<p>What would things be like if colleges were forced to accept applicants entirely based on intellectual aptitude and to ensure that everyone they accept would be able to afford college? </p>
<p>This involves two things.
a.) Blocking applicants into different income brackets.
b.) Accepting the applicants with the highest SAT scores in each income bracket.</p>
<p>There would be exceptions made for only one group of people and that is athletes.
This exception would only apply for schools such as Duke and Stanford which have strong athletic programs.
The Ivies have failed to create especially strong athletic programs and shouldn't be accepting lacrosse jocks who aren't academically qualified to be in their school. The Ivies should think about strengthening their athletic programs before doing such a thing- otherwise, accept the smartest people who are interested in playing lacrosse at your school! </p>
<p>I think this approach to college admissions would increase economic diversity in our schools and we will have a more fair college admissions. As Americans, we like to say that we support meritocracy but we truly do not. This is a much-needed step to ensure meritocratic practices.
Intelligence isn't valued enough in our country, only ambition and greed.</p>
<p>How do you know this does not happen in some sense already. The SAT scores at top schools are high and if you look at their profiles they tend to be more and more diverse. Seems to me you are assuming different income brackets produce different SAT scores, what is the proof. I have seen high SAT's from all levels of income. SAT's as uman points out are not the single best measure which is why schools use multiple measures. In a way National Merit does a version of what you suggest, and a lot of people are not happy with it. There is no simplistic solution.</p>
<p>aigiquinf -- I don't see how anyone in higher education or HS education would possibly support that idea seeing as the ACT/SAT already exist. What would your test tell that's new?</p>
<p>To the OP: the talk about meritocracy (especially here on CC) always seems to center around the selective colleges' shadowy admissions decisions. Sometimes they seem to be a black box and everyone on the outside is trying to decipher "what are they looking for?" since it's clear that not all metrically high (scores & GPA) kids get into them.</p>
<p>As candidates, you've gotta accept that the schools w/mulitples of applications per open slots and high matriculation yield rates (the so-called "ultra selectives") can and do cherry pick from the 10,000s of great applicants. With the sweet pool of applicants, they can craft the incoming freshman class with lots of variety to further the school's goals. I posit that this very process is why society recognizes them as fine institutions and rewards them with "prestige" and recognition. I also posit that if they were to alter their admissions methods, they would lose their standing. One can't want to charge into the gates of these "top" colleges and then also decry their methods (holistic admissions) of maintaining their excellence.</p>
<p>You mustn't forget that +85% of American colleges are completely meritocracies -- but they tend to not be the "ultra selectives". You get a 2400SAT and 4.0GPA and I can count on one hand the no. of public colleges that would even hesitate offering you admission. Heck, look at that pile of college mailers in your closet. Most of them would love to have you. Period.</p>
<p>It's just that whenever we talk about the USNWR "top 25" type colleges where all this craziness enters.</p>
<p>Admissions is definitely an art and not a science. No "new" plan is needed nor I suspect, is wanted.</p>
<ol>
<li>get rid of affirmative action, put more emphasis on socioeconomic and family income status</li>
<li>Limit number of colleges one can apply to, 10 or less</li>
<li>Use a universal GPA scale</li>
<li>Do not take into account class rank at all, since many kids take easy classes and end up having higher ranks</li>
</ol>
<p>Comment on Ivy athletics: the OP 's premise is simply incorrect. Except for Basketball, Football, many Ivy teams, athletes compete at the highest level of respective sports. There are recent examples of Ivy teams making it to NCAA final fours, and championship games. Individual ivy athletes compete for NCAA championships. Ivy athletes make Olympic teams. The role of athletics in admissions has been debated to death on this board but don't denigrate Ivy athletics.</p>
<p>As someone from a low-income family (less than $50,000 per year for family of 4), I'm a little shocked that you would suggest that people with lower incomes naturally have lower SAT scores.</p>
<p>I, for one, could not afford any of the SAT classes or anything like that, but still got an 1890 (1250 M+CR) my first time taking the SAT. I realize that compared to most people on this board that score is pathetic at best, but then again the people on this board are, for the most part, the top 1-4% of students nationally.</p>
<p>Honestly, it's not the end of the world if one doesn't get into an Ivy. Yeah, they're great schools. But I for one wouldn't even want to go to one if I could. It's just not the right atmosphere for me.</p>
<p>I do agree that the number of applications per student should be limited. However, there's no way to really do that without becoming a "Big Brother" state.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Limit number of colleges one can apply to, 10 or less.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>There are plenty of threads on cc that prove that the number of applications per student has ZERO impact on total admissions (but can impact yield). [Hint: you can only attend just one college.]</p>
<p>
[quote]
What would things be like if colleges were forced to accept applicants entirely based on intellectual aptitude and to ensure that everyone they accept would be able to afford college?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Your system really only addresses the "intellectual aptitude" issue. How would this affect the affordability issue?</p>
<p>
[quote]
As someone from a low-income family (less than $50,000 per year for family of 4), I'm a little shocked that you would suggest that people with lower incomes naturally have lower SAT scores.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I'm not too sure if this is true but I guess this is why people are always whining about the SAT being unfair.
I'm not entirely sure how to work the affordability issue. We must hope that all colleges have a very lenient policy towards financial aid.</p>
<p>It's very regrettable that College Board (which undoubtedly has the data) doesn't publish a bivariate plot ("scatterplot") of SAT scores compared to self-reported family income for all students in one graduating class who took the SAT. On the one hand, as a general tendency, students from higher-income families tend to score higher than students from lower-income families, but on the other hand all score levels are found at any level of income.</p>
<p>I really don't see why people, as you put it, whine about the SAT being unfair. I mean, college admissions counselors say over and over again that it's one of the last things they look at. I understand that at HYP etc you can kinda forget about it if you score below a 2100 - but it's not like it's impossible to score a 2100 or higher without taking an SAT tutoring class.</p>
<p>Besides, I think people, especially on here, tend to forget that there is life outside the Ivy League. If one really belongs at an Ivy, but doesn't get in, one will excel anywhere and that's what really matters (ie, graduating last in your class in Yale isn't really impressive; graduating magna from any LAC or good state school, on the other hand, IS). Besides, one could always transfer into an Ivy - it's hard, but again, if one belongs at an Ivy they'll be able to do it.</p>
<p>So I guess what I'm saying is - you'll score what you'll score and you can take it again anyway, and everything will work out. So why complain about how "unfair" it is?</p>