[bjeds]

I'm not sure what you are claiming here. Are you saying that I'm wrong in questioning calling KTH "elite" because I used one anecdote in a larger argument?

You can look up the admission statistics yourself: it's very easy to get in to KTH. Maybe there are some programs that are more competitive than others.

When I finished high school, the admission criteria for example Electrical Engineering was roughly "you need a non-failing grade in all high school courses". How is that "elite"? Compare with medical school where it used to be "you need the best grade in every single course otherwise you're not getting in". Or the Opera school where there's an admission test in front of an audience.

I can guarantee that MIT is more difficult to get into than KTH.

[sobriquet9]

You are drawing conclusions about Swedish education based on a biased sample (people admitted to KTH).

It's true that looking at people admitted to elite medical schools would introduce even bigger bias, but it does not mean that the sample you chose is representative.

[bjeds]

No I'm not drawing any conclusions about Swedish education, I'm talking about KTH specificially. Are you replying to the wrong person?

[sobriquet9]

You need to read the whole thread for context. The original post claims education quality in Sweden deteriorated. username90 argues it didn't, using unchanged KTH test results as support. JorgeGT says KTH is an elite institution so there is a selection bias. You disagree, saying that KTH is not an elite institution. I'm saying the selection bias is still present because KTH students are not a representative sample.

In this context it does not matter how elite KTH is. It only matters whether KTH students on average are materially different from general population.

[Grustaf]

When I entered KTH you needed top grades in all subjects to be admitted to engineering physics. Electrical engineering was probably not even the third hardest to enter.