But think about a few things. There's a general sense of what an undergraduate education looks like, 4 years, prerequisites followed by picking a major, etc.
"Grad school," on the other hand, is kind of meaningless. Is it a master's program? PhD? Is it in a hard science? English? It it in a trade a la journalism?
So my assumption is that every program is different and every school does it differently for grad programs. They're small and weird enough that they have to.
I do think there's a lot more faculty involvement in grad school admissions. I also think that master's programs are much, much easier to get into than people suspect. I went to the one of the top journalism schools in the country, and as far as I could tell, it had about a 50% admission rate. 50%!!!!!
There's a perverse relationship between Master's and PhD programs in the same department.
A PhD student is an investment: they will crank out papers with the school's name on it, they will carry around the school's name for the rest of their academic career, and their projects are more likely to bring in grant money.
Master's students are shorter term, don't go into as much depth, so there's less opportunity for papers and grants. They're less likely to be in academic circles after graduation, so the school's name doesn't get promoted.
Funding for Master's and PhD students comes from the same pool, so in many cases, getting into a PhD program can be easier than a Master's program in the same department.
Masters programs are often used to print money for the department, especially for industries that have adopted the degree as an auto-salary-boosting credential. You end up with a lot of vocational students that are treating it as an investment, which is entirely counter to the aims of an academic graduate program.
The absolute worst are Masters in Education, followed by MBAs, with evening CS Masters programs trailing far behind.
I do know a little bit about gradschool admisions in computer science and you're right, there's a lot more faculty involvement but I know nothing about more popular programs like the MBA. So I should have phrased my question better. What I meant to ask was whether in popular graduate programs such as the MBA, factors such as being the kid of a potential donor or a politician carry equally high weightage as they do in undergraduate admissions.
Based, anecdotally, on George Bush having gone to Yale, it would seem that they do.
I would assume they do, but have no evidence or experience to suggest so.
Again, admitting really rich, prominent kids is something that just has to be done to keep the school afloat.
If all you have is a bunch of eggheads, then you're an egghead school. For better or worse, eggheads don't run the world. Elite colleges can't ignore kids who might go on to run the free world someday.
I'm a CS PhD student at a large state school, and I used to be a CS PhD student at a small state school. From what I know from talking to my adviser, our grad school admissions are done entirely by the faculty, and such things as money and parents have no effect.
I'm not arguing it's anymore fair and meritorious, just that the rules are different. What they're trying to optimize is different. Basically, they're trying to evaluate if the applicant will be able to crank out a lot of research papers - this is what benefits themselves (if they take the student on) and the department.
Money does come into play, but indirectly. It's those research papers that let professors get grant money.
Elite colleges can't ignore kids who might go on to run the free world someday.
They could try to fight the current world order, though, instead of admitting some Skull and Bones cocksuckers who go on to destroy the country and world economy. They could show a lot more spine on that one.
You admit the "skull and bones" kid because he will bring money and influence to the school...money that can then be spent on kids with more "g," as you put it.
The skull and bones kid is probably going to do alright in the world, even if he is a jerk (I'm playing along with your sterotypes here). The kids with high "g" are, like startups, a bit of a crapshoot. You might get David Foster Wallace, but probably not. Either way, the "g" kids aren't going to bring home the bacon.
Either way, the "g" kids aren't going to bring home the bacon.
This is how things work now, but you are at least in a position to change this, admittedly in a very small way. Why aren't you trying to bring about a world where the "g kids", so to speak, are able to bring home the bacon, instead of the children of the caste that brought us Bush and subprime?
But think about a few things. There's a general sense of what an undergraduate education looks like, 4 years, prerequisites followed by picking a major, etc.
"Grad school," on the other hand, is kind of meaningless. Is it a master's program? PhD? Is it in a hard science? English? It it in a trade a la journalism?
So my assumption is that every program is different and every school does it differently for grad programs. They're small and weird enough that they have to.
I do think there's a lot more faculty involvement in grad school admissions. I also think that master's programs are much, much easier to get into than people suspect. I went to the one of the top journalism schools in the country, and as far as I could tell, it had about a 50% admission rate. 50%!!!!!