"… So how can schools assess applicants? There’s no general agreement about what makes one candidate more qualified than another. Supporters of the Harvard suit dismiss ‘personal ratings,’ which are subjective and probably do enable anti-Asian prejudice. But let’s face it, no measures are truly objective. SATs, GPAs, extracurricular ratings — they’re all prone to bias.
I’d suggest thinking more systematically about the longer-term mission of education, and how to create incentives to fulfill it. Perhaps parents’ urge to game the system can even be turned to its advantage." …
The desire to get rid of objective measures is a very strategic shift that has little to nothing to do with testing being unfair or biased in some way. Schools and bureaucrats want more minorities in elite institutions (for all sorts of reasons) and the only way to do it is to remove a hurdle. Grade inflation is rampant-it is obscene. Anyone arguing that grades and teacher recs matter the most has an agenda. These two factors are the MOST subject to bias. Most specifically I would direct your attention to Khan Academy which provides free testing for the SAT and numerous other standardized tests. It is a wonderful site with unlimited practice options; there is Crack SAT as well and there are other sources. Since everyone has smart phones --even the poor and under privileged; most schools give ipads to kids and there are public libraries with free computers there is no barrier to test prep for anyone with a modicum of motivation. Fair is a really dangerous word. Why should it be fair? A college education is not a constitutional right? Certainly not an elite education. Do all the people screaming about fairness not realize that the more we as a society try to enforce fairness the more distorted and deranged the system becomes: i.e not requiring SAT2s but recommending them. Everyone should want a standard measure or two to apply to all candidates–now that would be more “fair.” How about making the SAT really really insanely hard with far broader %bands? Using math puzzles and long complex reading sections. Make the test longer. Have a straight up vocab section and subsets of the basic biology and history. In a word --make it a test that will correlate directly to high school coursework with really hard stuff mixed in and make the truly gifted stand out and really delineate broad bands of achievement. Further if students at say, weaker schools, miss certain components that they should have learned in school but they still have As for example then that will be useful too. Perhaps really bad school districts could be offered a handicap so to speak on their scores-that would do two things, protect achievement at weak schools but illuminate it–it may also encourage kids to stay in those schools thus making them better but I digress.
Any student or parent has a choice: wise up or find another game.
Assumptions will do you in, especially when your targets are colleges that want solid thinking and a good plan of action, wider vision than just what your hs does or likes.
And for heaven’s sakes, everyone is taking the suit study as some gospel, forgetting it’s the study commissioned by the plaintiffs, for their purposes, to make their case seem stronger. Try to apply some critical thinking. Don’t buy the bridge just cuz someone offers it.
I am not in the column of outweighing years of work reflected in grades and ap scores overshadowed by one set of 3 hour tests. Even all day tests. But tests are extremely valuable as part of the mosaic.
And teacher recs are super insightful in some cases as they actually know a person from real interactions. This can be more persuasive to me than a well written essay that may or may not have really reflect that person. And you can get essay prep guidance and editing too. So what’s the answer.
Use them all and have a critical thinking team of readers. For elites more than one reader. Everyone can have a bad day. Even admissions staff.
U Chicago just went test optional. Not a good direction. And I stayed above I don’t place tests over grades. But as a tie breaker when everything is nearly equal it is informative in general. Will a star but poor test taker lose out. Yes. Will they everywhere. No. Will time deliver the ultimate verdict. IMHO yes.
Elites have more than one reader on a file, several more.
In the end, when you’ve got your final pool of desired kids, who meet the variety of bullets, yes, you’ll often see higher scores trump. A sort of final cherry picking. But first kids have to meet more than simply high stats and some hs titles, some ECs. And that’s kind of where you separate, to use an old expression, the men from the boys.
The better you know a target, the better you assess and show your full match, the better your chance. Lots of kids miss that.
CC commentators are not on their toes! No one mentioned that the author’s husband is a full professor at Columbia (mathematics), and her kids are going to slide right into Columbia under faculty preference. And they won’t even have to pay tuition! Come to think of it, the “elite” primary school - which costs $45K per year for the unconnected - was free too! Funny, that she never put her kids in one of the many public schools nearby…
Reread the article with this information in mind, and consider the source of the advice that parents should think “systematically about the longer-term mission of education, and how to create incentives to fulfill it.” The author is a pure virtue signaler (“my three white sons,” lol) and somewhat known in the math competition world for her stance again math competitions, mostly because - yes, wait for it - they are racist and sexist.
(Way back, I knew a brilliant girl who attended Stuyvesant and then Columbia, like the author’ kids will. Her dad was a full professor there. Her brother also attended Columbia. Her younger sister went to Stanford, because at that time Columbia had an agreement to pay half the tuition at certain other schools - no idea if that perk still exists.)
Most statistics can be manipulated to tell a story. I was recently hiring a new team member and we did not hire the person with the highest GPA and most experience. We picked the person who clicked personally with the rest of the team and had skills that complemented the team. We also knew that she wanted the job and would stay long-term. The top applicant clearly saw the job as a stepping stone to something else.
As much as I wished for clarity in college admissions as a parent, I understand the reason for holistic admissions. If you are building an orchestra, you wouldn’t want only oboe players and no one who played the violin. Many colleges (especially non-Ivy) are trying to fill sports teams, bands, clubs, etc. They want students who will accept that offer of acceptance and show interest. Having that variety of students makes it a better, more diverse experience for all students. Blindly admitting by score could result in very lopsided classes (and not just by race). Numbers don’t tell the whole story.
The only thing that is truly unfair in the US system is how difficult it is for lower and lower middle income college ready kids without top stats to afford a four year education. The very top scorers are going to land somewhere – maybe not Harvard, but they will not lack for a fine education. Parents who can afford to pay at least their in state tuition will find a place for their kids. Those kids will get a decent education and if they make the most of their opportunities, all doors will be open to them.
But go run the NPC for a family in NJ or PA who makes 60,000 and tell me how those kids are supposed to attend college? What about the kids, who through no fault of their own, have parents that never saved, or refuse to pay? I don’t believe that every kid deserves four year country club experience of living in a dorm and picnicking on the the quad. But many kids don’t live within commuting distance of a school they can actually get into.
Instead of worrying about which 2000 kids are going to Harvard, lets worry about the hundreds of thousands of regular kids and how they can afford college. In my perfect world, any kid, regardless of parent’s ability or willingness to pay, should be able to afford college with a combination of loans (his loans - not parent loans) and work. We need to go back to a time when a motivated kid really could work his way through college.
(side note: before anyone tries to give me advice, this is not my family situation.)
In theory, (in theory,) community colleges offer an easy way to start college, live at home, and assess your readiness and goals, with a lower financial burden. I applaud the kids willing to go that path. But it’s not an equal opportunity in all states or within your own commute.
I also feel- and this is not to start a debate- that many kids aiming for “college” are not truly ready. Many would benefit from an occupational prep track. Around me, I see the dogged individuals (young and older) who make, say, community college work. And those who can’t, for reasons that are not just financial.
But back to “fair.” Little can be fair when you have a tsunami of apps and a limited number of seats. The answer isn’t always to make more seats available. Life is like that.
@gallentjill My thoughts exactly. We are one of those lower income PA families. If I wasn’t pulling from my (by CC standards meager) savings, my two college-aged kids wouldn’t have any options other than community college, as there are no commutable public 4-year schools. I am fortunate in a way to be the child of extremely frugal parents who were children during the Great Depression, and whose spending and savings habits rubbed off on me. Many families at our income level don’t have the option of pulling from savings. Some also don’t even have a commutable community college.
my kids attend a large public school in massachusetts where very few kids make high honors because the teachers grade so hard. I really hope they don’t do away with testing–it has helped a lot of kids I know stand out.
Fair assumes that there is an objective way to assess, parse, and rank candidates. To a degree, there is, but only to narrow the field some. Schools are left with giant pools of applicants, ALL fully qualified to matriculate, to fill tiny classes. We are left with a few who got in, who believe that based on merit, they were better than the rest and a bunch that feel that they got cheated.
There are a few institutions that rank purely on numeric algorithms, where students are simply ranked on horsepower. For the most part though, schools shape their classes, not by choosing the best applicants per se, but the applicants they feel can make the composite class they desire. This may favor legacies, or SAT scores, or a racial or regional heterogeneity, certain athletes or celebrities, or any other metric the institution wants.
There is no fair when by the objective data there are far too many qualified candidates that are the same vying for too few spots. Subjectivity must enter the equation.
“Since everyone has smart phones --even the poor and under privileged; most schools give ipads to kids and there are public libraries with free computers there is no barrier to test prep for anyone with a modicum of motivation.”
While I do see many libraries and public schools moving in this direction, I don’t think this is fair to say of all students are in this situation. There are still many barriers to low-income students that may not exist for other students. For instance they might have to work extra jobs to support the family, not have access to the same resources as other more privileged students, have limited transportation/increased family responsibilities, other factors that disadvantaged them at an early age, and simply the lack of knowledge if no one in their family has gone to college before. For those students, yes there are opportunities to prepare, but I think it would definitely not be equal to other students – where motivation is not the only factor.
I think the assessment that college admissions will never be fair is a fair one. There is no objective way to select students and colleges will always receive more qualified students than they can admit.
BTW, if you want to see if a school is “fair” in it’s admissions, look no further than the CDS.
Last year Harvard, Princeton and Stanford all admitted students with GPAs below 3.25 and SATs in the 500s. Princeton admitted at least one student with a GPA below 2.5.
Type 1: All- rounder. Good in academics, demonstrated strengths in ECs, Good essays.
Type 2: Combination of any 2 of the above
Type 3: Excellent in any one of the criteria.
The most challenging task is to evaluate an applicant keeping in view the student profile that would match the stated goals of the college/university.
My own experience says, it is most difficult to select an applicant from Type 2. However, it is a fact that US News Rank plays at the back of the mind and therefore numbers will remain very important. Therefore, admission through ED/EA route will continue to define the path the college/university will follow in case of RD.
Should we as citizens and parents be demanding “fairness” from Harvard, Princeton, Amherst, etc? OR should we demand more results and better education from our public schools, colleges and universities? Frankly, I’m disappointed in my forced investment in public education via taxes.
As I have said before on this site: To quote Faye Dunaway in Mommie Dearest: “Ah, but nobody ever said life was fair, Tina.”
As an aside, posts do not magically disappear; if one’s post has been deleted, one should assume that the was a reason. Therefore, posting it again verbatim is not advised.
