What Do Schools Sell?
Major exams like the SAT or GRE are graded anonymously; info identifying test takers is hidden from test graders. My department follows the same policy on its major “prelim” and “field” exams. But in virtually every class, grading of homework, exams, etc. is not anonymous, even though that would be easy to arrange. Yes class presentations and participation couldn’t be anonymous, but the rest could. Presumably the reason major exams are anonymous is to avoid even the appearance of the possibility of bias or corruption; why allow such an appearance with classes?
Also, letters of recommendations can be nearly as important as grades. Yet most schools have zero procedures to avoid corruption there. Students are given no guidelines or basis for comparison; no records are kept of who recommended who for what on what basis, so there isn’t any way to even look for corruption. Why so cavalier there?
Also, profs at top schools are advised to put minimal effort into teaching, as they will be evaluated mainly on their research. So why do students pay extra to attend colleges with research-focused teachers who mostly ignore them?
As with docs and macro-economists, let me suggest people want to affiliate with prestigious others; a major product schools sell students is a direct relationship with prestigious faculty. Anonymous class grading is avoided because it would reduce an important personal tone in the student teacher relationship; the possibility of corruption goes along with a personal connection.
Yes, colleges credential student performance, and those credentials would be more valuable if they better avoided the appearance of corruption. But in addition to performance credentials schools are selling college students the ability to claim relationships with about fifty teachers, and to claim a closer relation with the few who write recommendation letters. Perhaps students care about those relations nearly as much or more than they do about performance credentials.
Added: Schools also sell affiliation with other high status students.
Wrong right/write, second sentence of the last paragraph.
@diogenes:
Here are the stats for all USA med schools for 2007. The numbers are by state of residency, rather than by school, but almost half of the applicants get in somewhere. I think the confusion about the high applicant to matriculant ratio is based on an average of over 13 applications per student. Since each can only go to one school, that means that an average of 12 applications per student go for naught, even if the student is accepted.
USA: 42,315 applied, 17,759 matriculated (42% got in somewhere)
Residents of West Virginia had highest rate of matriculation: 58%Residents of New Hampshire had lowest rate of matriculation:33%
National ratio of applicants to matriculations: 1.4:1LA (my current state of residence) ratio of applicants to matriculations: 0.95:1 (more likely to get in than not)
Here's the Web site.
There are no published statistics that I could find that allow us to say how many applicants actually are accepted at the "top" medical schools in order to reach their capacity. We only know how many applied and how many matriculated at that school. In top undergraduate schools, it is not unusual for only 10% of the accepted applicants to attend that school. With the tuition at state medical schools typically being 10% -15% that of top private schools (for essentially the same education and certainly the same union card), I suspect many of the qualified applicants to the top schools don't actually plan to attend even if they are accepted.
Note: Medical College of Georgia $4334; Harvard $39,800 (although actual students tell me their obligation is closer to $60,000).