25 years old and deep in debt

[merithyn]

Whoa hold up. Who said education should be the primary criteria? I questioned you when you and MIM asserted that where one went to college shouldn't be taken into consideration. And then suggested that significant (enough to warrant being mentioned) numbers of individuals are getting into good schools because their parents forked over endowments.

I never said that it shouldn't be taken into consideration at all. I just said that it shouldn't be a primary consideration.

And my only point in bringing that up was that not everyone who gets into Stanford, Harvard, or Yale did so strictly on merit. Some got in because their parents went there, because they had money (think of the number of actors and actresses who end up at Harvard), or yes, an endowment of some sort. I have no idea how many of either kind end up in an Ivy League school, but it's one of many reasons that I wouldn't go strictly on where they went to school in the hiring process.

In the early stages of interviewing, someone who went to Iowa State University would get just as fair a shake from me as someone who went to MIT for engineering, even though ISU is around 40 on the list of top engineering schools and MIT is in the top four. Now, if it came down to the two candidates and I just couldn't decide between them, I'd probably lean toward the MIT person.

[Caliga]

Whoa hold up. Who said education should be the primary criteria? I questioned you when you and MIM asserted that where one went to college shouldn't be taken into consideration. And then suggested that significant (enough to warrant being mentioned) numbers of individuals are getting into good schools because their parents forked over endowments.

...which I don't believe is a correct assertion anyway.  When I was at Harvard this random Japanese guy endowed a professorship out of the blue at the Graduate Shool of Education, which should have raised some eyebrows but apparently didn't.  The next year his daughter applied to Radcliffe and got rejected, and he called up the ed. school and demanded his money back.  He then claimed that he had been promised admission for his daughter in exchange for the endowment.  I don't know if his claim was valid, but immediately thereafter a dean at the ed. school got fired and another one was 'reassigned'.

There is definitely some deference given to 'legacies', but it doesn't involve a direct exchange of cash for admission, and even the appearance of that gives everyone heartburn.

[Caliga]

And my only point in bringing that up was that not everyone who gets into Stanford, Harvard, or Yale did so strictly on merit. Some got in because their parents went there, because they had money (think of the number of actors and actresses who end up at Harvard), or yes, an endowment of some sort. I have no idea how many of either kind end up in an Ivy League school, but it's one of many reasons that I wouldn't go strictly on where they went to school in the hiring process.

In the case of actors, I think it's less about the money they have and more about the fact that they are 'interesting'.  Because of the sheer number of applications to the Ivy League schools you have to have some way of being 'interesting' to the admissions officers.  Just having good grades and SAT scores isn't enough, though you do need those obviously.  The thing that would annoy me about actors is that they probably do have an unfair advantage in that many of them are tutored on-set, and I think it's probably kind of hard to do badly when you get that degree of individualized attention.

In the early stages of interviewing, someone who went to Iowa State University would get just as fair a shake from me as someone who went to MIT for engineering, even though ISU is around 40 on the list of top engineering schools and MIT is in the top four. Now, if it came down to the two candidates and I just couldn't decide between them, I'd probably lean toward the MIT person.

Agree.

[crazy canuck]

*That said, I reserve the right to make fun of BB because he went to U of M. 

And damn proud of it.  Best 8 years of my life.  Go Bisons!

Thats what makes it so much fun for us.

[crazy canuck]

In the early stages of interviewing, someone who went to Iowa State University would get just as fair a shake from me as someone who went to MIT for engineering, even though ISU is around 40 on the list of top engineering schools and MIT is in the top four. Now, if it came down to the two candidates and I just couldn't decide between them, I'd probably lean toward the MIT person.

Sure, all things being equal that makes sense.  But given the difficulty of getting into MIT chances are that all things would not be equal.

[Malthus]

*That said, I reserve the right to make fun of BB because he went to U of M. 

And damn proud of it.  Best 8 years of my life.  Go Bisons!

Yeah, that's the funny part. 

[Eddie Teach]

All three of you went to Canadian schools 

[alfred russel]

In the case of actors, I think it's less about the money they have and more about the fact that they are 'interesting'.  Because of the sheer number of applications to the Ivy League schools you have to have some way of being 'interesting' to the admissions officers.  Just having good grades and SAT scores isn't enough, though you do need those obviously.  The thing that would annoy me about actors is that they probably do have an unfair advantage in that many of them are tutored on-set, and I think it's probably kind of hard to do badly when you get that degree of individualized attention.

I think the SAT really does a disservice in that so many people achieve really high scores. The result is you have a bunch of people that can't be differentiated based on intelligence, so they get differentiated based on extra curriculars and other "soft" criteria. I could see an introverted and unathletic 1-1,000,000 type supergenius struggling to get admission to the really good schools.

[merithyn]

In the case of actors, I think it's less about the money they have and more about the fact that they are 'interesting'.  Because of the sheer number of applications to the Ivy League schools you have to have some way of being 'interesting' to the admissions officers.  Just having good grades and SAT scores isn't enough, though you do need those obviously.  The thing that would annoy me about actors is that they probably do have an unfair advantage in that many of them are tutored on-set, and I think it's probably kind of hard to do badly when you get that degree of individualized attention.

I think the SAT really does a disservice in that so many people achieve really high scores. The result is you have a bunch of people that can't be differentiated based on intelligence, so they get differentiated based on extra curriculars and other "soft" criteria. I could see an introverted and unathletic 1-1,000,000 type supergenius struggling to get admission to the really good schools.

Poor guy probably doesn't know how to properly quote things, either.

[DGuller]

I think the SAT really does a disservice in that so many people achieve really high scores. The result is you have a bunch of people that can't be differentiated based on intelligence, so they get differentiated based on extra curriculars and other "soft" criteria. I could see an introverted and unathletic 1-1,000,000 type supergenius struggling to get admission to the really good schools.

I definitely did struggle with that. 

[alfred russel]

Poor guy probably doesn't know how to properly quote things, either.

Nah this wouldn't have helped me at all. 

[crazy canuck]

In the case of actors, I think it's less about the money they have and more about the fact that they are 'interesting'.  Because of the sheer number of applications to the Ivy League schools you have to have some way of being 'interesting' to the admissions officers.  Just having good grades and SAT scores isn't enough, though you do need those obviously.  The thing that would annoy me about actors is that they probably do have an unfair advantage in that many of them are tutored on-set, and I think it's probably kind of hard to do badly when you get that degree of individualized attention.

I think the SAT really does a disservice in that so many people achieve really high scores. The result is you have a bunch of people that can't be differentiated based on intelligence, so they get differentiated based on extra curriculars and other "soft" criteria. I could see an introverted and unathletic 1-1,000,000 type supergenius struggling to get admission to the really good schools.

Yes, that is the reality now.  Which is why we introduced the boys to things I would never have thought about before.  In hindsight it worked out well because both boys probably do have much more going for them now.

[crazy canuck]

I think the SAT really does a disservice in that so many people achieve really high scores. The result is you have a bunch of people that can't be differentiated based on intelligence, so they get differentiated based on extra curriculars and other "soft" criteria. I could see an introverted and unathletic 1-1,000,000 type supergenius struggling to get admission to the really good schools.

I definitely did struggle with that. 

The supergenius part?

[Baron von Schtinkenbutt]

In the early stages of interviewing, someone who went to Iowa State University would get just as fair a shake from me as someone who went to MIT for engineering, even though ISU is around 40 on the list of top engineering schools and MIT is in the top four. Now, if it came down to the two candidates and I just couldn't decide between them, I'd probably lean toward the MIT person.

Sure, all things being equal that makes sense.  But given the difficulty of getting into MIT chances are that all things would not be equal.

I don't follow.  Other than the MIT grad being expected to perform better in the interviews and possibly having more interesting undergrad projects to talk about, how are things not equal?

[Ideologue]

College GPA might be relevant and interesting if the person's never had a professional job before.  After that, it's of no interest to me whatsoever.

Yup. University and GPA is for getting your first real professional job. It is totally vital for that, but after that, it's all about your actual (professional) work experience.

Great.