Hacker News Reader

Comment by jean-malo | Hacker News Reader

I've always thought that the French model for top-tier engineering schools was cruel but it might have some merits.

You essentially study for two years post high-school to take a competitive exam, your ranking in this exam determines where you can go (first place chooses, then the second place gets to pick etc.) You suffer for two years but at the end it's based mostly on merit.

Obviously it's not entirely based on merit as privileged kids have a huge head start but you at least get a chance to catch up during those two years.

View on HN

I went through program like this (french-speaking country). My concern after doing those two years are:

1- You learn a lot of useless subjects!! I'm a software engineer now but I studied organic chemistry for two freaking years!! And I don't plan to use that knowledge (most of which I totally forgot) anywhere in the future. Something that I wouldn't have picked if I was studying CS in the US.

2- You're using the same filter for everyone, and people can have different type of intelligence which can go unnoticed via such program.

3- You don't get to chose the thing you love if you don't rank well! Actually you may end up with something that you hate, because that's what's left! And you only know this after you spent two years of your life!

4- It's mostly about hard work and luck!!

5- You get out with almost only theoretical skills in the first two years. A good thing if you're looking to continue in the research track afterword but a bit of disadvantage (compared to people who used those two years to master the required skill for the job market).

In my university, the first two semesters were spent in studying subjects from all the engineering disciplines like mechanical engg, civil engg, chemistry, physics, maths, CS, EC etc and I though it was a very good thing too since you get to know the basics of most engg disciplines. If it was just you own discipline from the start it woulda been pretty boring.

It’s also 100% based on academic and test taking skill - would be good if a more well rounded assessment could be used instead

Can you name a "well-rounded" assessment that doesn't just end up being a measure of privilege?

With these tests, you are still selecting for privilege, just differently.

More stable situation at home (so a better study environment) tutoring and, especially for language-based "soft" exams, gravitating in the right social circles will teach someone the "right" culture to reference in his essays...

At least for tests like the SAT, this is not correct. SES and coaching don't affect SAT scores much. A major reason why elites hate it so much and instead want "wholistic evaluations". Instead the ceiling of the test should be raised.

The beauty of it is that it measures one thing and one thing only: Test taking ability.

Personal interests? Projects? Nope. It's all a waste of time compared to min-maxing points for the admission test.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com