Category Archives: College

Donations @ Ivy League Schools

Source: Quora, date indeterminate

Around 9 years ago, in 2013, a bunch of Ivy League undergrads did a few weeks unpaid summer learning school with me.

They told me there were going rates for donation size at most schools. With Harvard highest at 1.5 million dollars, Columbia at 1.2 million dollars and Brown lowest at 900k.

Plus all kinds of tricks were played to gain entry. I mean some were totally legitimate. Like parents paying 750 dollars an hour for SAT/ACT tutoring. Or getting 8 year olds started on SAT/ACT training they wouldn’t sit for another 9 or 10 years.

Talk about advantage.

Others made sure their children played less popular sports, or unusual musical instruments, or did volunteer work in inner City public schools, or spent a few months doing charity work in Africa etc.

These all help in gaining admission.

The point is that entry to colleges was totally gamed – legitimately too.

But they said that there was much more that happened. Donations of course are legal – and it is important to point out that bias is very hard to prove.

But there were non legit routes too. Not by the admissions departments but by those fooling them.

As per my temperament, I stored the information away, without deciding to believe or disbelieve.

But these guys were connected, members of fraternities, and knew many very well off families as a result.

And a few years later the college admissions scandal broke.

Adversity Scores

Source: Mish Talk, Dec 2019

Starting in 2021, the SAT will assign students an ‘Adversity Score’ to Capture Social and Economic Background.

Adversity scores capture things like race, crime rate, housing values, education level of parents and free lunch offerings at schools.

Every high school in the county currently has an adversity score.

Harvard Standing Has (?) Dropped

Source: Campus Reform, May 2021

Harvard University’s student newspaper discovered that over 40 percent of faculty members believe that the school’s standing is worsening.

The Crimson asked professors “how they believe the University’s standing within higher education has changed over the past decade.” Professors were largely pessimistic about the school’s status: 41 percent say it has fallen, 53 percent say it is unchanged, and a mere 6 percent say it has risen.

Over 70 percent of professors — 34 percent of whom “strongly” agreed — believe that grade inflation is a “prevalent” issue.

Campus Reform reported in 2013 that the most common grade at Harvard was an “A-.” At the time, Harvey Mansfield — who has taught at Harvard since 1962 — said that the grade inflation “represents a failure on the part of this faculty and its leadership to maintain our academic standards.”

Mansfield told Campus Reform that he agrees with the recent poll’s results.

“Harvard’s standing has fallen, and I would blame the three evils of affirmative action, grade inflation, and political correctness,” he said.

Affirmative action makes everyone doubt that decisions of hiring and admissions are based on merit.

Grade inflation makes everyone doubt that standards of excellence are being upheld.

Political correctness breeds an atmosphere of suspicion and aggressive intolerance.”

UG School Matters for Graduate Studies

Source: Quora, date indeterminate

n example of a PhD professor and On the admissions committee at UCLA Stats Department who is an acquaintance. We spoke for about an hour one day watching ours sons academic decathlon about this And of course I had to hit him up and ask him that same question.

He said for UCLA statistics if you come from a school like UCLA or Berkeley you’ll need a 3.7 GPA. If you come from school outside the top 50 like U Alabama or U Arizona or California State LA you’ll need an overall 4.0 GPA. At Uc Davis or UC Santa Barbara ranked top 30s it’s a slightly higher range than UCLA of a 3.8 GPA. If you come from the Ivy leagues you’ll need a 3.4 GPA.

If you come from Caltech or MIT He said they will take you with a 2.7 GPA and did a few years ago. And you’ll need a perfect math score regardless.

Many kids from non elite schools do get into top grads every year (another acquaintance got into CalTech nanotechnology Phd with all As and Ridiculous research too, but if you have the Harvard, Chicago or MIT pedigree, you’ll have a chance even with a 3.3 Gpa although you may not get into a top 10 school.

10 Lessons of an MIT Education: Gian-Carlo Rota

Source: Texas A&M website, Apr 1997

You can and will work at a desk for seven hours straight, routinely.

the discipline of intensive and constant work.

You learn what you don’t know you are learning.

Students join forces on the problem sets, and some students benefit more than others from these weekly collective efforts. The most brilliant students will invariably work out all the problems and let other students copy, and I pretend to be annoyed when I learn that this has happened.

But I know that by making the effort to understand the solution of a truly difficult problem discovered by one of their peers, students learn more than they would by working out some less demanding exercise.

By and large, “knowing how” matters more than “knowing what.”

at MIT, “knowing how” is held in higher esteem than “knowing what” by faculty and students alike. Why?

  It is my theory that “knowing how” is revered because it can be tested. One can test whether a student can apply quantum mechanics, communicate in French, or clone a gene. It is much more difficult to asses an interpretation of a poem, the negotiation of a complex technical compromise, or grasp of the social dynamics of a small, diverse working group. Where you can test, you can set a high standard of proficiency on which everyone is agreed; where you cannot test precisely, proficiency becomes something of a judgment call.

In science and engineering, you can fool very little of the time.

 An education in engineering and science is an education in intellectual honesty. Students cannot avoid learning to acknowledge whether or not they have really learned. Once they have taken their first quiz, all MIT undergraduates know dearly they will pay if they fool themselves into believing they know more than is the case.

  On campus, they have been accustomed to people being blunt to a fault about their own limitations-or skills-and those of others. Unfortunately, this intellectual honesty is sometimes interpreted as naivete.

You don’t have to be a genius to do creative work.

The drive for excellence and achievement that one finds everywhere at MIT has the democratic effect of placing teachers and students on the same level, where competence is appreciated irrespective of its provenance.

Students learn that some of the best ideas arise in groups of scientists and engineers working together, and the source of these ideas can seldom be pinned on specific individuals. The MIT model of scientific work is closer to the communion of artists that was found in the large shops of the Renaissance than to the image of the lonely Romantic genius.

You must measure up to a very high level of performance.

What matters most is the ambiance in which the course is taught; a gifted student will thrive in the company of other gifted students. An MIT undergraduate will be challenged by the level of proficiency that is expected of everyone at MIT, students and faculty.

The expectation of high standards is unconsciously absorbed and adopted by the students, and they carry it with them for life.

The world and your career are unpredictable, so you are better off learning subjects of permanent value.

You are never going to catch up, and neither is anyone else.

MIT students often complain of being overworked, and they are right. When I look at the schedules of courses my advisees propose at the beginning of each term, I wonder how they can contemplate that much work. My workload was nothing like that when I was an undergraduate.

There is some satisfaction, however, for a faculty member in encountering a recent graduate who marvels at the light work load they carry in medical school or law school relative to the grueling schedule they had to maintain during their four years at MIT.

The future belongs to the computer-literate-squared.

The undergraduate curriculum in computer science at MIT is probably the most progressive and advanced such curriculum anywhere. Rather, the students learn that side by side with required courses there is another, hidden curriculum consisting of new ideas just coming into use, new techniques and that spread like wildfire, opening up unsuspected applications that will eventually be adopted into the official curriculum.

Keeping up with this hidden curriculum is what will enable a computer scientist to stay ahead in the field. Those who do not become computer scientists to the second degree risk turning into programmers who will only implement the ideas of others.

Mathematics is still the queen of the sciences.

Having tried in lessons one through nine to take an unbiased look at the big MIT picture, I’d like to conclude with a plug for my own field, mathematics.

When an undergraduate asks me whether he or she should major in mathematics rather than in another field that I will simply call X, my answer is the following: “If you major in mathematics, you can switch to X anytime you want to, but not the other way around.”

Alumni who return to visit invariably complain of not having taken enough math courses while they were undergraduates. It is a fact, confirmed by the history of science since Galileo and Newton, that the more theoretical and removed from immediate applications a scientific topic appears to be, the more likely it is to eventually find the most striking practical applications.

Consider number theory, which only 20 years ago was believed to be the most useless chapter of mathematics and is today the core of computer security. The efficient factorization of integers into prime numbers, a topic of seemingly breathtaking obscurity, is now cultivated with equal passion by software desigers and code breakers.

I am often asked why there are so few applied mathematicians in the department at MIT. The reason is that all of MIT is one huge applied mathematics department; you can find applied mathematicians in practicially every department at MIT except mathematics.

CS skills across China, India, Russia, and the United States

Source: PNAS, Apr 2019

“We assess and compare computer science skills among final-year computer science undergraduates (seniors) in four major economic and political powers that produce approximately half of the science, technology, engineering, and mathematics graduates in the world.

We find that seniors in the United States substantially outperform seniors in China, India, and Russia by 0.76–0.88 SDs and score comparably with seniors in elite institutions in these countries.

Seniors in elite institutions in the United States further outperform seniors in elite institutions in China, India, and Russia by 0.85 SDs. The skills advantage of the United States is not because it has a large proportion of high-scoring international students. Finally, males score consistently but only moderately higher (0.16–0.41 SDs) than females within all four countries.”

Einstein’s Creativity & Yale’s Decline

Source: Manifold Learning, Jun 2020

What’s interesting is you find people, Einstein, who he had this view, which was he wasn’t committed to anything. He would simply argue every perspective he could until he’d just adopt the strongest one, which is often some combination. It’s that flexibility I think that often allowed him to be as creative as he could because he simply could get outside of an existing paradigm and view it from a very different way.

Corey: This is actually one of the active debates in academia this time about Yale’s trajectory over the past 20 years or so.

Steve: Down.

Corey: Well, many schools have made a big bet on science to a large degree, and Harvard in fact has built an engineering college.

Steve: Correct.

Corey: Stanford’s built itself up through technology primarily, and Yale took a very different path.

Steve: Yep. They’re paying for it.

Corey: I think even schools like small liberal arts colleges where I’m from, I think people really realize it’s extremely important to have both, for anyone who graduates, have both a technical and a humanities background. I think that’s where that power actually comes, and we share this. It’s good to have a humanist perspective and a scientific perspective.

US Colleges: From Onsite to Online

Source: WSJ, May 2020

Post-Pandemic Challenges for Colleges

Source: NYMag, May 2020

The post-pandemic future, he says,  will entail partnerships between the largest tech companies in the world and elite universities. MIT@Google. iStanford. HarvardxFacebook. According to Galloway, these partnerships will allow universities to expand enrollment dramatically by offering hybrid online-offline degrees, the affordability and value of which will seismically alter the landscape of higher education.

Galloway, who also founded his own virtual classroom start-up, predicts hundreds, if not thousands, of brick-and-mortar universities will go out of business and those that remain will have student bodies composed primarily of the children of the one percent.

The value of education has been substantially degraded. There’s the education certification and then there’s the experience part of college. The experience part of it is down to zero, and the education part has been dramatically reduced.

You get a degree that, over time, will be reduced in value as we realize it’s not the same to be a graduate of a liberal-arts college if you never went to campus. You can see already how students and their parents are responding.

There will be a dip, the mother of all V’s, among the top-50 universities, where the revenues are hit in the short run and then technology will expand their enrollments and they will come back stronger. In ten years, it’s feasible to think that MIT doesn’t welcome 1,000 freshmen to campus; it welcomes 10,000.

What that means is the top-20 universities globally are going to become even stronger. What it also means is that universities Nos. 20 to 50 are fine. But Nos. 50 to 1,000 go out of business or become a shadow of themselves. I don’t want to say that education is going to be reinvented, but it’s going to be dramatically different.

The strongest brand in the world is not Apple or Mercedes-Benz or Coca-Cola. The strongest brands are MIT, Oxford, and Stanford.

The most value-added part of a university is not the professors; it’s the admissions department.

They have done a fantastic job creating the most thorough and arduous job-interview process in modern history, between the testing, the anxiety, the review of your life up until that point, the references you need. If I’m applying for a job at New York Magazine, I’d give you a list of references and you’d call them. You don’t ask the references to write a two-page letter. Universities now do background checks to see if you’ve ever had a DUI or been accused of a crime. They look at your social media to see if you’re abusing alcohol or if you’ve made racist or bigoted statements. We’re screening people like crazy.

When you go to Penn, you know that your classmates are solid citizens who are qualified and have good EQ [emotional quotient]. There is an opportunity for new companies to figure out testing and research methods to certify people around certain skills or EQ.

So far, no one has really come up with the ability to certify to the same extent that universities do. To a certain extent, Google, Apple, Amazon, and Facebook are also in the business of certification. If you get a job at Google, there’s a certain belief that the HR department has vetted you enough to certify that you have very strong skills. There will be opportunities in certification that aren’t universities.

In the case of MIT, Harvard, Stanford, and Cal, people will say they’re sacrificing their standards to enroll more students. The reality is these schools can double or triple their enrollments without sacrificing anything in terms of their brands.

Right now, their admissions officers are choosing between Magic Johnson and LeBron James. Every superstar in high school — and there are a lot — wants to go to these universities. We’re going to see schools slicing and dicing programming and product management, and they will have a new weapon: remote learning. The best universities are going to be able to expand enrollment dramatically, which will result in chaos for the tier-two and tier-three school. Nobody’s going to enroll in Pepperdine if they get into UCLA.

The cruel truth of what pretends to be a meritocracy but is a caste system is that your degree largely indicates or signals your lifetime earnings.

When kids get out of business school, they say, “I have an offer from Amazon and I have an offer to go to work for a regional bank, and I’d much rather go to work at a regional bank.” I just tell them, “Stop wasting my time. You’re going to work for Amazon.” Because when you go to work for Amazon out of business school, your career launches at a much greater angle. Going to UCLA versus Pepperdine starts you at a 10 to 30 percent higher salary coming out of school, which, over the course of your lifetime, when you add in salary increases, just creates a different life.

You think MIT and Google will be able to put out an online curriculum that will be worth paying tens of thousands of dollars or hundreds of thousands of dollars?

Yeah, because they’ll have some sort of hybrid model that will involve some in-person work. MIT’s certification — and that education that it’ll be able to string together using its faculty and its brand and the technology of a place like Google — will still be worth that kind of money. The reality is an MIT degree is still worth a quarter of a million dollars in tuition. 

Is there something about the campus environment that exposes young people — who are more creative, greater risk-takers, and more fearless — to the world and our problems and gives them the opportunity to craft better solutions? Will big tech’s entry into education reduce our humanity or create a net gain in stakeholder value?

 

Harvard Profits from Continuing & Executive Education

Source: The Crimson, Apr 2020

Executive and continuing education programs — a growing source of revenue for the University — have been stymied by campus closure, the latest in a mounting number of financial challenges Harvard will face as a result of the coronavirus pandemic.

Executive and continuing education — non-degree granting programs aimed at mid-career professionals — netted $500 million in revenue for the University last year, equal to 9 percent of its total revenue, per the University’s 2019 Financial Report.

Harvard earned only slightly more from its “degree-seeking” undergraduate and graduate programs, at $504 million.

Executive and continuing education revenues also increased substantially more in the last fiscal year than undergraduate and graduate revenues, at 12 percent and 4 percent growth, respectively.

Related Resource: Harvard Magazine, Apr 2020

For context, in fiscal year 2019, HBS had revenues of $925 million, with principal contributors including:

  • $262 million of publishing revenue (the sale of millions of teaching cases to institutions around the world; advertising in and subscriptions to Harvard Business Review; books and reprints; and so on);
  • $222 million from executive-education tuition (about half the University total, and a consistently growing business of late);
  • $162 million from the endowment (plus $68 million in current-use gifts); and
  • $140 million in M.B.A. tuition and fees.