<p>"But it's time we reconsider, if not overthrow, these assumptions—and we need only look across the pond, to Britain, for a better model."</p>
<p>Lately, I have been seeing many posts/debates about how the college admission process in America currently works and what is required of a student when applying to colleges. Do you think America should try and follow the footsteps of the British college admission process? Or should we be content with where we stand now in the college admission system?</p>
<p>“Do you think America should try and follow the footsteps of the British college admission process?”</p>
<p>Personally, no. I support the private colleges’ individualized admissions policies in general. And @theanaconda, although you find it to be a scam, you’re 100% free to opt out. There are thousands of colleges that practice complete admission by numbers. But the rub is that most of the so-called “top” colleges don’t do that. Should they adopt policies that on the face, edge them downwards? Can’t have cake and eat it too.</p>
<p>But it’s a free market. Apply to non-holistic admissions schools and let the scam victims suffer without you.</p>
<p>If u just stop thinking of elite american colleges as pinnacles of academic achievement, and more as private clubs, then you’ll get over it.</p>
<p>Yes, it’s a game. And the day u get that thick acceptance letter from Elite U in the mail is the day u can quit the volunteer work at the soup kitchen and quit pretending u really care about saving endangered alternatively-gendered spotted dolphins in Namibia. </p>
<p>In the elite schools like Oxford and Cambridge, you have to have the stats and if you have the stats (which includes a personal essay and a school recommendation, by the way . . . ), then you get invited for an interview. You are interviewed by professors in your chosen field and, after the interview, you also take a 2 or three hour test in your subject – right there, on the spot. Their process is highly personalized and impossible to game. In our process, because we take athletes (which Oxford and Cambridge could not care less about) and fulfill legacy needs (which Oxford and Cambridge could care less about), etc. etc., we are stuck with the system we have. If the Ivies stopped caring about sports, legacies, wealth, and federal diversity scrutiny, then they could also go with the British system. Unlikely, right?</p>
<p>@T26E4
I acknowledge my hypocrisy to the fullest degree, only I’m not going to sabotage my own selfish interests for some
“higher” interest (although the allure of
Perhaps applying to some UK schools is increasingly bright even though my chances are very slim as an international applicant) Holistic admissions was started for the very purpose of denying seats to Jews at these colleges and is being used to deny seats to Asians today. It’s a noble premise, but how are 5 sheets of paper enough to Judge the character, personalities, and qualities of someone you’ve never met is beyond me. Not to mention that people are gaming the system and the vast majority of people (at least that I see) chase after extracurriculars with the primary intention of using it for college, especially for clubs. You’ll see kids who never participated in middle school math/science/technology clubs join suddenly in freshman year, gain leadership positions, and claim to have great passion and it works.</p>
<p>This article doesn’t tell the whole story. In many European countries, and I think the UK is one of them, college bound students have been selected and tracked in school since childhood. Such a practice of testing middle and high school students at various points for college or technical tracks would be unacceptable in this country. We also need to keep in mind that the European countries and the UK are much smaller than the US and that they can implement more uniform educational systems. I would say that both systems have evolved according to different circumstances and cultures, and that each has pros and cons. </p>
<p>Just building on pennylanes point, in the UK (and Ireland, which operates under a similar system), college admissions are relatively impervious to various forms of bias: for the vast majority of universities your admission is based entirely on your exams at the end of the equivalent of senior year (there are some exceptions: some courses have portfolio and/or interview elements, but they are very much the minority). So far, so good. Of course, that fairness is undercut by the disadvantages of poverty, notably lousy schools. </p>
<p>But there is another down side: starting in the equivalent of 7th grade, all of the learning is focused on standardized testing. You take GSCEs / Inter Cert exams in the equivalent in 9th grade, and your marks on those tests set the level of courses you take at A level / Leaving Cert - and in the UK, the top schools look at your GCSE marks as well as your A levels. Choices start being limited at such an early age, and the system is deeply unforgiving of students who don’t mature early. For some students that works; for others not so much.</p>
<p>I wouldn’t say the UK’s is a model to emulate, but Germany’s/Switzerland’s (with their very strong apprenticeship system, which is where most of the population go to earn professional skills, including becoming a programmer in Germany and becoming a banker in Switzerland) seems to be more worthwhile, as they do more to lift kids from poor situations in to the middle class and beyond.</p>
<p>Second that, purpletitan, and add that those professional tracts are well respected and lead to all kinds of careers, recognizing that college / university is not the best preparation for every field.</p>
<p>The trade-off with the German model is that students are tracked much earlier, so that school curricula can be more effectively optimized for each track (rather than the US model of allowing later choice, but less curricular optimization).</p>
<p>From the posts above, the English system is certainly not one the US should follow. I mean, come on, here even with poor performance throughout high school one can still graduate from a wonderful university if he or she does well at a CC. That wouldn’t happen in the UK.</p>
<p>The flexibility and diversity of the US system is its great strength. You hear of people who slacked off in HS, slacked in college, dropped-out, but then turned their life around, worked and went to school at night to get a college degree (and maybe even a professional degree) and became success stories.</p>
<p>But those are rare exceptions. In a sink or swim economic system like the US where education is mostly what you make of it, a lot of people sink.</p>
<p>The German system gives most people skills of some sort, at least, and learning a trade (rather, the Germans consider them to be crafts) and becoming a master craftsman is fairly high status in society (higher status, at least, than many Americans consider much blue-collar work to be).</p>
<p>However, I will say that the German/Swiss sytem likely has no shot of succeeding in the US. It needs social buy-in from everyone, and wouldn’t work if even one major segment of society was looking out for only number 1 and focused on the short-term. If you look at it from the perspective of a giant corporation like Siemens, the apprenticeship system is probably neutral for them on the whole. They don’t spend a lot of money on the apprentices, but they still teach them, and they don’t get much value from them. The main value is that some of those apprentices will like Siemens and keep working there when they do have valuable skills. But Siemens does the program because apprenticeship is an ingrained part of German culture from back in the days of the medieval guilds, they see themselves as a pillar of German society, and they have a long-term perspective.
If this was the US, some Master of the Universe type CEO would probably end the program because it means an extra 5 cents a share in savings next quarter.</p>
<p>In the US, there are some situations that are apprenticeships or are analogous to apprenticeships:</p>
<ul>
<li>Apprenticeships for skilled trades like electrician.</li>
<li>Paid internships and co-ops (e.g. the kind that CS and engineering majors get before they complete their bachelor’s degrees).</li>
<li>Working as an Engineer In Training gaining work experience before taking the exam to become a licensed Professional Engineer.</li>
<li>PhD study, where the student is an apprentice researcher and teacher in a university academic environment.</li>
</ul>
<p>It is apparently true, however, that blue collar work in the US is looked down upon, even if it is highly skilled and/or well paid. Even back in 1959, Vance Packard, in his book The Status Seekers, mentioned meeting someone who struggled to find a decent white collar job, while turning his nose up on well-paying blue collar jobs available at the time.</p>