<p>I think a more holistic approach needs to be considered for financial aid, though that would probably be an administrative nightmare.</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>I agree with that. I definitely think income should be considered. The problem I had with the statement “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)” was that it implies that lower-income students should AUTOMATICALLY be considered more desirable than higher-income students. Really, that’s not fair. I think that lower income should be taken into account, and should be a boost in admissions if an applicant already shows significant promise, but we shouldn’t prefer lower-income students JUST because of their lower income. It is not the elite colleges’ job to go out of their way to “expand social mobility,” it is their job to provide an education for the best students, the ones who have most earned the opportunity and who are most likely to use their college education to improve society. I just gave those examples about the two students to show how income could be taken into consideration. Sorry if I didn’t make that clear enough.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You’re absolutely right. The FAFSA is complicated enough as it is (supposedly, I’ve personally never taken more than about 45 minutes to do one) and the more in-depth it went, the harder it would be and the more sluggish the financial aid process would be. </p>
<p>The only thing I REALLY wish FAFSA would do is take a look at income for more than one year. For example, my mom’s income went up to nearly 40k last year, but that is double what we have made my entire life. My FA is going to be cut because of that :(. On the flip side, I know students who have had two parents work their entire lives, make 100k+ each year, put nothing in savings, have a parent quit or “retire” when their student is a senior and their income drops to 40-50k making them seem much poorer than they actually are. Then they go back to work after 4 years.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That is not what it means at all. No one is “more desirable”. The fact is, people from lower socio-economic circumstances have a much harder time in school than wealthy people. All looking at their circumstances does is even the playing field a bit. </p>
<p>What is more impressive to you- a kid that gets a 3.5 and a 26 on the ACT from a school that offers many free ACT/SAT prep courses (or heck, are even required) with nicely paid teachers, classrooms with less than 30 kids, and up-to-date textbooks and computers? Or someone with the same stats who has a teacher that is just there because it’s the only job they could get, has 50 students crammed into a class designed for 30, textbooks that are from the 70s, and virtually no computers?</p>
<p>I would weigh the SAT more. I think it’s currently undervalued because standardized test haters are ignorant and, unfortunately, numerous. I would also pressure the Collegeboard to shift the test’s focus back to measuring more IQ-loaded constructs.</p>
<p>1) Stop all US News-style rankings, especially rankings based on selectivity, acceptance rates, yield, etc.</p>
<p>2) Have a 2-step application process for all applicants- first a short 1-2 page pre-application with basic information self-reported by the applicant, with perhaps a one-paragraph personal statement of goals. Turn that around in 1 month. Only invite full applications from 3-4 times as many candidates as you will end up offering admission to. This means every college ends up with an acceptance rate in the next round, of around 25-33%.</p>
<p>3) In the second round of the 2-step system described above, have a national matching program to ensure that applicants match with their top choice colleges and colleges get their top choice students.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Agree 100%… but I’m not sure what that has to do with admissions?</p>
<p>^ A lot of what colleges do in admissions is to increase their ranking in the USNWR</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>They’re useful in calling out the students who have 110% in their classes yet can barely crack 600 on the subject tests.</p>
<ul>
<li>Eliminate race-based AA in favor of SES AA. I’m sick of people who are 1/8 URM and have 0 connection to the culture get in, or rich URM’s get selected over poor whites/Asians.</li>
<li>Allow students to take 5-6 subject tests in lieu of the SAT/ACT</li>
<li>Change how FA is done</li>
</ul>
<p>"That is not what it means at all. No one is “more desirable”. The fact is, people from lower socio-economic circumstances have a much harder time in school than wealthy people. All looking at their circumstances does is even the playing field a bit. </p>
<p>What is more impressive to you- a kid that gets a 3.5 and a 26 on the ACT from a school that offers many free ACT/SAT prep courses (or heck, are even required) with nicely paid teachers, classrooms with less than 30 kids, and up-to-date textbooks and computers? Or someone with the same stats who has a teacher that is just there because it’s the only job they could get, has 50 students crammed into a class designed for 30, textbooks that are from the 70s, and virtually no computers?"</p>
<p>I completely agree with you, and this was what I was trying to say in the example I gave earlier. Obviously, of a lower-income student who goes to a bad school and a higher-income student who goes to a good school (scores, etc. about equal), the former is more desirable. </p>
<p>I guess we’re just interpreting the sentence differently, but to me, “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),” implies that lower-income students should automatically be viewed as more desirable. Maybe it’s because it says “admissions PREFERENCES” instead of something about just taking income into consideration. The sentence doesn’t make any qualifications, and I guess that’s what bugs me. Plus (to me, anyway), it implies that even if income is taken into account and the lower-income student is less qualified than the higher-income student, the former should be accepted over the latter anyway, for the sake of “expanding social mobility.” Apparently, I’m the only one interpreting it like this, so I’m sorry if I’m getting it wrong. </p>
<p>But, as I said before, I wholeheartedly support considering an applicant’s financial circumstances in admissions. And actually, for the elite colleges anyway, I think they already do consider socioeconomic background, so I’m not sure what applicannot meant by making this point. Maybe you could clarify it for us, applicannot? I apologize if I am in any way misinterpreting this, but this is just what I got out of it.</p>
<p>Colleges do consider socioeconomic background - and at all but the top twenty schools or so, students who can pay will be chosen, even if they are slightly less than the best students. That’s just economics, and the schools have to do it - all but the top however-many schools in the country need the money. I do believe that college education - ALL colleges - is a method of social mobility, and colleges DO understand that. Some colleges include it in their missions, others imply it, and others should recognize it. If there were two students of similar qualifications, yes, I would propose that the student of a lesser socioeconomic background be chosen. Not that ALL low-income students be chosen, or that ALL upper-income students be chosen.</p>
<p>I would take out the ACT/SAT testing. </p>
<p>I don’t think they tell you anything about a person as a student. Some people are slow test takers but still manage to get the problems right in the end. Then there are those people who are smart and get the test done quick but don’t ever apply their self at school and are bad students but manage to score a 30 on the ACT. </p>
<p>These tests shouldn’t count at all for a transfer student even if he/she is a sophomore transfer with less than 30 credits because if the student has showed success in college then there is no need to look at the test scores. </p>
<p>oh and i would try to make the decisions for all students quick instead of taking 8-12 weeks or what ever and leave the student with 2 months of anxiety.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The SAT, a three hour long test, is almost as good as high school GPA, a four year long affair, at predicting college freshman grades. Holy **** the SAT is awesome.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>How is this the students’ fault at all?</p>
<p>I think more schools should be test-optional. For someone like me with a lower GPA and a very high test scores, it is a way to show potential (I wasn’t lazy, there were family problems during high school) but for others who are extremely hard workers and yet just can’t test well, it is detrimental.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Acting as if you know the material when it’s pretty obvious that massive curving on tests and the picture coloring extra credit are the only things responsible for your grade, is the student’s fault.</p>
<p>It takes only a modicum of effort to buy a used prep book for $5 or just go to the library and get one for free. A decently motivated student can easily score 700 or higher with just a prep book and a few weeks of careful study.</p>
<p>they would not ask the race of the applicant</p>
<p>Admissions:
- Weigh subject testing (SAT II’s, AP’s, but not SAT I’s, which are largely contingent on your brain structure being similar to ETS’s writers’) more heavily.
- Have exactly two teacher recs from each student, which can be uploaded to a central website and used by whatever college/scholarship program the student allows.
- If student indicates leadership on an EC, make them write what they did as an officer that other students did not, how it affected them/how they grew through it. Allow students who did not demonstrate leadership to fill out the same section, but optional for them.
- Build in room to explain academic awards, like you’re allowed to explain about EC’s. I know you can do this in additional info, but it would be more useful to have all the information together so a student feels like elaborating.
- End race-based affirmative action. Instead, have an optional section detailing how the student made his/her own opportunities.</p>
<p>FA:
- List mortgages as debt.</p>
<p>Enjoy tearing it apart, folks.</p>
<p>^ Mortgages are choices. Debt should not be counted unless it was ABSOLUTELY unavoidable. Mainly, medical costs. There are very few others I could see as not being a choice.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Since when is university supposed to be a Mr. and Ms. Congeniality contest? </p>
<p>I mean, I’d prefer a campus full of interesting and fun people over one full of boring wet blankets, but then what exactly are you saying the purpose of university is then? And what constitutes a good personality? Who decides this?</p>
<p>Plus, the idea of good personalities has been used before to keep America’s elite universities as an Old Boys’ Club. I don’t trust it one bit.</p>
<p>^ Plus, there isn’t enough time or resources to interview everyone. There simply is not.</p>