potential from non-potential and slackers, and all of that without anyone being able to whine later about the cruelties of life and "not having had a chance". I think it is much, much better system.

 

However, again, you cannot prescribe anything to a private institution, this would work in theory only for state schools anyway. And given the tradition of private education in the Anglo-American world, and the fact that most of "quality" (professors) is "bought" by the private sector, it complicates things...

[In The Great White North]

My problem with legacies is that they are taking spots or receiving a large amount of points which then helps them take spots, on non-academic grounds, and we are talking about academic institutions.

 

I was under the impression that most, if not all, admissions decisions at these schools are based on non academic grounds. And have been for at least my lifetime.

 

all of that without anyone being able to whine later about the cruelties of life and "not having had a chance".

 

If you listen to all the whining about failure rates, retention rates and graduation rates, admitting everyone and letting freshman year filter them out will hardly solve the problem. Look at all the professors on these boards who talk about pressure to pass and having to "prove" why they gave a student a bad grade.

 

legacy admissions tend to constitute many more spots

 

I'd love to see some hard data on the numbers of applicants admitted just because they were legacies.

[Ester Maria]

I was under the impression that most, if not all, admissions decisions at these schools are based on non academic grounds. And have been for at least my lifetime.

Indeed. And I consider it bad (and bring it up since we are discussing - whether it is realistic is another story). :) ESPECIALLY on grounds which have nothing to do with applicant him/herself, but with what their parents did.

If you listen to all the whining about failure rates, retention rates and graduation rates, admitting everyone and letting freshman year filter them out will hardly solve the problem. Look at all the professors on these boards who talk about pressure to pass and having to "prove" why they gave a student a bad grade.

I was not faced with that pressure from either side of cathedra, and the vast majority of people from both sides were fair and correct. That pressure stems from grade inflation and the overall 'prostitution' of education that is going on, at least in humanities. Sorry for the expression :), but I do find it somewhat fitting.

 

Failure rates are NORMAL, IMO. :) There SHOULD be big failure rates in the first years to filter out those with potential from those without it and from those who slack, and nobody should have to be forced into intellectual dishonesty by "having" to promote subpar students and automatically taking away from the "weight" of the grade of those that do know and did pass the material. There should be HIGH criteria, and yes, SO HIGH that definitely not everyone can meet them. In my view, everybody suffers in a system with grade inflation and low criteria - especially the discipline.

 

What option you find more satisfying?

Edited May 2, 2011 by Ester Maria
added smilies, it sounded a bit "hurried"

[Joan in GE]

Most of the time they could care less as long as you satisfy their little "box". Whether you only replicate the "box" at home or add in other things in addition to it is your choice. You do have to train the kids how to think inside the "box" for examinations, but during the rest of the school year, you can do as you please.

 

Ooops - I should have elaborated on "the box" - I meant of government thinking about how life should be going, the consumer society, falling in step with institutional ideals for society, not at all about grades and topics studied - though I agree about what you said about dealing with the type of box you described....

 

I know, socialist mentality :lol:, but I would much rather give most everyone a chance, and then more-than-halve the student body by brutal exams in the first and the second year, thus allowing some "filtering" of potential from non-potential and slackers, and all of that without anyone being able to whine later about the cruelties of life and "not having had a chance". I think it is much, much better system.

 

 

I don't have a problem about whether that is "socialist" or not - some socialist ideas are more thoughtful. What I do have a problem with is that some students spend many more years in school going from one dead end to another. My son's friend just spent two years in medicine and failed permanently...Now he has to start all over, because you are just admitted to one faculty, not the school...It seems like there should be a better weeding out process, even if the "numbers" aren't restricted.

 

Joan

[Joan in GE]

Look at all the professors on these boards who talk about pressure to pass and having to "prove" why they gave a student a bad grade.

 

I think this is a country/culture thing that hinders academics in the US - partly related to the sheer cost of higher education or in precollege school, the fear of not getting into the coveted college.

 

Here the grades are generally simply accepted...

 

Joan

[Ester Maria]

Ooops - I should have elaborated on "the box" - I meant of government thinking about how life should be going, the consumer society, falling in step with institutional ideals for society, not at all about grades and topics studied - though I agree about what you said about dealing with the type of box you described....

I see what you mean, but aren't those things always a family culture issue rather than the type of schooling issue? There are "boxed" homeschoolers, private schoolers, international schoolers, as well as "non-boxed" public schoolers. From my experience it seems to depend on the family culture first and foremost.

What I do have a problem with is that some students spend many more years in school going from one dead end to another. My son's friend just spent two years in medicine and failed permanently...Now he has to start all over,

Yeah, I am familiar with this phenomenon. I hear you about spending a lot of years in school (though that can also be enriching in a way ;), I know some people who liked it in the end, having studied a bit of few stuff before they settled :lol:), but most of the time this doesn't imply the financial consequences of the dimensions it would imply if we talked about the American system.

[Laura Corin]

Failure rates are NORMAL, IMO. :) There SHOULD be big failure rates in the first years to filter out those with potential from those without it and from those who slack, and nobody should have to be forced into intellectual dishonesty by "having" to promote subpar students and automatically taking away from the "weight" of the grade of those that do know and did pass the material. There should be HIGH criteria, and yes, SO HIGH that definitely not everyone can meet them. In my view, everybody suffers in a system with grade inflation and low criteria - especially the discipline.

 

What option you find more satisfying?

 

I taught at Paris University and didn't find that having twice the number of students as would be able to sit in the language lab enhanced learning. Those who stuck it out were not necessarily the brightest or best.

 

When I went to university it was hard to get in, but few dropped out. Some got poor degrees (degrees were graded) but the big hurdle was getting into university. Once in, there was time to expand, to explore, to go off at tangents.

 

Laura

[Ester Maria]

When I went to university it was hard to get in, but few dropped out. Some got poor degrees (degrees were graded) but the big hurdle was getting into university. Once in, there was time to expand, to explore, to go off at tangents.

I get some of the reasoning behind this, but there is always a real option of hampering somebody in the selection process. Because of that, I tend to like to give people a chance - either a "no numerus clausus" system, either entrance exams based on the criteria of institution (not standardized maturita' or whatnot). I think the best option, theoretically, would be the one in which nobody can honestly say they did not have a chance, even if it meant sacrificing the first year (overcrowded places, etc.) and having very strict standards.

 

Realistically, I am aware of how difficult, to the point of impossibility, that would be to actually implement in many institutions and why private ones would not wish to do that.

 

ETA: Were they all really coming to classes? Did you require presence? (a lot of overcrowdedness problems are magically solved if you do not pay attention to absences - especially if you are likely to fail a half of students anyway.)

Edited May 2, 2011 by Ester Maria

[In The Great White North]

Failure rates are NORMAL, IMO. :) There SHOULD be big failure rates in the first years to filter out those with potential from those without it and from those who slack, and nobody should have to be forced into intellectual dishonesty by "having" to promote subpar students and automatically taking away from the "weight" of the grade of those that do know and did pass the material. There should be HIGH criteria, and yes, SO HIGH that definitely not everyone can meet them. In my view, everybody suffers in a system with grade inflation and low criteria - especially the discipline.

I don't like the idea that there should be specific rates of any grade, A or F or anything in between. I prefer that the test accurately access whether or not the student actually learned what was taught in the class, not so easy that everyone can pass whether they learned anything or not, nor so hard that it goes beyond what was taught in the class.

 

Grading a on curve drives me nuts.

[Ester Maria]

I don't like the idea that there should be specific rates of any grade, A or F or anything in between. I prefer that the test accurately access whether or not the student actually learned what was taught in the class, not so easy that everyone can pass whether they learned anything or not, nor so hard that it goes beyond what was taught in the class.

 

Grading a curve drives me nuts.

I actually hate Gauss. I do not support grading on a curve. It is simply expectable that the "elimination" will occur if you apply regular criteria on the first year students, not because of Gauss, but because it just happens. A lot of ill-prepared people come.

 

Personally, whether 100% pass or nobody passes, I am okay with both as long as there are no low standards on purpose of grade inflation. My eldest daughter recently watched one in the series of Yale lectures on philosophy of death, the introductory one (it is on Youtube) and called me in awe when the professor started explaining to kids that not all would get A (:lol:) and that the default grade for good knowledge was B (:lol:) and that there would even be those who might get a D (:lol:). DD14 and I laughed to tears and came really close to losing our faith in humanity if a) that needs to be said and b) his distribution was still what I would consider grade inflation. Yale. Supposedly one of the "creme de la creme of American education" institutions. And those things need to be explained, and when explained, he STILL has a system of grade inflation. I hate the curve and never used it, but I would consider my standards to be somewhat unrealistic had I had such a distribution over many years consistently.

 

Anyhow, I ramble. In a bad mood today. :D

Edited May 2, 2011 by Ester Maria

[Laura Corin]

ETA: Were they all really coming to classes? Did you require presence? (a lot of overcrowdedness problems are magically solved if you do not pay attention to absences - especially if you are likely to fail a half of students anyway.)

 

It was still overcrowded for most of the year, but some dropped out immediately. I could imagine being one of those: wanting very much to learn but unable to cope with the chaos.

 

I was only a language assistant, so I didn't set or mark the exams. I don't know if there were some who didn't attend but who managed to pass.

 

Laura

[twoforjoy]

I actually hate Gauss. I do not support grading on a curve. It is simply expectable that the "elimination" will occur if you apply regular criteria on the first year students, not because of Gauss, but because it just happens. A lot of ill-prepared people come.

 

Personally, whether 100% pass or nobody passes, I am okay with both as long as there are no low standards on purpose of grade inflation. My eldest daughter recently watched one in the series of Yale lectures on philosophy of death, the introductory one (it is on Youtube) and called me in awe when the professor started explaining to kids that not all would get A (:lol:) and that the default grade for good knowledge was B (:lol:) and that there would even be those who might get a D (:lol:). DD14 and I laughed to tears and came really close to losing our faith in humanity if a) that needs to be said and b) his distribution was still what I would consider grade inflation. Yale. Supposedly one of the "creme de la creme of American education" institutions. And those things need to be explained, and when explained, he STILL has a system of grade inflation. I hate the curve and never used it, but I would consider my standards to be somewhat unrealistic had I had such a distribution over many years consistently.

 

Anyhow, I ramble. In a bad mood today. :D

 

Ivy League schools are pretty much where grade inflation started, though, so it shouldn't be surprising that it continues there.