<p>there is still something to it</p>
<p>
[QUOTE=fireandrain]
al6200, I agree with you that there isn’t a level playing field. And that’s exactly why there is holistic admissions. Because students from low- and middle-income families can’t afford SAT prep classes, their SAT scores are lower.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>This is dubious. The best tools for SAT prep are available for free at any decent public library, or for less than $20. Sure, poor kids might have less time to study, but we could apply that to any academic criteria. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yeah, but in holistic admissions they are really looking for minorities and people with exceptional extracurriculars, not kids from middle class backgrounds with mediocre extracurriculars. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Really? I’ll admit that I don’t have any direct evidence on this point, but I find it hard to believe that there are adcoms who choose the middle class wal mart kid over the Intel semifinalist. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This all raises the question of what holistic admissions is looking for. If they’re only looking to account for economic disadvantage, it would be much easier for them to just set economic quotas, i.e, 20% of the class must be from a low income background. </p>
<p>My guess is that holistic admissions is really looking to screen out nerdy kids with poor social skills who get good grades and do well on the SATs, but who might not get the high paying jobs that will eventually make money for the college. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Very true. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, today SAT scores are still very used so there is the opportunity for middle class kids to get into top colleges. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>SATs level the playing field because everyone takes the same test and has access to the resources required to prepare (the best resource is the blue book).</p>
<p>If you don’t like the holistic approach then suggest something better.</p>
<p>I think people are forgeting that no one is entitled admission to any school. You can work hard to improve your chances, but nothing is for sure. It has to be this way. So many talented people apply, so some have to get rejected eventhough they are qualified. It’s a crap shoot. Since school, as was mentioned, are looking to make an interesting and vibrant student body then maybe you should make yourself interesting and vibrant. </p>
<p>There are certain sports you can play that will help you with certain schools. For example, every person I know that has been accepted to Princeton has been a fencer. Princeton (and stanford I believe) like fencers. Fencing is a pretty big deal there. You can’t be a noob, you actually have to be good, but still. That is one example. </p>
<p>You could also not do that, be yourself, and get into some schools that are a good fit for you. I go to a top public university, it’s on the first page of the US News but not top 10. If you offered me free tuition to Princeton and the chance to do it all over again I would turn you down. Other schools? Maybe, but probably not. </p>
<p>Didn’t get into a school you wanted to? Join the club. If you made a half-decent college list then you shouldn’t even be concerned.</p>
<p>The holistic approach is very wonderful idea and students from all socio-economic backgrounds can benefit from it, I think. Well, I was saying that because of previous post saying that the holistic approach kind of hurts wealthy students. To me, it depends on where the wealthy student resides: if the student is from Suburban USA and goes to a fancy private school or a upper class, tony high school and they have access to expensive SAT prep tutoring then maybe the holistic approach isn’t all so helpful. However, it is different for a kid who lives in Rural USA which is my case; I come from an upper middle class household and live in rural south Georgia and have been living there for ten years now. I attend a slightly mediocre high school ( one of the best in that region) and I don’t have any access to private tutors or stuff like that even though i have an SAT prep book which has helped me quite a bit. I ended up having a SAT score that is below CC standards. I have challenged myself by taking a lot of AP classes which has helped me in the admissions process up unto a point. From the seven schools that i applied to I got accepted into four: Agnes Scott, Oxford of Emory, UGA, and Brenau all in Georgia. I do not know how exactly I got into these schools but the adcoms from Emory told me at how pleased they were to know that a student from my town had applied to their school and were also pleased with my essays and stuff of the like. I know for sure that without the holistic process I probably wouldn’t have been able to get into these schools :)</p>
<p>I don’t have the time to do a point-by-point refutation, al6200, but let me assure you that there are plenty of statistics that show that the lower your income, the greater the possibility that your SAT scores are lower. Income level is a major – and some say the largest – factor in SAT scores.</p>
<p>The admissions committee acts behind closed doors. We have no idea what goes on (despite those lovely newspaper articles that come out every year), so we don’t know from year to year what they are looking for. </p>
<p>And yes, I do know (directly from someone who knows a lot about admissions) that having a job is a great thing to have on your resume, depending on your circumstances.</p>
<p>And why should the middle income kid with boring EC get in? Because they got a high score on a 3-hour test?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No. The best resource – heads and shoulders above that – is excellent teaching, in school, in critical reading, structured writing, and applied, integrative math. In my area, all three areas are seriously lacking and not even vaguely standardized between schools even next door to each other. No book of any color will help you if your essential training in these three areas is compromised, let alone if you have little practice/skill with standardized test-taking.</p>
<p>The above quote is one of the many myths about the SAT I.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That does not mean that the test is biased in favor of rich kids. Look up the difference between correlation in causation. And besides, it’s a moot point because your point is only valid if the rich enjoy a greater advantage on the SAT then on ECs. And they don’t… Middle class kids haven’t even heard of USAMO or Intel Talent Search. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Again, this is really dubious. Look at how much variation there is in SAT scores within school districts. If excellent teaching were the most important factor, there would be very little variation within school districts where all students are exposed to the same teaching.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>How uninformed you are about variations in quality of teaching within and between schools within the same district. (Hint: I mentioned it in my previous post, and I would know, in my position.) Another grand and convenient myth to comfort those who like to rationalize about the transparently uneven preparation for the SAT. Those well-prepared through classroom instruction can do reasonably well without the blue book. Those unprepared cannot do well with books every color of the rainbow.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>We can see variation within individual schools. And it is pointless to show that individual classes have very little variation, because they are self-selected groups (i.e, most students in an AP calculus class are probably good at math, not because they are in AP calculus, but because they signed up for AP calculus). </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Can you think of any academic criteria that does not give an advantage to those with greater academic skills and background? The only thing that we could do to that effect would be to use something that’s more of an IQ test and less of an academic test. The SAT used to be more like that… </p>
<p>While I agree that having strong academic skills and background gives one an advantage on the SATs, I also acknowledge that all admissions criteria we could use (ECs, GPA, etc.) give an advantage to those with a strong background. The difference is that ALL students are able to take the SATs. All students know that the SAT exists. All students are given the opportunity to prepare. </p>
<p>Only a handful of students even know about the fancy ECs.</p>
<p>It isn’t about teaching, it’s about grading standards.</p>
<p>At my high school, departments decided how many A’s they were going to give out (B’s, C’s, etc.). Is this the same at all schools? No. I know people in college who did almost nothing to earn a near 4.0, tons of people got them. </p>
<p>What if a student is very talented, but just doesn’t care about high school bs classes? They do well to appease their parents, but nothing superhuman? </p>
<p>For both these reasons, the SATs are amazing for multiple reasons.</p>
<ol>
<li><p>It levels the field. If you go to an elite high school and get a 3.2 but spend your time doing interesting ECs, getting an amazing SAT score gives you an advantage.</p></li>
<li><p>If you go to a 4.0 factory high school and you blow out the SATs, you get an advantage.</p></li>
<li><p>If you are getting great grades by the benefit of your grading system, but you actually aren’t as talented, this hurts you. Sure if you are in this boat, great GPA but low scores, how is it fair that you get into a college over someone else who may not have had such a generous grading system?</p></li>
</ol>
<p>This assumes that there is a correlation between SAT score and talent, which isn’t as pronounced as what would be optimal. But it is something. That is why SATIIs and APs exist, to add more depth.</p>
<p>For the record, I never did that well on my SATs (and I don’t mean based on CC standards). I did what was probably expected for my GPA, so I guess my standardized testing did its job.</p>
<p>I don’t understand the argument that SAT scores are correlated with income so blah blah blah. The fact that this knowledge even exists presents opportunities for students to exploit it. Colleges know this, so if you are poor, you should do everything in your power to get an amazing SAT score. Imagine an adcom reading your application. They look up the income distribution of your community (available for free online), and then they see your amazing scores. You’ll look like a diamond in the rough.</p>
<p>“Holistic admissions probably hurts most the kids who only bring high SATs and GPAs to the table. And those kids can come from all income levels.”</p>
<p>That would most likely be Asians, of course.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Grading standards, while absurdly low in many publics, are not connected to SAT Prep. When I brought up teaching, I was referring specifically to huge variations in teaching quality and approach (within a school, within a district, among privates, etc.), which has an impact on readiness. </p>
<p>As to your spinoff about how supposedly ‘factory schools’ give one an advantage in admissions, not for reaches they don’t. Mediocre vs. demanding schools tend to be known well by committees. What a high GPA at a factory high school gets you is admission to a factory-quality state college, not to a world-class public or private.</p>
<p>holistic = subjective = greater opportunities for adcoms to indulge AA and diversity.</p>
<p>Those posters claiming that “holistic” admissions favor upperclass applicants are delusional or worse. To the extent that adcoms can eliminate or dilute objective factors like SAT’s, level of high school competition, and GPA, they are better able to practice diversity without the criticism and legal chaallenges that those practices often create.</p>
<p>I disagree with epiphany.</p>
<p>I’ve been in three educational districts since middle school. The quality of the education for high achieving students varied significantly, but the quality of education for the basics that would enable one to successfully prepare for the SAT was effectively equal.</p>
<p>Well, my view on this has been clear. In essence, I have understood that many schools practicing holistic admissions do not admit every student for his/her academic excellence – instead, several students cross an academic threshold, and are evaluated based on other contributions they can make. Now, this is fine in a sense, since I think it’s a legitimate goal to have a vibrant class.</p>
<p>The thing is, I am finding that the bar for “academic threshold” is not set very high. The number of people I know who’ve been accepted to top caliber schools like HYPS and were lacking (not just in the sense of relatively shallow measures like grades or scores) in real scale amazing ability is to me less than desirable, when I see some of the rejects. Now, I won’t loop all of HYPS together – I think I was relatively happy with how Harvard did things at my school, actually. Some of the others, not so much. It is certainly possible to set the academic bar high and predictably get some of the truly brightest kids – Caltech is a school that does this. It distinguishes academically bright from <em>even more</em> academically promising. The reason I think even the HYPS schools should logically be a little more conservative with how much they look for the top intellectual factor is that these schools have some of the best departments in the world, and I feel like admitting someone who is less likely to take advantage of them even if they’re amazing individuals is almost a waste in a sense, given someone else could’ve benefited more <em>at those specific schools.</em> Admission should be, in my opinion, about who’s most likely to do explicitly more in one school than in another, and shouldn’t be considered a reward for being either an amazing individual or good student. </p>
<p>And I certainly know that in several cases, students have been admitted for reasons we cannot say. Sure, they may have a story I don’t know, and sure, that may make this person worthy of my admiration. Does that mean I think the admitted student really is making as good use of X school’s resources as my friend studying computer science at my school would? No. Not from having spoken to this student myself about her plans + what she’s doing.</p>
<p>If you preach standardized testing and grades, smart students will hit the books. If you preach holistic admissions, smart students will find out what you want and transform themselves into that. There’s no difference in either approach. Holistic admissions is more about giving the University more freedom to choose their class, which is why they preach it. I don’t see why you guys are arguing over which way is better - it is a power struggle at the core.
Admissions based on grades and standardized testing favors the applicants because it is more transparent and systematic, which means admissions is backed into a corner (which they don’t like). But they hold the cards.</p>
<p>This thread has much to offer. But outside of a group of about 100 elite institutions it is not very significant.</p>
<p>The vast majority of students never are given the “holistic” treatment and are accepted as long as they meet minimum “objective” criteria (which may hardly even exist for community colleges).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>True if and only if you’re arguing for the extremes of complete power in the university’s hands to pick its class as it pleases vs. the opposite. Then, it’s clear there’s nothing but a power struggle.</p>
<p>But if one looks at the current system and comments on it, I think there is perspective to be gained. </p>
<p>Of course Ivyalumni is right, though the 100 elite institutions do deserve their own spotlight of discussion.</p>
<p>My son scored high on the SATs (well enough to qualify for the first round as a National Merit contender,) but has a B+ average and a few Cs on his report card. He’s the classic underachiever, but works very hard at extra-curricular activities and on classroom work that engages him. His grades are lower than they could be because he’s late handing in assignments. … Does anyone know of competitive colleges who understand immaturity and will look beyond his average grades? If colleges only look at grades and SAT scores, he looks lazy. He’s immature, but not lazy. He attends the local high school and a city magnet school, so he’s in school or on a bus for 11 hours a day, then he works on school plays, on school committees and does his homework in the evening.</p>