<p>I think the Indian student meant necessary to academics, or relevant to the essential mission of a college education. In other words, you shouldn't need to be a good horn player to go to an academic institution. Sorry. I understood what he meant, but I'm not conveying that here.</p>
<p>I understand what you are saying but I still think it is misguided. I'd be shocked if any college's mission was to accept all the highest scoring high school test-takers in order to graduate the highest scoring college test-takers. Rather, they are attempting to educate the citizens of this country/world who are most likely to have a positive impact on every facet of our world. That includes horn players.</p>
<p>I think once colleges get into the game of trying to figure out who would most likely have a positive impact on every facet of our world, it gets dicey. There is so much grey area. It's probably more "evolved" than simply looking at the numbers, but the strange and capricious way each college chooses to do it is madness and maddening!</p>
<p>FYI: My daughter is a horn player :)</p>
<p>It may that it's a strange and capricious way of doing things, but that it's still better than other ways of doing things.</p>
<p>Does anyone know how other countries make college admissions decisions? I know India has a quota system, of sorts. How about Canada? Or Scandinavia?</p>
<p>In Japan, it's based solely on the results of the national college entrance examinations.</p>
<p>And the suicide rate of low-scorers is significant.</p>
<p>Are there colleges for the low-scorers in Japan? Suicides among the low-scorers seem to speak to the need to "save face" within the Japanese culture.</p>
<p>je<em>ne</em>sais_quoi, in general I agree what you said. The college addmission should be merit based only. A need blind, gender blind, race blind. </p>
<p>In China, based on its own history tradition and copy early Soviet education system, the college admission is soely number based. One nation wide college addmission test in summer, based on the test score and applicants' choice of schools (first choices, 2nd choices, 3rd choices, etc.). The first tier colleges addmission officers got first chance to pick out the students whose score falling into the top range. Every score point counts, but usually school cut some slacks to the kids whose parents work for the college or a faculty member of the school, about 20 points, which is considered 'huge' advantage, consider that one point can distinguish from thousands or ten thousands of students. To limit the curruption, the 1st tier college admision officer are not allowed to view students files whose score is lower than the range. .... Then the 2nd tier college addmission officers got their turn .... In general both students and colleges have less choices. ... </p>
<p>I can't say its the best system, as matter of factor it dose tend to crack out top level test-taker. They divides the concentration (humanity or math/science) in high schools, I've heard the cases where those humanity concentration HS students score 800s in SAT math, physics, chem, etc. In those high ranked high schools, at senior year, they don't teach any new materials, every classes concentrate on college admission tests (but again, the course load in primary and middle school in china are much heavy than here in US). And the competetion starts from kindgarden in big cities ... But you can't fault the system either, since most ppl come out from that system I met here in US are come from the top schools, and they made it into middle and upper-middle income classes in the first generation. ... imo, the best way is somewhat in between. Seems like china system concentrate more on science and engineering, while US system crack out more of huminity science and well round students.</p>
<p>There are some smaller colleges now entering the picture in Japan, which do provide a limited number of options. Some of these are based on the US model and some, in fact, are sister or joint schools with US partners. Earlier, a lower-scorer had absolutely no option for a university degree at a school in Japan. If they could afford it, parents would send their kids to the US or other nations to go to college, but there was no recourse otherwise.</p>
<p>Yes, the suicide rate is high because of the "saving face" mentality, but it also represents the impact of what is perceived as losing all hope for the future has on an 18-19 year old kid, who just went through the pressure cooker environment of multiple day-long exams. </p>
<p>Yes, Japan has some outstanding national universities and some excellent small colleges, but the grind to get into these schools is astounding.</p>
<p>I think referring to a strictly numbers based system as "merit based" is a misnomer.</p>
<p>My understanding about many European systems is that even if you DO get a choice admission spot, you are pretty much stuck in that field. Very little ability to switch majors.</p>
<p>BIL is German & he loved machines & was mechanically inclined. He was tracked into a tradesman type education path. He quickly learned it was fine as a hobby, but not his life's work. He had to study in the US to earn engineering degrees, because there was no switching paths allowed. His brother is a neurosurgeon & was also tracked at a young age. Now the brother's five kids have had to wait for a few years after high school for college slots to open up. It's almost as if a gap year is mandated by limited openings.</p>
<p>In France pretty much anybody with the Bacalaureate (hign school degree tougher than equivalent in US) can enter a university of their choice (except Grandes Ecoles which are "la creme de la creme" and where you have to take a competitive exam and only a few are admitted). So Freshman classes are enormous but it's self selective. In other words a lot of people drop out at the end of 1st year.</p>
<p>If you "drop out" from the French university at which you begin, can you enroll at another?</p>
<p>Yes you can enroll at another or I believe at the same one. I think there is an age limit though like 26.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I think referring to a strictly numbers based system as "merit based" is a misnomer.
[/quote]
Actually, every thing is number based. The difference just who (the standard test system, school teachers, adcom, etc), based on what (academic achivements, ECs, race, gender, legacy in a sense of parents graduate or work there, money, etc.), how assigns the number (ie. undergraduate legacy got 2 points, graduate legacy got 1 points, etc.).</p>
<p>Applying numbers to everything simply creates an illusion of objectivity.</p>
<p>It does annoy me somewhat when people give me that knowing smirk when they find out I was a legacy at Princeton. Whenever I get that, I simply trot out the other (statistically more unlikely and difficult) acceptances I got - that they often didn't get themselves - and the smirk disappears off of their faces. Good enough for me.</p>
<p>I've posted in the past that I believe its harder for legacies at HYP to be admitted than for applicants at large, because there is a cap on the number, and you have to beat the other legacies for it. None of the schools will release the legacy qualifications because it will enrage the alumni. </p>
<p>In my child's hs class there were two legacies to HYP denied, with board scores of 1520 and 1590. Both were fine candidates, but not fine enough to clear the hurdle. One attended another ivy and the other a top public. </p>
<p>Also, of my alumni friends who graduated from those venerable institutions, I've seen legacy children of schoolteachers and clergymen accepted as often as the offspring of NYC developers or neurosurgeons. Its just not quite as simple as people would like to believe, and even many reasonably well-educated people are totally misinformed about it.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I've posted in the past that I believe its harder for legacies at HYP to be admitted than for applicants at large, because there is a cap on the number, and you have to beat the other legacies for it. None of the schools will release the legacy qualifications because it will enrage the alumni.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Surely you are kidding, Dadx. </p>
<p>So now we're to believe they set the bar higher for legacies, and have some sort of hidden quota? </p>
<p>You talk about "misinformed"? Any mirrors around?</p>
<p>To know whether it's really easier or harder for legacies to be admitted, you can't just look at the percentages admitted from the legacy vs. general pool. You'd have to know the statistical breakouts for the two pools and admittees too. Colleges typically say that being a legacy is some advantage, but also claim that the legacy pool is stronger.</p>