I don’t think that last one is a good example of your point. People who play in all-state have been taking private lessons since they were in elementary school.
Here’s a novel concept: apply to colleges that don’t have ridiculous admissions standards!
It amazes me that people complain about the unfairness and difficulty getting into elite colleges meanwhile other students are walking right in the door at good solid state or private schools around the country.
Here is a quote from Mr. Bruni’s latest book: “If you hold up certain metrics as the very determinants of children’s futures, if you invest those metrics with too much importance and allow too blinding a focus on them, don’t you essentially instruct those kids to define and see themselves in terms of those very measurements?”
Outstanding students have a variety of skill sets. Some are great test takers, some are excellent complex problem solvers and others have other talents. Ideally these should all be accounted for.
Having screened thousands of applications for medical school and resident applications there are times it would be assure to pick the students who have the best GPA and MCAT/USMLE scores and choose them for interview/admission. Experience has taught me that good test takers are sometimes just that and there are many “diamonds in the rough” who have lesser scores but are much better learners.
Sure, and how many po’ folk have a University nearby that they can walk to – busses and trains cost money? How many of the same kids are working retail to help pay the bills.
You aren’t wrong that they face challenges. But it’s wrong to assume all these kids are so completely stymied. There is a great motivation to succeed out there, many kids engaged in leg-up programs and mentoring, getting bus passes, opportunities brought to kids. Many do show leadership in their high schools, do community work through their religious or civic organizations, many are amazing. Even under-resourced hs can offer AP and LoRs reflect on determination, success and impact.
No, this won’t capture all kids.
I posted this in another thread that discussed the admission portfolio idea/product. An opinion piece from an enrollment manager at Depaul (who’s also known for his obsession with admission/enrollment data) recently appeared in the Washington Post. The author is not impressed with the supposed intent of the application to boost enrollment from under-served low-socioeconomic students:
…and anecdotes from a recent conference of admission professionals:
“The new college admissions coalition: Is it really about access?” https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/grade-point/wp/2015/10/05/the-new-college-admissions-coalition-is-it-really-about-access/
Overall, I do agree that the portfolio idea is a poor one as currently presented, since most lower-income students won’t even know about it while kids in private middle/lower school will start polishing it.
However, I really disagree that the “best EC’s” are those that take money. The best EC’s are those that show resilience, character, intellectual curiosity, ability, originality, creativity. Money facilitates that. But some things can be done that adcoms recognize as proof of what they’re looking for, even if (especially if) they don’t take money. There’s definitely a different standard for kids from rural and inner city background, which is normal.
Don’t know that anyone said that they were…
I don’t see how this new application process would increase the low-income students to attend these schools.
I think many users here do forget that most high school students go to schools with fairly predictable admissions. But I still wouldn’t completely advise writing off colleges that have “ridiculous admissions standards.” Attending Carnegie Mellon’s School of Computer Science is very different from being a CS major at a “typical” school. And anyone who wants to go there has to deal with the opaque admissions process that I lamented earlier.
I’m exhausted thinking about this new portfolio application, as if the Common App and it’s endless supplemental essays wasn’t bad enough. Now the kids have to start in 9th grade? I have a 10th grader now, and I really don’t want her to get sucked into doing this.
I agree with this: “Why don’t you make this application and suite of tools available only to low-income students?”
What if families could only use this new tool if their income was below a certain level? And they had to submit their IRS forms each year while the child is building the portfolio to prove it. Still, seems like a lot of effort for kids who don’t have the resources, access to computers, and inside information as to how this all works.
Do the AdCom’s really want to slog through thousands of portfolios? Because that’s what this will create. It sounds like SO much more work for admissions staff too.
No one has said they will slog though the portfolios. It just hasn’t been said.
That doesn’t mean there aren’t unanswered questions. Nor how exactly this will be rolled out and made available. Go ahead and hate it if you wish, if you read up on it. But not based on conjecture.
It won’t help students from low SES families in general. What will likely be the case is that the subset of students from low SES families who successfully navigate the current application process for highly selective schools is the same subset who can handle the new process. This subset is likely defined as:
a. Those attending high schools which are have a significant high performing student cohort. At such high schools, the “college admissions culture” that exists in the form of support from counselors, teachers, and high performing peer students helps remind high performing students to stay on track with PSAT / SAT / ACT / recommendations / FAFSA / CSS Profile / essays / deadlines. In contrast, an outlier high performing student in a predominantly low performing high school may not get any attention or support for college aspirations beyond the local community college or commuter university.
b. Those whose biological parents are married, as opposed to divorced. Divorced parents may be uncooperative with financial aid forms or paying the expected family contribution. Students with such uncooperative divorced parents may be shut out financially from the highly selective financial aid based on need only colleges.
But even this subset is far more students than the highly selective colleges “need” to get some SES diversity. They do not “need” or want too many, since that would consume too much of the financial aid budget; they also need enough students paying list price (top 2-3% income families) to balance the budgets (and various other favored admission groups like big donor relation, legacy, celebrity, athletes in sports associated with high SES, etc. tend to come from high income families).
This may or may not be true for many divorced families, but it doesn’t differ from the current application. It’s not like the new app changes the financial aid system of the member schools at all.
It also does not change the subset of students from low income families who can get through the application process (as described in (a) in #32). I.e. that was my point that it won’t expand access beyond the subset of students from low income families (defined by both (a) and (b) in #32) who currently have a realistic chance to attend those highly selective colleges.
Perhaps there are other reasons for the colleges to change the application method. But the claimed expansion of opportunity for students from low income families does not appear to be much of anything.
Ucb, there are many great, able kids out there who don’t know the process. Their high performing cohort may be a few goal driven kids at a less competitive hs. That doesn’t preclude teachers who mentor, guide, and set standards or the community or competitive programs that try to give them a leg up. What if the consortium could capture a few more of those?
I think we have to examine our attitudes about this segment of able kids and what it might take to support them in their college aspirations. Nope, this isn’t about all poor kids. And it isn’t about getting more into any old U.
“The fact that some highly motivated and well prepared students do not apply to and enroll in the college they are best suited for is a persistent problem." True.
"Members of the Coalition include a diverse group of public universities that have affordable tuition along with need-‐based financial aid for in-‐state residents, and private colleges and universities that provide sufficient financial aid to meet the full, demonstrated financial need of every domestic student they admit.
Coalition schools graduate at least 70 percent of their students within six years, with many having much
higher graduation rates. “Coalition schools offer students incredible choice in location, size, selectivity, and mission, but we all share a commitment that the students we admit can afford to attend and will have a high likelihood of
graduating,” said James G. Nondorf, vice president for enrollment at the University of Chicago. “That should give students confidence that college is within their reach, and that they can be successful. We hope this effort will ultimately be successful in persuading many more students to aim for college and help ensure that they are prepared to do so.”
That’s pretty much all we know, at this point.
http://www.coalitionforcollegeaccess.org/press-release.pdf
^one thing that makes me doubt the goals of the Coalition is that Penn State is in the bunch, and it’s terrible with FA even for low income, instate students.
I know that colleges likes Bates, Grinnell, and Wellesley are very different in their financial aid policies and really seek to increase socio economic diversity (in part because they have the funds) but I’m not sure whether it’ll change anything for some universities on the list that currently don’t meet need.
@MYOS1634, how many unis in England outside of Oxbridge (including pretty elite institutions like LSE and Imperial) use more than results of standardized tests and maybe a common essay in admissions?
How do the most prestigious unis in Japan (the public former Imperial unis, including the top dog: UTokyo) admit students?
What about Germany?
What about Canada?
What about China?
That’s a big chunk of the ex-US global economy right there.
The public universities just need to have “affordable in-state tuition” (however that’s defined) to be considered for membership. The private schools must meet full need (however that’s defined). Combined with the 70% graduation rate (rounding up to the nearest ten?) means this will be a very limited set of schools. The coalition is using the 70% graduation rate to prevent the vast majority of public universities from entering the coalition - this isn’t an issue among the full need private schools. The UC system was not an initial member because of this. (Have they joined yet?)
I’m cynical. I just see this as a way for the elite schools to differentiate themselves, even more, from the “regular” schools using the Common App. In other words, they want the ease and tech of the Common App but they don’t want to be lumped with all the other schools using the CA.
The stuff about portfolio? Aiding the low SES student? Fluff. Unless they provide a way of allowing the student to use the portfolio to apply to any university or college, it’s useless. It also just ups the game to private college applicants.
@purpletitan: I’m not saying it’s not economically competitive, but I’m not certain the other systems aren’t even more inequalitarian. At least the US takes context into account, such as the fact one comes from an underprivileged group or a rural area, and elites see diversity (socio economic as well as ethnic) as a positive factor, not a negative factor. I’m even certain it’s fair to students - I’ve sat one of these competitive exams and I ranked very high, but I also know that it’s heavily luck-related.
It also depends on whether universities are seen as a place of education & growth, or as solely a place of instruction. Traditionally, English speaking countries see universities as places for growth, hence the inclusion of more than a test result (or several days of testing). Imperial, LSE, etc., pay particular attention to the personal statement (which is not an exercise in creative nonfiction like the college admissions essay is). Historically, the US is the most invested in providing a full education via college, vs. merely offering classes in the continuation of high school, along with granting access to higher education to a large segment of its high school population, itself very large percentage-wise compared to other developed countries in the 1906-1970 period. Access and “whole person” education are not seen as important in other parts of the world.
@SlackerMomMD: if that makes some of these “elite public” universities offer better financial aid to their instate applicants just for the privilege of being part of that “coalition”, then I’m all for it. 
How will “affordable” be defined? Can any public university offer its own definition and declare itself “affordable”?
I’m kind of hoping taxpayers in the states of Illinois and Pennsylvania will remember the time when tuition was 6-7K rather than the current 12 (UIUC Liberal arts) to 17 (PSU/UIUC business, science, engineering, advertising…), since it wasn’t so long ago, and will put pressure on their legislatures to bring costs in line with income progress and inflation. But if making tuition affordable again comes from the desire to be called “elite” due to belonging to the coalition, ey, I’ll take what I can get.