View Single Post
Old 11-17-2012, 11:05 AM   #116
Alohajrtennis
Semi-Pro
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 468
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jigglypuff View Post
Not sure what you're getting at.
Pretty straightforward concept here. Input = high school students. Output = college graduate. If you measure a schools solely by what it takes in(SAT,GPA's,ect) you are not really measuring any thing the school does, besides recruit. Kind of like measuring a tennis team based on the stars of its recruits rather than its performance. Of course any UC system school is overrated by measuring the inputs, huge population base to draw from and huge discounts for instate students.



Quote:
Originally Posted by jigglypuff View Post
"Pedigree" has nothing to do with it. Study your butt off, you'll get into better schools.
I was talking about the pedigree of the school, and subsequently the students once they graduate. It has everything to do with it. Ivy League schools learned ago that he endowment grows a lot faster when everybody gets A's and high paying jobs at law firms and investment banks. Give the kids C's and they dont get good jobs and seem to donate less the the capital campaigns. Can't have that now can we. Remember, the guys running these places are pretty sharp tacks. Hence the phrase "the hardest part is getting in". I didn't just make that up. Its a pretty simple business plan: Get the top .5% of kids who are probably going to be successful no matter how bad we screw them up, and then they will wear our shirts and send us checks for the rest of their lives...


Quote:
Originally Posted by jigglypuff View Post
And how exactly does the real world evaluate students? Money? Happiness? I guess you won't be wiping your *** anytime soon.
Its obviously much harder to measure this, but many organizations try. See the Shanghai index :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academi...d_Universities

which actually has UW at 16

Be right back, got to go to the...well, you know.
Alohajrtennis is offline