<p>One good illustration of that was the exodus of several topflight professors and students from CCNY/CUNY not too long after “Open Admissions” was instituted in 1969. </p>
<p>Once the main mission of the colleges effectively changed from being a college for top academic achievers from the working/lower-middle classes to being open to all NYC residents…even those whose academic proficiency was barely at the high school level, many topflight professors/students voted with their feet as “remedial instructor”/being stuck in classes with remedial/mediocre students wasn’t what they signed up for when they initially took their job/applied. Especially after it was no longer free for city residents as of 1975 due to city financial problems and the Ivies/elite private universities became much more open to applicants of lower socio-economic classes and minority religions/races. </p>
<p>It was also a reason why CCNY/CUNY went from being the “Poor man’s Harvard/Ivy League” of the mid-20th century to being the school/system of last resort by the '80s and early-mid-'90s. Heard their reputation as improved greatly from the early-mid '90s…but it still wasn’t what it was when my older neighbors/alums attended in the 40’s-early '60s.</p>
<p>My son just last week found out that his designated faculty advisor is a legend in the field he wishes to major in. He is absolutely thrilled. It may end up meaning very little, but it could also become an inflection point that changes his opportunities and his path through life. Sometimes simply being in the right place at the right time – and realizing it – can make all the difference.</p>
<p>laks - If it is new case in Texas fighting holistic admissions at UT, then it is a silly case and we in Texas think the same as waht someone mentioned, they found a patsy to start the case.</p>
<p>Texas admits top 8-9% in any school (to eliminate a bias against low performing or high minority schools) automatically. At one time it was 10% but they found that they were filling up the entire class just based on ranking and they were not having any to fill the holistic attribute. They went back to the state legislature and asked to cut this number and got an approval to limit it to top 8-9% to be determined each year (8 or 9).<br>
Now they have a leeway of about 5% (may be a little more) to admit whoever they want based on institutional need. In this pool, they can have some kids who went to private schools, scored 2200 but their rank is low because of the competition. They want to have more minorities because the ratio of african americans is only 5% but they would like 7%, then they add some of them. </p>
<p>The anti AA group wants this flexibility eliminated because they believe it exists to add more minorities and hence the lawsuit. UT Dallas admits anyone with a 1200 SAT score (CR+M) automatically. Doesn’t look like she qualified even for that.</p>
<p>Absolutely. I agree completely. Moreover, the super-selective college can “elevate” the other kid to a level that JHS’ kid didn’t need elevating to, since JHS’ kid was born on third base, so to speak (affluent, educated family and all that comes with it).</p>
<p>I guess you can be the kind of affluent, educated person who is gracious enough to be as JHS describes, or you can be the kind of affluent, educated person who begrudges the kind of kid JHS describes.</p>
<p>Well, yeah. Isn’t that what is known as real-world smarts? What kind of loser would suggest that their denied-from-an-Ivy kid should dwell on it and lick his wounds for years to come and get all worked up over the alleged URM/legacy/athlete that took his place? (Funny how that specific place that was “due” the person got filled by the URM/legacy/athlete, not some other white kid.) </p>
<p>What else IS there to do, but A) Get over it and B) Get into the real world where people are judged on more than whether they happened to attend a very small select group of schools? I mean, let’s face it - if you really think the sun rises and sets on the 8 Ivies, or insert other elite group of schools, and that you’re doomed to flip burgers if you don’t go to those schools - well, then, you’re not very bright nor are you very observant.</p>
I don’t think anyone would argue with that. The context of your previous post lead me to believe that you were making a much stronger claim (about a negative correlation between research focus and teaching ability) but I might have misread. My apologies.</p>
<p>UCs are prohibited from using race or ethnicity in admissions, but the admissions readers are said to look very favorably on overcoming adversity, so JHS’ son’s friend would likely have gotten a plus on that, even in the absence of any consideration of race and ethnicity. Of course, URMs are more likely to come from adverse circumstances (not much money, mediocre to poor K-12 schools, no family or community encouragement to even consider college, etc.), but the UC admissions reading criteria would not benefit URMs who happen to have been “born on third base”.</p>
<p>I think it is counterproductive to make this a discussion on AA. There are other places for that.</p>
<p>I wouldn’t say the ivies are diploma mills. There IS a mentality that studying is not the focus of a lot of their students, and instead the focus is on extracurricular activities such as the school newspaper, a sport, or organizing activities. Rather it seems like the courses complement their extracurricular activities. For example, I knew one person that said she didn’t do most of the reading in her courses, but instead that she spent a lot of time doing social work (which apparently has a center on campus.) I guess it makes sense if this relates to your career, and certain activities, like the school newspaper, are intellectual as well. However, schoolwork is not really a transformative experience unless you are engrossed in it in my experience. I’ve had math classes impact how I think in history, but this type of impact on one’s thinking only happens when you take it seriously. I thought this was the point of liberal arts, to change how you think, not as merely garnish for extracurricular activities.</p>
<p>My observation, having been around the top students for a long time, is that the students who tend to be the most successful in ivy admission are the brightest in the class up until like the end of sophomore year, and then at that point they coast (still getting A’s of course and getting high test scores) and start organizing a lot of activities and being “active in the community.” This, it seems, is the prototype for the ivy league. And even those that still continued to push themselves academically knew enough to play this game a little bit. </p>
<p>The reason why it is important what value system the ivies have is because a large percentage of the brightest kids pay attention to what the colleges want and try to adapt fo fit what they want. Consequently, if the ability and willingness to organize activities is valued over creative insight, that is what students will develop. The other reason is that some bright kids that won’t play the game will be lose in the process, although people will say this doesn’t matter. There are other reasons if you look for them, although, as an individual, I agree that it is best to play the hand you are dealt after the admissions results come out. When examining cultural values, I think it is overly simplistic to just say, “who cares what people think,” the refrain in all of Pizzagirl’s posts.</p>
<p>To me, it doesn’t matter because it all happens naturally and organically as they mature into young adults and learn what works. The nerd who studied all day and never says boo to anyone learns in the work world that he’d better develop social skills or get nowhere, no matter how brilliant he is. The press-the-flesh guy who gets put into leadership positions due to his natural sales ability figures out that he’d also better know his facts and do his homework. This is only relevant if someone exists in some weird world where your college and the personality / approach you display in college has to stick with you the rest of your life.</p>
In the case of the daughter of a friend of ours who was rejected from Cornell ED, she worked her butt off at RPI, graduated early, did research every summer and attended grad school at Cornell. :)</p>
<p>collegealum314 (#348), that is an interesting description of the Ivy environment. It seems to relate to a point that QM and alh were making.</p>
<p>Excellent faculty are a scarce resource. Who benefits the most by access to this scarce resource? What kind of admission process ensures that the greatest good results from the kinds of students who are admitted? What kind of “good” is a university trying to produce, anyway?</p>
<p>In my opinion, the fundamental mission of a research university is to discover and spread knowledge. That is the good they do. So, the best admission policies and practices for selective colleges are ones that match excellent students with excellent faculty for the sake of discovering and spreading more knowledge. Extracurricular activities can complement and enrich that mission; over-emphasis on extracurriculars and “hooks” (in admissions and in campus life) can compete with and distort it. If students take gut courses to save their best energies for extracurricular activities, then it is understandable if some faculty tend to become aloof and disengaged, if classes of 279 students are tolerated, if much of the work of teaching is delegated to TAs, and if students become indignant when suddenly a demanding take-home test is assigned.</p>
<p>Of course these are private universities that are free to shape the learning environment however they like. If some of us don’t like it, then yes, we’re free to choose a different kind of school. I wouldn’t want Harvard to start graduating 1000 future college professors each year. However, I would like them to turn out future leaders who are knowledgeable, thoughtful, and honest.</p>
<p>Is there evidence that selective colleges are indeed missing out on excellent students who “should” be there but they don’t let in? Because here’s the thing - if you accept at face value - which I do - that they could have admitted (say) 5 other classes from their applicant pools and been happy with them - then that tells you that there isn’t some “dream class” among their 30,000 applicants that they deliberately chose to overlook, but that there really are that many kids who are good and have the potential to succeed, and it just so happens they can only take so many. </p>
<p>I don’t know why so many people take it so personally when it’s just a matter of simple math here. If Princeton could admit 10,000 people instead of 2,000, they would do so. But, they’ve only got beds and facilities for 2,000. So they’ve gotta pick 2,000. Them’s the breaks. Why people keep insisting that therefore they “didn’t” pick the right 2,000 and somewhere out there is the “real 2,000” they should have picked – is just nutty. And sour grapes, which takes us back to the OP.</p>
<p>“In my opinion, the fundamental mission of a research university is to discover and spread knowledge. That is the good they do. So, the best admission policies and practices for selective colleges are ones that match excellent students with excellent faculty for the sake of discovering and spreading more knowledge. Extracurricular activities can complement and enrich that mission; over-emphasis on extracurriculars and “hooks” (in admissions and in campus life) can compete with and distort it.”</p>
<p>Completely agree. By definition, academia is primarely about academics. If one is selecting students to be part of a different type of organization (say some Young Leaders Organization) then ECs can be the primary factors.</p>
<p>The “discover and spread knowledge” feels very research-lab STEM-my to me.<br>
I think that is one mission of a research university, but not the sole one. </p>
<p>How does that fit with, for example, a world-class undergrad theater department? They aren’t “discovering and spreading knowledge” the way the chemists and physicists are, but they’re enriching the world through the arts. Why can’t that be a mission too - to enrich the human spirit (without getting too lofty here)?</p>
<p>Yet if we use Caltech as the platonic form of the university that selects primarily on academics, without much impact of legacy, URM, athletics, etc. </p>
<p>A) It’s got a concentration that excludes a lot of fields of knowledge so it’s off the table for anyone with serious humanities interests, and;
B) as much as I hate the word “prestige,” it doesn’t have the prestige (except in selected circles) as, say, Harvard - because there is not a general perception that Caltech is The Place To Be. So fewer people apply per seat, which tells you that it’s just not viewed as interesting / desirable as, say, Harvard which is seen as the place of the future movers and shakers. Which tells you that people see universities as not just academic, but as where you go to find and surround yourself with future movers and shakers.</p>
<p>Nah, knowledge applies to everything. Figuring out a creative new way to light sets, or how to service emerging consumer markets in underdeveloped countries, or how John Cage’s musical vision impacted modern composing, or seeing how newly discovered letters about (fill in famous author of your choice) change interpretations of said writer’s novels–it’s all good. </p>
<p>And chemists and physicists and all those other STEM types can certainly enrich the human spirit just like arty types. Jacob Bronowski talking about how Mendeleyev (horrid spelling, sorry) laid out the periodic table absolutely electrified my teenaged self and my decidedly non-STEM mother. Images from NASA’s satellites are soul-stirring. Etc etc etc.</p>