America's Best College Scam

Applying to College
21

<p>-Lurker-, that's absolutely wonderful.</p>

<p>Doesn't make it any less unfair, though. Meaning that it's not standardized at all. Meaning that, really, the SAT is just a scam after all. I guess it's the new "old-boy network."</p>

<p>bigp9998: Sorry, what does competition have anything to do with it? If one person has great work ethic and is willing to learn, what does that person have to do with the dumbass that doesn't want to learn and doesn't want to do anything with his life?</p>

<p>Similarly - and I just graduated from a private school - what do I have anything to do with the genius in my class that wants to go to an Ivy League school? I say we both work hard, and we both love learning - but we both have different skills and want different types of education.</p>

<p>School doesn't have to be competitive. You're conditioned to think that, perhaps, but that doesn't mean it's fact.</p>

22

<p>Obviously, hawkette - that doesn't mean it is legitimate, though. </p>

<p>And, once again, you're quite right - but what about the thousands of students who WON'T be going into such jobs, and certainly won't require such skills at all? How does that question measure how well they'll learn in college if they won't be studying such a subject?</p>

23

<p>Kheryn,</p>

<p>
[quote]

...why should it matter what school one goes to? If that person is at the top of their class, that means that they have work ethic. Maybe some students weren't as challenged as the priviliged, welathy kids that go to private schools, but that means they didn't work hard.</p>

<p>It's the same with GPA.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>As several users have mentioned, the quality of schools can vary widely. A student who is valedictorian at a relatively uncompetitive high school may not be in the Top 10% at a very competitive high school. Last fall, an admissions officer at a public university explained the loose nature of course labels to me. What is considered Honors at one school barely passes for college prep at another one. My biology teacher, in a moment of student-requested frankness, acknowledged that most of my high school's Honors classes would indeed be considered college prep at better high schools.</p>

<p>I read an article in the Washington Post about a year ago. At one high school, twenty-three of the students in the AP Calculus AB class earned As and two earned Bs. When the test scores came back, twenty-three of them made 1s and two made 2s. The course clearly did not prepare the students for the exam at all. If you make a 1 on the AP Calculus AB exam, that roughly (keyword) means you got one question right out of every ten.</p>

<p>I made a thread about valedictorians gaming the system. It's here:</p>

<p><a href="http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?t=210072%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?t=210072&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>From my experience, incentives and rules are big factors in determining who is valedictorian. Until this year, the valedictorian at my high school never took AP courses because they weren't weighted. Even this year, the valedictorian did not take the most challenging course load. Do they have work ethic? Sure. Are they truly the best? No.</p>

<p>GPA and class rank are good indicators, but they are highly susceptible to loose grading policies and weak course rigor.</p>

24

<p>Kheryn--Competition has everything to do with it because the SATs are a measure of relative strength in comparison to other applicants. College admissions IS a competition, against the rest of the applicant pool. The SATs are simply one of many indicators of college success, amongst GPA, rank, ECs, apparent work ethic, etc.</p>

<p>And the SAT question you linked to, like the majority of the math section, is meant to show how well you reason. That's why its called the SAT Reasoning Test. Because reasoning is a skill that extends to all (or most, I guess) job fields, regardless of the original question.</p>

25

<p>Fabrizio--Agree completely. At my school, our current class leader and expected valedictorian is a largely unintelligent person. I realize that that is a strong word, but she takes the easiest classes offered (I mean like Foods, which is simple cooking and nutrition, Spanish I, French I, Art I, and more cooking classes). These, the easiest our school offers, are exactly the same weight as my AP Us History or AP Literature class. Her A+ she received from memorizing the food pyramid is worth the same weight as my memorization of the most important wars, bills, presidents, acts, and doctrines that happened in the last 300 years of America. Does her A+ over my A- indicate that she is more intelligent than me? Hell no, as evidenced by the fact that my SAT score is 500 points higher than hers.</p>

26

<p>I don't want to sound like the absolute defender of the status quo (I'm not), but have the naysayers considered the fact that standardized tests are, well...everywhere?</p>

<p>If you want to be a doctor, lawyer, CPA, foreign service officer, FBI agent, real estate broker, pharmacist, nurse, dentist, veterinarian, or even a teacher you must take a standardized test (or many.)</p>

<p>It's not like the SAT is some anomaly in our society. </p>

<p>
[quote]
SATs are not standarized. How can they be, when the wealthy kids can afford to put hours into preparation while others can't? How can they be, when some are simply good at taking tests while others are slower at tests?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Standardized only means that everyone takes the same test. It doesn't mean that everyone goes in with the same advantages. It's not like the rich kids take a different version. Everyone gets to suffer through the same test-- hence the word "standardized."</p>

<p>
[quote]
I know a genius - yes, he is literally a genius - who did horribly on the SATs. He has ADD, and even with extra time, he didn't do well. I'm sure you know idiots who have done well on the SATs simply because they practiced useless questions.</p>

<p>How is that standarized? How is that FAIR?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>It's standardized because he was required to take the same test, with the same time limits, as everyone else. That's the very definition of fair and standardized. "Fair" doesn't mean that the test is tailored to one's needs. That's the very opposite of fair.</p>

<p>Besides, if he had some sort of disability, he likely could have been offered some kind of concession. It's commonly done.</p>

27

<p>Oh, sure the SATs are everywhere.</p>

<p>Doesn't mean it's right, though. </p>

<p>To me, the SATs are unethical moneymakers. The rich kids don't take a different version - they just get different preparation. </p>

<p>Fair means that everyone gets the same chances and opportunities. If you suffer from a disability, then you automatically don't have the same chances. If an SAT is going to be forced on someone, obviously they're going to need services so that they can be off at the same start.</p>

<p>But they don't always get the same opportunities. Making it unfair. Making it a scam. </p>

<p>Oh goodness, do I ever hate the SAT.</p>

28

<p>kheryn,
Your comment,</p>

<p>"what about the thousands of students who WON'T be going into such jobs, and certainly won't require such skills at all?" </p>

<p>reminds me of the student who said why bother learning math when she KNEW that she was going to study psychology and then later learned that interpreting analytical data presented at conferences was absolutely critical to learning about and understanding research on behavioural patterns in her area of psychological counseling. </p>

<p>As a high school student, it is the rare student who knows what he/she is going to do for work and even that person would not be wise to block out all knowledge from fields that might appear tangential or unrelated. The world and business is a complex place and things you learn next year might not be useful to you for 10 years or perhaps even never, but they might be useful to your spouse or your sibling or your parents or your friends or your client that you work with. Just dismissing it as useless is probably not the most prudent path.</p>

<p>Also, I suggest that you please control the class warfare and the moralizing. It does nothing to help your argument.</p>

29

<p>It's rare, but it happens. I do know what I'll be studying - I know what my life's passions are. When I think of people who change their majors, I see people who were too bothered with impressing others - more than what they loved to do. </p>

<p>I know what I love doing. I don't care about impressing others. Chances are, I won't be changing my "major" (it's really a concentration, where I'm going.) So, really, it is useless.</p>

<p>Besides that, this IS about class, seeing that it's about money. It's like most people on here are so privileged that they're not seeing the other side of the story, the story that most people in this country see everyday. Hence, the "moralizing." I suppose it wouldn't help my argument if no one here understands what I'm speaking about.</p>

30

<p>Kheryn, please directly address the fact that all other facets of college admission are JUST AS, IF NOT MORE SO, determined by money. The SAT is NOT unique in that characteristic. Money holds so much importance for success in both high school, SATs, and college. It's the way it is. So why are you targeting the SATs specifically instead of the monetary-based admissions process in general?</p>

31

<p>What annoys me is that I took a free practice SAT at the local library with a few friends, completely cold turkey---none of us had so much as looked at an SAT prep book--and I did the best out of all of us (I got a 2020 and the next highest score was an 1800), but I know that when we take the real thing they'll probably end up doing better than me because they can afford expensive prep classes and private tutors and I can't.</p>

32

<p>Some people are also born smarter. It doesn't mean we should try to control for that.</p>

33

<p>Kheryn,</p>

<p>I came from a lower-middle class environment, yet I managed to work my through one of those elitist schools. I even did well on the SAT.</p>

<p>So it's not like all of us are coming from Beverly Hills with a diamond spoon in our mouths.</p>

<p>
[quote]
It's rare, but it happens. I do know what I'll be studying - I know what my life's passions are. When I think of people who change their majors, I see people who were too bothered with impressing others - more than what they loved to do.</p>

<p>I know what I love doing. I don't care about impressing others. Chances are, I won't be changing my "major" (it's really a concentration, where I'm going.) So, really, it is useless.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I love playing video games. But there's really no money in it. So I have to bite the bullet and do something that will actually pay the bills. Not all of us are fortunate enough to have a passion that pays enough to live. We get to spend our lives doing the second or third or fourth or nth thing on our list...</p>

34

<p>UCLAri, believe it or not, I'm in the same position as you. I just happen to realize how overrated the SATs are - and I happened to come across the original article.</p>

<p>See, maybe this is the real difference between us: I think that the love of money is the root of all evil. Maybe you don't. But when I hear comments from people saying things like, "I love art, but there's no money in that - I need money!" I feel... annoyed isn't the right word. I'm not annoyed. I'm almost annoyed, I guess. Maybe I'm too opinionated, but I think that - if a person loves what he or she does - then they should be willing to be homeless for that passion. </p>

<p>It's better than hating your job and living in a mansion.</p>

35

<p>Also, I don't think intelligence matters. I think work ethic does. You can be a wasted genius, lazy and doing absolutely nothing with your intelligence. That's not very productive.</p>

<p>On the other hand, you can be close to retarded - but if you work hard, things will get done.</p>

36

<p>bigp, I've said it before: </p>

<p>They aren't.</p>

<p>Maybe it was the other thread, but I'm pretty sure I said SOMEWHERE that money can't buy work ethic, passion, etc. It can buy SAT prep, sure. But no matter what school you're in, you can work hard - it doesn't matter how competitive it is. </p>

<p>I'm targeting the SATs specifically because it's an overrated scam. Work ethic, on the other hand, is quite necessary.</p>

37

<p>"You can be close to retarded--but if your work hard things will get done"</p>

<p>Actually, your average genius (oxymoron alert) will achive far more than the average person who works hard. You can work your ass off at McDonald's, but all you will do is flip seven burgers instead of six, wheras someone who puts in a few hours a day at a large firm will accomplish quite a bit.</p>

38

<p>Yes, work ethic is important, but it does not get around the fact that even working all night on homework at Harvard is not enough in comparison to someone who is simply more intelligent, by nature or through hard work. There's nothing wrong with working hard, but it doesn't and shouldn't guarantee a place in an elite college or otherwise.</p>

39

<p>Quote: I guess it's the new "old-boy network."</p>

<p>Nothing new about the origins of the SAT's. I'd suggest a google search into the origins of the SAT's and their purpose. "Old boy" networking been around for some time in admissions. It can be intelligently argued that standardized testing is another form of stratification that benefits the elites disproportunately, and is less about true meritocracy.
I'm not antagonistic towards those more economically fortunate than I, nor is there a case of class envy. Investigating the history and process of college admissions has been very enlightening.</p>

40

<p>@ Kheryn, you treat SAT prep courses as though they don't require any work and suddenly lazy rich kids get magically implanted with secret SAT knowledge that is only available to those who take a prep course. </p>

<p>Of course it might be easier than self-studying, but in no way does it not require work. Any information a prep course can teach you can also be found for free, granted the people resources, and custom lessons and all that wouldn't be available to you, but the information is. </p>

<p>At this time and age, it isn't as though information must be bought; free information is widely available on the internet and in public libraries, you don't need to be rich to take advantage of your resources.</p>