<p>^They may also just take you because they get away with paying you less for the same set of responsibilities. :P</p>
<p>Look more at socioeconimc status than race/gender/whatever. That’s about the only change I would make. And I say this as someone that AA would- in theory- “help” even though I rarely disclose my ethnicity on applications.</p>
<p>I would change nothing.</p>
<p>Let’s change the financial aid application process instead.</p>
<p>i would have more scholarships available and financial aid</p>
<p>I agree with Twisted 1000%. Now the question is: how? :(</p>
<p>Yes, affirmative action should be removed, solely because I’m sick of people b.tching and whining about it.
But I suspect they’d find something else to whine about in its place.</p>
<p>I would make the FAFSA go more in depth. It doesn’t take into account that my dad’s income is entirely variable and that we have huge medical debt because we can’t afford health insurance, because we have preexisting conditions. We sent a special circumstances letter to the school and it was ignored. So I have a 25k EFC and absolutely no money. Blech.</p>
<p>I would base admission only off GPA, SAT, EC’s, and essays. </p>
<p>Teacher recs are pointless and listing ethnicity just sets up a system of reverse discrimination.</p>
<p>If we’re talking about top schools, I would:</p>
<ol>
<li> enact a system of admissions preferences for low-income and lower-middle-income students (i.e., use the school and its resources as a means to expand social mobility rather than support social rigidity).</li>
<li> continue to use a holistic admissions system, focusing heavily on leadership potential and the ability to overcome obstacles.</li>
<li> revamp the financial aid system, with emphasis on the Non-Custodial PROFILE. With the exception of recent divorce (<5 years) and with liberal waivers for that, that non-custodial **** wouldn’t be required anymore.</li>
</ol>
<p>Caltech-style process, but have Affirmative Action.</p>
<p>No SAT OR ACT required :P</p>
<p>"If we’re talking about top schools, I would:</p>
<ol>
<li>enact a system of admissions preferences for low-income and lower-middle-income students (i.e., use the school and its resources as a means to expand social mobility rather than support social rigidity).</li>
<li>continue to use a holistic admissions system, focusing heavily on leadership potential and the ability to overcome obstacles.</li>
<li><p>revamp the financial aid system, with emphasis on the Non-Custodial PROFILE. With the exception of recent divorce (<5 years) and with liberal waivers for that, that non-custodial **** wouldn’t be required anymore."</p></li>
<li><p>I agree that admissions should account for low income, but I don’t think they should have a PREFERENCE for lower-income students. For example, say a kid comes from a low-income family and goes to a crummy school that doesn’t have many leadership opportunities, but he participates in everything his school has to offer and is clearly motivated. He might still have lower test scores and be less involved than a high-income student who goes to a really good high school that offers lots of acitivities, but it should be taken into account that he did the best he could with the opportunities he had. I agree with that. What I don’t agree with is accepting lower-income students over higher-income students just because they’re lower income and the school wants to look good. That’s unfair to higher-income students. After all, they can’t help their backgrounds any more than the lower-income students can. In my opinion, whoever makes the most of their situation should be the one to be accepted.</p></li>
<li><p>I agree that ability to overcome obstacles is important, but you have to keep in mind that some people are lucky enough not to have had major obstacles in their lives by the time they’re applying to college. Applicants shouldn’t be rejected for not overcoming obstacles if they’ve never had the chance to prove that they are capable of overcoming obstacles.</p></li>
<li><p>Completely agree that the financial aid system needs to be completely revamped.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>Schools should put more emphasis on interviews. I think that only students with competitive scores should be granted interviews, but then spend more time on those interviews instead of wasting time on students who do not have the scores to get in anyway.</p>
<p>By focusing on interviews schools would be able to weed out kids who have good scores but poor personalities. I don’t care how smart an individual is, if he/she is not going to contribute to the campus environment in a positive way, then that individual should not be admitted.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>But it’s not really possible to determine the level of opportunities for each individual student. Income is generally a good proxy for that.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t really see why academic institutions should really care that much about leadership.</p>
<p>I personally think that less emphasis should be put on EC’s–like great that you’re in 37 different clubs, but I’d much rather have someone be REALLY involved with one or two. So I guess limit people to their top three extracurriculars, and they can expand on how being in those certain programs has affected them.</p>
<p>Also, finding a more effective test than the SAT/ACT. The timing on those is ridiculous. I had plenty of time when I took it, but for the average student, the pressure is bad enough without limiting their abilities. Plus there’s been no real statistical correlation between acing those and doing well in college.</p>
<p>“I don’t really see why academic institutions should really care that much about leadership.”</p>
<p>Because people who take on leadership roles are:</p>
<p>a. in theory, responsible, proactive individuals with some valuable skills that transfer to academics
b. likely to be willing to be an active member of the community at their school.</p>
<p>I would not consider teacher recommendations.</p>
<p>No more AA nonsense. Applicants should be evaluated based on merit/holistic approach (however they define it). There should be no regards to race at all. Take the best of the best. I also don’t think colleges should publish the demographics pie chart. Who cares who they are–as long as they are exceptional students. </p>
<p>I also think they should have some “lottery” system–assuming the student is highly qualified, so its more “fair” rather then arbitrary.</p>
<p>Socio-economic status-based affirmative action. A white person who grew up in a single mother, inner-city household should get waaay more of a leg up in the college process than someone who’s black or Hispanic but grew up well-off, in a nice suburban town. Purely race-based AA should be eliminated.</p>