nbhoya
Bulldog (over 250 posts)
Posts: 392
|
Post by nbhoya on Sept 13, 2019 10:38:21 GMT -5
Also the low endowment per student is probably greatly exacerbated by the proliferation of a lot of marginal grad masters programs(a few are very good e.g security studies while many are pretty much viewed as profit activities vs serious academic programs. To that point, I found this stat on the Georgetown Office of Assessment and Decision Support page which I found very surprising. It's the percentage of degrees awarded in 2017-18. Bachelor's degrees: 27% of total Master's degrees: 59%Professional degrees (MD, JD): 12% Ph.D.: 2% oads.georgetown.edu/This is because of the School of Continuing Studies downtown. I have often questioned the real value long-term for GU with regard to this school. It seems like a profit center and diploma mill.
|
|
Bigs"R"Us
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,641
|
Post by Bigs"R"Us on Sept 13, 2019 11:57:13 GMT -5
Waters down the product, like online offerings, executive degrees and certificates.
|
|
|
Post by reformation on Sept 14, 2019 10:50:43 GMT -5
Great find DFW for the statistic. It motivated me to look up a few comps. Dartmouth and Brown probably are the closest resource wise to Gtwn among the ivies. Their % of degrees is something like 60% undergrad with rest being professional incl MD ENG Phd etc Tuck MBA etc. Gives some idea where resources are being directed, which is not a good look for Gtwn.
I haven't looked yet at places like Columbia Harvard etc which probably have big masters/Phd component and would have a skew more like Gtwn. Part of that skew is that urban schools are going to have a bit more of a service component for local professionals, but I would caution that places like Columbia and Harvard have vastly different resources than Gtwn and both have high end Phd programs to anchor masters offerings--their masters programs are generally with a few exceptions much better than Gtwn's. The level that many, not all, master's programs are taught at at Gtwn is in reality high end undergrad-i.e., what the Gtwn undergrads should be doing, but generally don't. Peer reviewers, despite their own biases which in some ways might be unfair to Gtwn, certainly are not unaware of the level of masters/undergrad teaching/research at Gtwn and hence the more mediocre reviews than Gtwn people feel is justified.
Gtwn's degree skew seems to be way out of whack given the schools resources/mission.
|
|
DFW HOYA
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 5,730
|
Post by DFW HOYA on Sept 14, 2019 10:59:21 GMT -5
The level that many, not all, master's programs are taught at at Gtwn is in reality high end undergrad-i.e., what the Gtwn undergrads should be doing, but generally don't. Way back when, I had a 4:15-6:15 class in Principles of Marketing. The common knowledge was that if you missed the class, go to the 6:15 MBA class instead. They were following the same book and syllabus, in the same order.
|
|
Nevada Hoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 18,407
|
Post by Nevada Hoya on Sept 16, 2019 11:53:12 GMT -5
Way back when I was a senior chemistry major, we took the same course in advanced physical chemistry as the grad students. The undergrads usually had higher grades than the grad students.
|
|
|
Post by happyhoya1979 on May 21, 2020 19:56:39 GMT -5
Sometimes you catch a break. Amazingly, the University of California System is dropping the SAT as an admissions requirement. No longer will a poor applicant be able to prove their talent on a uniform test given to all competing applicants. The poor talented kid who doesn't happen to go to Beverly Hills High or College Prep in Oakland will just have to go elsewhere and Georgetown is positioned to be that elsewhere. Within five years the completion rates at the UC system will go way down and their applicant pools will drop dramatically as well since their degrees will no longer represent excellence. The UC system will only be for the very affluent and connected, or those who fit demographic criteria established by the elite of the UC Board.
Georgetown can now take out UCLA and Berkeley in the US News ratings and be a beacon of excellence and opportunity.
|
|
|
Post by badgerhoya on May 21, 2020 23:58:33 GMT -5
Sometimes you catch a break. Amazingly, the University of California System is dropping the SAT as an admissions requirement. No longer will a poor applicant be able to prove their talent on a uniform test given to all competing applicants. The poor talented kid who doesn't happen to go to Beverly Hills High or College Prep in Oakland will just have to go elsewhere and Georgetown is positioned to be that elsewhere. Within five years the completion rates at the UC system will go way down and their applicant pools will drop dramatically as well since their degrees will no longer represent excellence. The UC system will only be for the very affluent and connected, or those who fit demographic criteria established by the elite of the UC Board. Georgetown can now take out UCLA and Berkeley in the US News ratings and be a beacon of excellence and opportunity. Maybe - but it’s been pretty much proven that superior test scores are highly correlated with income, which means that your talented poor kid with good grades actually ends up getting shut out. Kudos to the UCs.
|
|
Bigs"R"Us
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,641
|
Post by Bigs"R"Us on May 22, 2020 5:16:56 GMT -5
Grades can be subjective. High schools are subject to grade inflation. How do you compare kids from across the country from a myriad of schools? The SATs, while not perfect, are at least close to an equalizer. You need some apples-to-apples metric. Otherwise, admissions will be a crapshoot.
|
|
|
Post by happyhoya1979 on May 22, 2020 5:53:14 GMT -5
Sometimes you catch a break. Amazingly, the University of California System is dropping the SAT as an admissions requirement. No longer will a poor applicant be able to prove their talent on a uniform test given to all competing applicants. The poor talented kid who doesn't happen to go to Beverly Hills High or College Prep in Oakland will just have to go elsewhere and Georgetown is positioned to be that elsewhere. Within five years the completion rates at the UC system will go way down and their applicant pools will drop dramatically as well since their degrees will no longer represent excellence. The UC system will only be for the very affluent and connected, or those who fit demographic criteria established by the elite of the UC Board. Georgetown can now take out UCLA and Berkeley in the US News ratings and be a beacon of excellence and opportunity. Maybe - but it’s been pretty much proven that superior test scores are highly correlated with income, which means that your talented poor kid with good grades actually ends up getting shut out. Kudos to the UCs.[/quote And superior life expectancy is also highly correlated with income. So in order to equalize results do we now mandate the mandatory killing of rich people until all the life expectancy rates are equalized.
|
|
|
Post by badgerhoya on May 22, 2020 16:17:46 GMT -5
Maybe - but it’s been pretty much proven that superior test scores are highly correlated with income, which means that your talented poor kid with good grades actually ends up getting shut out. Kudos to the UCs.[/quote And superior life expectancy is also highly correlated with income. So in order to equalize results do we now mandate the mandatory killing of rich people until all the life expectancy rates are equalized. So sayeth "Exaggeration Man," the most mostest superhero in all the planet! In all seriousness though, this is all about equality of opportunity - something I thought conservatives were more focused on. Specifically: "The best predictor of college success overall is a simple one: high school grades. This makes a certain sense. An impressive high school G.P.A. reflects a combination of innate talent and dedicated hard work, and that’s exactly what you need to excel in college. And while standardized test scores have long been found to be highly correlated with students’ financial status, that’s much less true with high school G.P.A. In a recent study, Saul Geiser, a researcher at Berkeley, found that the correlation between family income and SAT scores among University of California applicants is three times as strong as the correlation between their family income and their high school G.P.A. ... Here’s another way to look at the numbers: The students who are most likely to benefit from any university’s decision to eliminate the use of standardized tests are those who have high G.P.A.s in high school but comparatively low standardized test scores. These are, by definition, hard-working and diligent students, but they don’t perform as well on standardized tests. Let’s call them the strivers. A few years ago, researchers with the College Board, the organization that administers the SAT, analyzed students in that cohort and compared them with their mirror opposites: those with relatively high test scores and relatively low high school G.P.A.s. Let’s call them the slackers: self-assured test takers who for one reason or another didn’t put as much effort into high school. The College Board’s researchers made two important discoveries about these groups. First, there were big demographic differences between them. The slackers with the elevated SAT scores were much more likely to be white, male and well-off. And the strivers with the elevated high school G.P.A.s were much more likely to be female, black or Latina, and working-class or poor. The researchers’ second discovery was that students in the striver cohort, despite their significant financial disadvantages, actually did a bit better in college. They had slightly higher freshman grades and slightly better retention rates than the more affluent, higher-scoring slackers." www.paultough.com/books/years-that-matter-most/
|
|
RusskyHoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
In Soviet Russia, Hoya Blue Bleeds You!
Posts: 4,596
|
Post by RusskyHoya on May 25, 2020 18:05:42 GMT -5
So sayeth "Exaggeration Man," the most mostest superhero in all the planet! In all seriousness though, this is all about equality of opportunity - something I thought conservatives were more focused on. Specifically: "The best predictor of college success overall is a simple one: high school grades. This makes a certain sense. An impressive high school G.P.A. reflects a combination of innate talent and dedicated hard work, and that’s exactly what you need to excel in college. And while standardized test scores have long been found to be highly correlated with students’ financial status, that’s much less true with high school G.P.A. In a recent study, Saul Geiser, a researcher at Berkeley, found that the correlation between family income and SAT scores among University of California applicants is three times as strong as the correlation between their family income and their high school G.P.A. ... Here’s another way to look at the numbers: The students who are most likely to benefit from any university’s decision to eliminate the use of standardized tests are those who have high G.P.A.s in high school but comparatively low standardized test scores. These are, by definition, hard-working and diligent students, but they don’t perform as well on standardized tests. Let’s call them the strivers. A few years ago, researchers with the College Board, the organization that administers the SAT, analyzed students in that cohort and compared them with their mirror opposites: those with relatively high test scores and relatively low high school G.P.A.s. Let’s call them the slackers: self-assured test takers who for one reason or another didn’t put as much effort into high school. The College Board’s researchers made two important discoveries about these groups. First, there were big demographic differences between them. The slackers with the elevated SAT scores were much more likely to be white, male and well-off. And the strivers with the elevated high school G.P.A.s were much more likely to be female, black or Latina, and working-class or poor. The researchers’ second discovery was that students in the striver cohort, despite their significant financial disadvantages, actually did a bit better in college. They had slightly higher freshman grades and slightly better retention rates than the more affluent, higher-scoring slackers." www.paultough.com/books/years-that-matter-most/Needless to say... this is a complicated issue. in large part because standardized test scores 1) are used differently by different schools in admissions calculations and 2) demonstrate different patterns across different applicant pools and larger demographic cohorts. The New York Times has a good recent article that gets at some of this: Why Is the SAT Falling Out of Favor?Here's the counter-argument to ditching the exams: On 1) - Georgetown and other elite schools have created holistic admissions processes that give relatively less weight to standardized test scores and factor in a broader range of variables. They really do look at high school's profiles to assess how rigorous was the classload an applicant took, compared to what was available. Large state schools with enormous student bodies and applicant pools simply can't do that. Some states have also added their own wrinkles, such as Texas's guaranteed admission to various state schools based on your public school class rank. Doesn't matter if you totally bomb a standardized test in that case - HS grades will get you in. And vice versa, of course... On 2) - I reckon that whether standardized test scores are a better predictor of college performance than high school grades depends on many variables, including: 1. The makeup of the students being studied and how many of them shared a common curriculum in high school (UCs and CSUs are drawing mostly from California high schools, which one would assume share more in common than a broader range of high schools. 2. The commonality of curricula at the college level - again, one would expect standardization across UCs and CSUs that one would not see in universities more broadly 3. The demographics of student bodies, both at the HS level and college level. Some states have relatively integrated public high schools, California being one of them. Others are more segregated now than any time since Brown vs. Board. Some universities are relatively diverse, while others definitely are not. The UCs and CSUs tend to score high on this scale as well.
|
|
|
Post by reformation on May 25, 2020 18:17:20 GMT -5
I would be interesting to see how the sat vs gpa predictor varies by major
some majors you can get by with hard work alone--others not so much. People who are successful though usually find a way to get through
|
|
Bigs"R"Us
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,641
|
Post by Bigs"R"Us on May 26, 2020 4:25:57 GMT -5
Grades are so subjective. Kids can do well for a number of non-academic reasons. Some high schools are subject to grade inflation, others are not. I read somewhere that half of Harvard’s massive applicant pool consists of straight A students. How do you begin to evaluate the kids? Embellished community service, fake academic clubs and essays written by paid tutors? Not going to be easy and fraught with even more fraud than standardized tests.
|
|
CTHoya08
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Bring back Izzo!
Posts: 2,839
|
Post by CTHoya08 on May 26, 2020 5:58:57 GMT -5
A few months ago the New York Times Magazine cover story was about admissions, with the focus on Trinity College. I don’t have the link handy, but recall reading in it that studies show that grades are a better predictor of success than SAT scores, but that grades plus scores are better than grades alone. That makes sense to me.
At my Jesuit high school, it was interesting to see where the kids who were in the top quarter or so of the class, but not at the very top, were admitted. It seemed like the kids who weren’t quite as bright but worked really, really hard ended up at Holy Cross, but the kids who got similar grades through less work but more innate intelligence ended up at Boston College. Even though we sent a lot of kids to both schools, this obviously is a tiny sample size, but I’ve always wondered if that breakdown was reflective of the admissions philosophies of the two schools.
|
|
SSHoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
"Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown."
Posts: 18,229
|
Post by SSHoya on May 26, 2020 6:44:43 GMT -5
A few months ago the New York Times Magazine cover story was about admissions, with the focus on Trinity College. I don’t have the link handy, but recall reading in it that studies show that grades are a better predictor of success than SAT scores, but that grades plus scores are better than grades alone. That makes sense to me. At my Jesuit high school, it was interesting to see where the kids who were in the top quarter or so of the class, but not at the very top, were admitted. It seemed like the kids who weren’t quite as bright but worked really, really hard ended up at Holy Cross, but the kids who got similar grades through less work but more innate intelligence ended up at Boston College. Even though we sent a lot of kids to both schools, this obviously is a tiny sample size, but I’ve always wondered if that breakdown was reflective of the admissions philosophies of the two schools. Might be behind a paywall: The problem is, rich kids who aren’t motivated to work hard and get good grades in high school often aren’t college-ready, however inflated their SAT scores may be. At Trinity, this meant there was a growing number of affluent students on campus who couldn’t keep up in class and weren’t interested in trying. “It had a morale effect on our faculty,” Pérez told me. “They were teaching a very divided campus. The majority of students were really smart and engaged and curious, and then you’ve got these other students” — the affluent group with pumped-up SAT scores and lower G.P.A.s — “who were wondering, How did I get into this school?” Hidden away among the wealthy masses on the Trinity campus was a small cohort of low-income students. When Pérez arrived, about 10 percent of the student body was eligible for a Pell grant, the federal subsidy for college students from low-income families, and many of those were students of color. Academically, Trinity’s low-income students were significantly outperforming the rich kids on campus; the six-year graduation rate for Pell-eligible students at Trinity was 92 percent, compared with 76 percent for the rest of the student body. But Trinity’s low-income students — at least the ones I spoke to during my visits to campus in 2017 — were often miserable, struggling to find their place on a campus where the dominant student culture was overwhelmingly privileged and white. www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/09/10/magazine/college-admissions-paul-tough.html
|
|
Bigs"R"Us
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,641
|
Post by Bigs"R"Us on May 26, 2020 7:32:21 GMT -5
You had me at Perez. These types of articles are written with an agenda in mind. Take it with a grain of salt.
|
|
RusskyHoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
In Soviet Russia, Hoya Blue Bleeds You!
Posts: 4,596
|
Post by RusskyHoya on May 26, 2020 11:59:55 GMT -5
You had me at Perez. These types of articles are written with an agenda in mind. Take it with a grain of salt. Excuse me?
|
|
Bigs"R"Us
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,641
|
Post by Bigs"R"Us on May 26, 2020 13:56:14 GMT -5
There is a strong trend toward diversity and inclusion in the workplace and in schools. Articles are written to support this stance. I’m all for it, but recognize the placement of stories to go with the times. I’m of the opinion that doing away with SATs is lowering the bar. Didn’t mean to offend.
|
|
RusskyHoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
In Soviet Russia, Hoya Blue Bleeds You!
Posts: 4,596
|
Post by RusskyHoya on May 26, 2020 20:54:40 GMT -5
There is a strong trend toward diversity and inclusion in the workplace and in schools. Articles are written to support this stance. I’m all for it, but recognize the placement of stories to go with the times. I’m of the opinion that doing away with SATs is lowering the bar. Didn’t mean to offend. Okay... the framing of that article is that what colleges really want is money, rather than either academic excellence *OR* diversity: That NYT Magazine piece isn't an argument for or against standardized tests per se, and is not centered on that topic anyway. Regardless, the fact that Trinity College's s Vice President for Enrollment and Student Success is named Angel Pérez is not an argument one way or the other. His background is certainly very different from that of the average/stereotypical Trinity student, and he is a big advocate of both increased diversity and test-optional admissions. At the same time, under his watch, the academic profile of Trinity's incoming class has only gone up: Elite schools of all stripes place much greater weight on high school grades, rigor of curriculum, and class rank or equivalent than they do on standardized tests, so it's not like this is a false increase induced by the removal of tests as a criteria. Georgetown's winkle to this is asking for more standardized tests, in the form of three SAT IIs, in order to reduce the weight of any one test, and in particular of the SAT I or ACT. "More data is better" is Charlie Deacon's stance.
|
|
Bigs"R"Us
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,641
|
Post by Bigs"R"Us on May 26, 2020 21:30:38 GMT -5
I am in the more data is better camp. I guess there will still be AP scores to submit.
|
|