How I Snuck Into The Ivy League. And You Can Too. | Hacker News Reader

How I Snuck Into The Ivy League. And You Can Too.

crushable.com

91 pointsatestu84 comments

There's a more general lesson here: personal interactions are the quickest way to bend the rules. You may have a stellar application/resume, but so do many other candidates. If you want to get an unconventional outcome, do it in person.

Related: I was a terrible student as an undergrad and when I later applied to grad schools I got rejected by every university with half a shred of self-respect. So, I enrolled as a non-degree student, took mostly Ph.D.-level courses and befriended my professors. That's how I "snuck" into grad school.

This was also very similar to my biggest takeaway from Startup School, actually. Any of the advice about how to gain customers, traffic, etc. when starting out was centered on real-world actions people took -- like evangelizing via meetups, as one example.

I'd rather say that the lesson is that getting in comes down to people, not rules. A bureaucracy requires bureaucrats.

There are many people who'll stand in your way of getting into a university moreso than arbitrary rules. I don't know if you have a good term for people who occupy their administrative desks like thrones (here, we call them "desk popes" translated directly.)

I recall applying to a highly-esteemed British university once, and I was aghast at what a sordid mess it was to apply as an international student (no info wheresoever, and Open Days was announced mere weeks beforehand), not to mention the admission gatekeepers themselves.

It's worth noticing how she got in:

>I spoke to a counselor at General Studies, who was similarly encouraging. I showed him my transcripts and the As I’d gotten at Columbia so far. He said: “Great! Yeah, you’d be a terrific candidate for GS!” He encouraged me to keep taking classes at Columbia and apply to GS for the following semester. I told him I didn’t want to keep spending money at Columbia if I wasn’t eventually going to get a degree. He told me I wouldn’t have any trouble getting in. And the credits would go towards my degree.

>Except it didn’t work out that way. Three months later, I applied to matriculate at Columbia through the General Studies program. My application was rejected. Let’s just say I was a little pissed. I could have applied somewhere else. Or returned to SUNY Geneseo. But taking two semesters of classes at Columbia is EXPENSIVE.

Did she get in, because the rules allowed it, or because a guy there screwed up, and she called him on it? She got in because and in spite of him.

I was in the UK once, and met a girl who'd just moved to Bath from Australia with her boyfriend to do her PhD. She got there and found out the position had been cancelled and they had forgotten to tell her.

Or you could get a job as a janitor... and then solve a difficult graduate-level problem from algebraic graph theory that a prof leaves on the chalkboard.

Will Hunting never actually matriculated. You could say he was being exploited, actually, because of his legal situation.

Quoting from a friend who went to a similar school:

Wow, that is total misinformation. Yes, all the Ivy League schools have General Studies programs but they are looked at as an adult/evening education program. For example, Penn's General Studies program doesn't even require standardized test scores:

http://www.sas.upenn.edu/lps/undergraduate/ba/

I'm sure a person can put on their resume that they have a Bachelor's from Columbia or something but then if someone who went to Columbia (or any Ivy League school) asks them about their experience, it will inevitably come out that they were in the General Studies program and then the person is in a really awkward position because they know that the other person knows that it was General Studies and it seemed like they were trying to pass as a regular graduate, which then starts to feel like resume fraud.

I fail to see the distinction. The Penn LPS FAQ (http://www.sas.upenn.edu/lps/faq/general) suggests that their night school students get the same degree and in some cases study with the same professors as the day students. Is there a reason to suspect the quality of the education would be dramatically different?

He wasn't making a comment on the quality of the education; just the fact that it's dishonest to say that the General Studies degree is equivalent in terms of prestige, which the article implies.

Ah. I would've thought them equivalent in terms of prestige, but I attended a state school in the southeast and don't spend too much time thinking about these things.

It really seems like you've managed to secure the top-tier education while sidestepping the selective admissions process. Quite the hack, no?

That whole prestige thing is BUNK.

For the record, I'm a graduate of the Harvard Extension program (undergrad) and I'm also a member of the Harvard Club of NY.

If you're in your 20's and have no other accomplishments to speak of then the signaling effect of having an Ivy League degree is probably going to do something for you.

But if you're in your 30s or 40s, you're going to be judged on what you've done outside of an academic environment by almost every single person you meet.

In fact, trying to game the prestige game in your 30s or 40s by touting your Ivy League degree is likely to have a NEGATIVE effect on your prospects. Just ask anyone from Harvard about the "dropping the H-bomb."

Personally, I think the whole prestige thing is just so much hot air. I've met plenty of dolts with Harvard degrees and plenty of supremely intelligent people who have only a year or two of college.

Keep this in mind: I have tons of friends who did an undergrad and a graduate degree at Harvard; not a single one has ever held that over my head or compared my degree with theirs.

Totally agree w/the name dropping your school being a bad thing. However, just being a member of the club of people from those schools just keeps paying dividends as your career moves on.

My friend quoted above went to Penn (Ivy League), I went to Auburn University (State School in Alabama). Both of us moved from the US to Argentina. I'm 36, he's about the same age.

Penn alumni in Buenos Aires? DOZENS, NEY HUNDREDS. They're CEO's of major startups here, Argentines who had good grades, wealthy families, and went the US for school and came back.

Auburn Alumni in Buenos Aires? i'm sure there are a few. Most will be with me at the sports bar on saturday watching Auburn-LSU. None are Argentines who went to school in the states and came back to run startups... He has a huge networking advantage here I don't.

I tried to get Auburn to even start an alumni club here and they ignored my mails, for instance, whereas the Penn, Harvard, etc. clubs are an ongoing valuable source of connections and relationships for their members.

I have plenty of connections at this point but it's a natural advantage I often find myself having to work harder to make up for.

Keep this in mind: networking opportunities come in many forms. Alumni clubs are just one avenue available to someone who is trying to connect with others.

BTW, Auburn is a very good school. Excellent academics and a good reputation almost everywhere in the world.

Of course, one of the afflictions of state schools is an overemphasis on sports. My feeling is that there is an attraction affect happening with certain schools that depends on their "brand." It may be the case that people who want to enter the corridors of power seek Ivy League degrees while others want to tap into more localized fraternities focused on something other than wealth/power/prestige.

As a 29-year old Harvard (College) grad, I agree that "what you've done outside of an academic environment" is more important than the prestige of the degree itself. However, I've been surprised that the prestige of the degree has continued to be important throughout my career. My experience is that it doesn't go away.

And the H-bomb has a negative effect on social relationships. Not generally professional ones.

Tell me about it. I actually had a girl stop mid-conversation, spin on her heels, and beat a hasty retreat when I mentioned Harvard.

Maybe I should have said I went to Bunker Hill Community College.

The distinction is much stronger in Columbia. There you are part of an entirely different school (School of Graduate Studies), which shows up on your diploma and transcripts and which you are supposed to put on your resume. While you may take the same classes and get a degree that sounds the same as the ordinary undergrad schools (Columbia College and Barnard College) you have technically got that degree from a different school.

And they say that transferring out of that school into Columbia college is not easy at all.

When I went to Columbia College, the GS students tended to be the best students. They were more prepared, more motivated, and had much more poise. If anything the GS degree would look better to me.

I know the snob factor goes down, but the GS degree should mean something to people who care more about education than branding or signaling.

Is anyone else appalled by that sentiment?

If the whole point of going to an Ivy League school is to obtain an education that supposedly exceeds all others in terms of quality (and cost), who cares how you got admitted, as long as you leave with a degree? These students, at least in the case of Columbia's School of General Studies[1], take the same courses along side regular students and graduate with the same BAs/BSs, albeit granted by a different resident college. These are people clearly capable of handling the coursework of an "elite" institution who would otherwise be kept out by overly restrictive admission requirements, requirements which clearly have more to do with perpetuating the institution's prestige than anything else.

What's next, looking down at transfer students for not taking all of their courses at the school they graduated from? And what about legacy admissions? If we're so concerned about distinguishing between those who were vetted by a selective, supposedly aptitude-based admissions process and those who weren't, shouldn't we assume those graduates who attended the same elite schools their parents did benefited from some form of legacy admission and hold that against them as well?

1 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbia_University_School_of_G...

Forget what that "other" person said.

If you have a degree, you have a degree. I get the same letters pleading for alumni donations that Eliot Spitzer gets.

It's unfortunate that there are some that cling to a model of social hierarchy that is predicated on beauty contests rather than actual objectively measurable achievement.

I'm argue that someone who earned a degree from Harvard or Yale or Columbia that did the work and earned the grades deserves no less respect than someone who did all that AND passed an admissions process. That process is the only thing that TRULY separates the non-traditional from the tradition student.

How I got accepted to grad school: I sent a typed letter as "priority mail" (where the recipient has to sign for it) to the prof I wanted to work with.

It was my junior year and I told him I could meet him in-person during spring break. He agreed and I traveled out there as promised. The screwed-up part was that he ended-up leaving town that week and I didn't get a chance to meet him! So I talked to everyone in the department I could get access to.

Eventually the department head at the time liked what I had to say, so he told me he'd see me back the next year.

A physician on the admissions board for a top 40 medical school told me the secret to their process. They separate each applicant into their respective ethnic background, take the top 5% of each pile, and then take a closer look at the individual applications. His words, verbatim, were "So if you're a black guy with a 3.2 gpa, you're good. But an Asian dude with a 3.9? You see that all the time; so good luck." The arbitrary nature of the admissions process of schools in America is pretty ridiculous. I like the way the UK does it -- fairly structured, and your candidacy is more typically rooted in your actual achievements and performance. That and they limit you to the number of schools you apply to, so you don't get kids firing their flak cannons by applying to every school in the nation, taking up spots in 'back up' schools that could be better taken by those who actually want to go there. I could go on and on.

This is different at every school, and I've never heard of the system you described.

The two grad schools I've gotten a 'behind-the-scenes' look at work like this:

- a team of 3 will review applications

- the applications are split into 3 piles, one pile each

- they rank their pile in order

- the group reconvenes, and they make an argument for their favorites

The one prejudice I've heard of involves the reputation of your undergraduate school. If you weren't from a top-tier place, it would be tough to get onto the top of certain professors' piles.

That part sucks, but I can't corroborate your account of race-based admissions at all. I should also mention that I'm specifically talking about admissions to a graduate research program.

Of course, he's out of California and you're in Canada where the admissions process is different (closer to the UK system). This is the sort of thing he's talking about:

http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/2009/10/12/24103/

"African-American applicants with SAT scores of 1150 had the same chances of being accepted as white applicants with 1460s and Asian applicants with perfect 1600s"

I'm not sure if that necessarily translates into graduate studies, but I'd guess that it does.

It's not so much arbitrary as it is structured with racial preference in mind. Why that is so, and the degree to which that is good or bad, is probably for a different discussion.

I'd argue the author didn't really sneak in.

I think graduating high school seniors are held to a different standard than working adults - which the author technically was.

But, the strategy is good. I did almost the same thing. I took graduate CS classes and was later accepted into SEAS at Columbia. I ended up going to another school that worked with my commute better but, if you are set on going to a specific school, establishing a relationship there will help you - but only if you get good grades :-) You still have to prove you are serious about the education.

This sort of sneaking in is pretty pointless though. The only really good reason to go to one of these schools is that everyone knows how hard is is to get in. If you go to a different part of the school that isn't as hard to get into (this is what GS is at Columbia) then you throw away that advantage and you're left paying three times what you should be for an education that, as was alluded to elsewhere in the comments, you could have gotten for 1.50 in late charges at the public library.

10 years down the road, when you're up for that VP position that requires a degree from a "good school," nobody is going to notice.

But you get to put Columbia on your resume either way. That's all most companies care about.

That's true for most employers, but the extra value of the Ivy League degree isn't that it's slightly more impressive to employers that would have employed you anyways, it's that it's pretty much essential to impress the standard gatekeepers to American high society: investment banks, law firms, and - to a lesser extent - medical schools, all of whom definitely make the distinction.

Law firms and medical schools, maybe, but not investment banks. If you're a programmer, anyway.

Harvard has a similar option called Harvard Extension, its also where Hillary Duff attended.

I finished my bachelors at Harvard Extension. As far as I'm concerned, it's been a worthwhile investment. As a guy in his late 30's, I didn't want to deal with the traditional college experience. I also didn't want some sham degree from a for-profit degree mill. HES was a perfect option for me.

What isn't often mentioned is that the courses at HES are often live streamed from actual Harvard College courses. Same course, same grading. I've directly questioned my profs about this and they say that they don't differentiate between students in either population even if Harvard sometimes lets people believe they do.

The CS courses are the bomb, BTW. The CS faculty at Harvard are very supportive of nontraditional students.

I think more importantly it ignores the networking effect that being in the general undergraduate program has. While I'm sure that people who attend the GS type programs at the various top universities are bright, you don't generally get to make the same connections as regular undergrads do (at Penn most GSE classes were later at night and I believe it was much harder for GSE students to take the regular undergrad classes).

I would say that while I loved everything I did while I was in school, it was the outside the classroom opportunities (student government/organizations) which were generally restricted to just undergrads that really taught me the most useful skills and connected me to a much broader network of people that I've found very helpful in my professional life. While I wouldn't say that it's a bad idea to "sneak in" I don't think it's the same experience/value as the regular undergrad program.

Let me just say that as the PHP developer at B5Media, which owns Crushable and other blogs, this is the last place I expected to see one of our articles. Please let me know if you have thoughts or feedback on the design or site itself.

Like the design, but I absolutely hate the brand name. You will forever be a Mashable-ripoff because of it. Nothing you can do now but ick, that was not a good decision.

I'm not sure I follow. Just because they end in the same 4 letters doesn't mean they have anything to do with one another. They are completely separate target audiences and demographics (technology aficionados/18 - 30 males compared to women's fashion and entertainment news/18 - 24 women). We've much more copied some other sites in our space like Gawker, Lemondrop, etc.

Glad you like the design though :)

I agree to a point - but not when the first brand gets to a certain popularity mass. Look, for example, at the "tube" segment. They all make me think back to Youtube as a brand. The four letters won't matter if they don't come after a brand that's massive like Mashable, in this case, it does though.

But it seems you will be OK for the reasons you say - much of your audience might not even know what Mashable is - or care enough to make the same association I did.

Think what you will, but I think that many tech visitors will make the same mistake - I almost didn't bother reading the link because of it.

The site is a bit of a font party, so I'd love to see how it would look with more Georgia and a bigger base font.

I love the concept of a pink colour scheme, but the colour of pink to the right seems to burn my eyes a little.

I'd also get rounded corners on all your pink boxes.

I think the site design would also benefit greatly from having only a single sidebar. Multiple sidebars is a trend I hate, because few, if anyone, are able to pull it off. Speaking of sidebar, it doesn't look as good with boxes with different widths compared to having a sidebar with similarly sized boxes.

Is the blog an Awl-Jezebel-esque concept, or what is the overall idea? It looks interesting.

Because "mash" and "crush" are synonyms?

I didn't really get the name at first, but really it's the content that counts. 4/5 stars!

I actually like the name. Not sure why, probably because I like crushing things.

If your resume says that you went to Columbia College (the undergraduate college of Columbia University) when you actually went to the School of General studies then you are lying, pure and simple. Now maybe you can get away with it and maybe many employers do not know the difference, but many do and the two do not look the same. College education at the elite level falls in line with the signaling model of education. If you get into Columbia College as an undergraduate it doesn't matter to many employers what you actually learned, its merely a signal for other things--like that you can learn reasonably easily, that you value education, that you're a relatively smart person, etc. If you go to a general studies program that signal, at least to those who know, is greatly diminished. I can earn an online BA from the Continuing Education School of Harvard University, does that seem the same to you as attending Harvard College?

Doesn't it just depend on what is printed on your degree? You put whatever that says on your resume, simple enough.

First of all, you don't know what you're talking about. Signaling is bullshit. You might as well try and turn one of those acceptance letters into a job offer. See how that works out for you.

The reason elite colleges are elite is because they are filled with people deemed "the elite." Got that?

A big part of the experience at ANY undergraduate school is WHO you happen to be learning WITH not just who you are learning FROM. Harvard made a very deliberate decision to cultivate a class composed of the BEST students from across the nation. It's easy do educate students that are ALREADY motivated, good students. BTW, Harvard also took great pains to make sure that there weren't too many Jews or Asians in the freshman class. (So I guess that signalling thing works in some unanticipated ways too.)

Just keep in mind that signals come in many forms.

I don't really see how signally is bullshit from the examples you've given. Harvard College does make a a decision to cultivate a class composed of the best students, that's sort of the entire point. Acceptance to Harvard College ends up being a signal for those things it selects for, not necessarily those things one actually learns. The gateway is admissions, not what Harvard actually imparts.

Since the admissions standards of Harvard Extension school are lower, it doesn't matter that the students can do the same work. It matters that the students weren't selected in the same way. Selection itself matters to the signal that the education is sending.

As for Harvard (etc) not selecting for Jews and Asians, very explicitly throughout the first 60 years or so (Anyone particularly interested in the topic should read Karabel's The Chosen), that's also, exactly as you point out, a signal sent if you went to Harvard in those years. That doesn't make the policy right or wrong, it just means that if you graduate from Harvard in 1930 you're likely a WASP, and, indeed, that item on you resume is signally to all sort of employers that a good Harvard WASP interviewed you and deemed that your character is fit, that saves a step when they want to hire you at their White-Shoe law firm circa 1935.

So why bother with the education part at all then? Why not just run the admissions process and announce the winners of the beauty contest?

BTW, which "first" 60 years are you talking about? Harvard's admission process wasn't /really/ competitive until the 50's.

http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2005/10/10/051010crat_atlar...

Well, the real answer is that you learn roughly the same quality of things no matter what college you go to, not that you don't learn anything anywhere, just that Harvard College's distinguishing factor is not its education vs. UMass-Amhert, it is the admission process itself.

Neither of our statements re:admission is exactly correct, but what I meant is that admissions wasn't anywhere near being fair until at least the early 1960s (and that's being generous to Harvard), so the 60 years I was referring to was from 1900-1960. Buuuut, that's not quite right because when Eliot was President things were a little more competitive, but whatever.

SO...why on earth do you think that it's lying to say you have a degree from Columbia U if it's "only" from the General Studies program.

Did you know that Columbia will hand you a masters degree in Electrical Engineering or Chemical Engineering even if you've never set foot in New York?

http://www.cvn.columbia.edu/

Are those guys (those who earned their degree over the Internet) fakers too?

Or you could just start "dropping in" on classes.. That's the first thing that came to mind when I read the title.

Really. I went to MIT for undergrad, and my experience there was nobody questions who you are in classes with 40+ people. (The one exception was an AI class I took senior year with Patrick Winston. There were almost 100 students, but he quite impressively memorized the names and faces of every student before the first day of class.)

I suspect most professors would be happy to have an extra student who really wants to be there, even if that student isn't actually a student.

<3 PHW

However, you don't get any credit, or a degree. So it doesn't really matter whether the classes you drop in on are Ivy League or not, just that you are learning enough to make it worth your time. You won't be able to validate your knowledge of the course material later with anything but a personal demonstration.

Fair point. Most of the classes I drop in on are large, lecture based classes, where I'm going more for the lecturer than for the validation.

In some cases (CS courses), it's really the peers/TAs that matter more than the lecturers. Of course, gaining trust and access with them is trickier than just showing up to a lecture, but it's definitely not impossible :)

I'd say the hardest part about attending a lab session would be getting a computer account (assuming the computers are networked). I'm sure I've seen students that don't attend lectures (presumably looking at them at home) but are there in the lab sessions.

I did this for 3 semesters after running out of money (at MIT, undergrad) and thus being unable to afford tuition. It was a little easier since I was in the system -- I could register, take classes, and then they would deregister me retroactively each semester. I got to take classes, sit exams, etc., just didn't end up with credit.

I actually learned more in classes where I knew I wouldn't successfully remain registered than before, since the only reason was to learn.

If the school itself hadn't screwed me over so much on financial aid/loans (0, since my parents wouldn't pay any of the "expected parental contribution"), I would feel bad for imposing marginal costs.

Or just listen to or watch the classes online. Plenty of great schools have audio or video podcasts of lectures available.

Once, at UC Berkeley, I attended an informational seminar on applying, where one of the admissions ladies got up and proceeded to tell a story about somebody who appealed her rejection five times, each time to a progressively higher authority on campus. IIRC she appealed all the way to the chancellor. When she got rejected, she would just fire off another letter of appeal. Finally they got tired of dealing with her and admitted her. She (the admission lady) closed by saying something like, "If you complain enough, you will eventually get your way here."

To this day that speech baffles me; I have no earthly idea why any self-interested admissions officer would tell that to a room full of prospective students and their parents.

OTOH the advice did turn out to be good; the squeaky wheels definitely get the grease at a large public university.

Strategies for getting an Ivy League degree (not undergrad though):

"How to game the U.S. higher-education system"

http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2009/1/24/11657/1141

Another way to sneak into the Ivy League: apply about 35 years ago, like I did, from an out-of-the-way place (San Diego), and you're in. They liked geographic diversity, and there wasn't much competition. ;-)

Oh, I guess Trip Hawkins (of EA founding fame) was from San Diego, too, at the same time, but, still...

Columbia has lots of ways to enroll. I did the 3+2 engineering program, and I was far from Ivy League material when I left high school.

This goes to show that what you buy at an elite college is the degree, not education. At most of these colleges, you can take as many classes as you want, but you won't get the degree unless you fulfill their admission criteria.

I think a much better strategy would be to just become among the best in the world at something in high school. This is a lot easier than you'd think, as it really only takes 4 hours a day to become better than 99.9% of HS students at virtually anything. Failing that the author's strategy is probably the best backup, assuming you're committed to getting a college degree from an elite college.

I am probably nitpicking, but there is a major difference between being the best in the world at something and being better that 99.9% of HS students.

It is not easy to become the best in the world in any field you choose, and the choice of field would also be quite important from an admissions perspective.

"There is a major difference between being the best in the world at something and being better that 99.9% of HS students."

Depends how you look at it. If you're one of the top 25 HS students in your field then you're probably only 15% as good as a professional, but you've probably put in at least 30% of the hours and gone through 60% of the pain needed to get there. In any event for most fields you probably only have to be one of the best HS students, unless you're picking something like ski jumping.

You also run the risk of becoming very good at something you might not like very much. That's just wasted time.

The title of this article is highly misleading. Does the author really think she accomplished something significant by gaining admission to the General Education program of an Ivy League university by knowing someone? The truth of the matter is that those programs are just not at the same level as the normal programs, and that you don't get an equivalent degree.

Honestly the question isn't really is a Columbia GS degree valuable or prestiguous, but whether going to Columbia school of GS is really a better option than SUNY Geneseo.

Geneseo is a teaching-oriented undergraduate college and one of the best schools in the SUNY system. If you're the sort of person who is going to bust their ass to get into Columbia as an undergrad, you probably could have just busted your ass at Geneseo and then gone to the grad school of your choice, which is arguably more important (unless you are a programmer).

Could somebody help me out here - I was under the impression (and perhaps this is just the case for Canadian schools?) that you need a student number to register for courses. If you're not admitted to the school, how can you get a student number to register for courses?

Most us schools offer student id numbers to non degree seeking students. They are charging/filtering mostly for the prestige of their degree.

interesting...

They generally don't let people audit courses (ie, non-credit) for free. Maybe if you're an employee of the institution, or have a connection, but if you go through the registration process you'll have to pay.

I audited a course at Harvard Extension, and the professor said she wouldn't grade the work of auditing students. You could do the assignments, and attend the lectures, but you'd get no feedback.

hmmm that makes sense, why would she want to do work for free? she is paid to teach paying students and help them improve. my parents are both college professors, and they get paid for online courses based on the # of enrolled students i think.

If only Indian colleges worked that way. They have only one way to get it (I mean the finest one's IITs/NITs/BITS/IIIT/Best state colleges), give there entrance exam after 12th class. Crack it, your in, don't crack it, your out.

Also I like how the American colleges allow you to take several classes which are not related to my branch. I could tailor my degree to my requirements.

<irrelevant unfulfilled desire> If I had the chance I would have taken basic and advanced electronics (from semiconductor theory to VLSI anything in between), all the computer achitecture classes (from digital systems to advanced parallel computing systems) with embedded systems & DSP, lots of math and 4 specific computer science classes (algorithms, operating systems, AI and data structures).

That would have really fulfilled all my desires.

</irrelevant unfulfilled desire>

This is pretty much the way it is in any country with a non-dysfunctional school system. Germany, Japan, etc.

In the U.S. we have been hypnotized by the notion of everybody is special" and "anybody can make it". (Also, "everybody has to go to college if they want a good job".) This sort of milquetoast egalitarianism has had the expected result: diminished educational standards, even the Ivies. If you flunk the university admissions exam in Germany, you can still go to trade school and end up with an education at least as good as a U.S. undergraduate degree.

For a country with a dysfunctional university system, the US certainly seems to create a disproportionate share of the good research.

These days, that's mainly because we import so many East Asians, Indians, and Europeans into our postgrad programs.

We import them from American universities though. Our high schools are way more broken than our colleges.

That disconnect has always confused me. How does country manage to maintain the best universities and among the worst high schools in the first world?

"Imports" have always been our research strength :-). Thank you Germany for going all crazy in the 30s giving us an era's worth of top-tier scientists.

Except those scientists stayed in America.

Today's crop of Chinese and Indian scientists want to go back to China and India.

The claim is that the undergraduate education component of the US university system is broken, not that the basic research component of the US university system is broken.

You're conflating two completely unrelated failings. For example you ignore the fact that in the US the SAT/ACT carry large weight with most schools, and you know what? It's a terrible predictor of college success. Contrary to the this post, most attendees of prestigious schools have all the traditional qualifications. The failures of the American education system are far and wide, but giving too many people an equal shot at a good education are far from one of them.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com