"Meritocracy" vs "Well Rounded Class"

Applying to College
1

<p>Here's the thing that has been irritating the back of my mind once I started down the college admissions path with my first child. As my children were growing up, I (and I assume like many of my peer parents) encouraged my children to do as well as possible in school assuming college admissions was a meritocracy. I assumed those with the best grades would get into the best schools. </p>

<p>In reality, since many colleges are seeking, a "well rounded class of individuals", college admissions are more based upon the whims of the individual college and are NOT based on a meritocracy of grades as they are in many other parts of the world such as India. I think this leaves alot of parents and students confused. I think alot of parents and students feel mislead at the end of the process. If you didn't attain the college placement of choice it feels as if you have lied to your child for most of their life. This is an awful feeling. My first did attain his desired school but the empathy I felt for his peers who didn't was real and palpable. The rejections said more about the schools applied to than about the students.</p>

<p>The other thing that really confuses, and bothers me, is this idea often stated on this board that the student who merely studies hard, does very well academically and seems to enjoy the process of learning is simply a grind and not deserving of a placement at a prestigious/top college. Naive of me perhaps but I thought the true purpose of higher education was the seeking of knowledge and learning -- not extracurriculars. Why isn't a proven track record of success at the seeking of knowledge in high school considered a sufficient passion to qualify for the very best schools in our country? Why instead is there this need for a passion for 1 or more extracurriculars which may or may not having anything to do with seeking knowledge?</p>

2

<p>The short answer is that the number of truly outstanding students based on grades, is far greater than the availability of top college slots. So a process has evolved to try and help sort through and break these literally thousands of ties. Unfortunately, it reflects the view the government, and actually the rest of the nation has of the importance of eductation. cc is a very biased and small (reletive to the rest of the nation) group.</p>

3

<p>
[quote]
Why isn't a proven track record of success at the seeking of knowledge in high school considered a sufficient passion to qualify for the very best schools in our country?

[/quote]

It is sufficient to qualify. It is not sufficient to be admitted. There are simply too many of these students.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Why instead is there this need for a passion for 1 or more extracurriculars which may or may not having anything to do with seeking knowledge?

[/quote]

Because most colleges want to educate a complete person. As there are more than one learning styles, and more than one type of intelligence (see, e.g., Emotional Intelligence), there is more than one way to measure "success" and the track record of success. Additionally, colleges are seeking to create a community for 4 years, in which students can learn from others, and about things that are perhaps not strictly "intellectual" but also may artistic, emotional, musical, etc. A school made up solely of intellectuals, no matter how passionately intellectual they may be (with no negativity in the term), would make for a very dull community. (Nor is there any thought that extracurriculars cannot also be intellectual - there are very few true "intellectuals" in high school who do nothing but high school work.)</p>

4

<p>Grades do not always equal smart or interesting or likely to go on to great things. It's just one small measure really.</p>

5

<p>
[quote]
As my children were growing up, I (and I assume like many of my peer parents) encouraged my children to do as well as possible in school assuming college admissions was a meritocracy. I assumed those with the best grades would get into the best schools.

[/quote]

Well that's your own fault. It's not hard to figure out that most selective schools utilize holistic admissions. Why didn't you just visit the school's website or read a brochure before giving your kids bad advice? You are really in no position to be complaining about the system.</p>

<p>
[quote]
In reality, since many colleges are seeking, a "well rounded class of individuals", college admissions are more based upon the whims of the individual college and are NOT based on a meritocracy of grades as they are in many other parts of the world such as India.

[/quote]

Ok "whims" is a poor choice of words. Are you suggesting that those attending highly selective schools were accepted simply because of luck and not because of their accomplishments?</p>

<p>
[quote]
I think this leaves alot of parents and students confused. I think alot of parents and students feel mislead at the end of the process. If you didn't attain the college placement of choice it feels as if you have lied to your child for most of their life. This is an awful feeling. My first did attain his desired school but the empathy I felt for his peers who didn't was real and palpable. The rejections said more about the schools applied to than about the students.

[/quote]

Again this is your own problem to deal with. The parents who feel like this are the ones who are obsessed with having their children attend Ivy league schools.</p>

<p>Also, what students in Korea, China, India, etc. have to go through to get into top colleges is much worse. I doubt anyone except for Asians/foreigners who are already used to college admissions being a "meritocracy" where whoever grinds through their work and standardized tests the hardest is rewarded want college admissions to be a "meritocracy."</p>

<p>Lastly, keep in mind that national exams in other countries are much more legitimate than the SAT and ACT.</p>

<p>
[quote]
The other thing that really confuses, and bothers me, is this idea often stated on this board that the student who merely studies hard, does very well academically and seems to enjoy the process of learning is simply a grind and not deserving of a placement at a prestigious/top college.

[/quote]

Well because they probably are "grinders." There is no need for these students to attend top colleges because "grinders" tend to lack the capacity to be creative thinkers. They are typically focused on "grinding" out results and are typically less concerned with learning and being innovative.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Naive of me perhaps but I thought the true purpose of higher education was the seeking of knowledge and learning -- not extracurriculars.

[/quote]

This is not a logical progression at all. I would also agree that your statement is abit naive because you are narrowly defining "education." College is about education in the broader sense. It's about preparing people for the real world. Also, people who do extracurriculars that genuinely interest them rather than to get into selective colleges do receive the benefit of being more educated and ready for the real world.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Why isn't a proven track record of success at the seeking of knowledge in high school considered a sufficient passion to qualify for the very best schools in our country?

[/quote]

Because there are not enough spots. </p>

<p>Also getting A's and a good SAT scores are in no way the same thing as seeking knowledge. Doing extracurriculars and pursuing hobbies, however, can be seen as seeking knowledge, so I guess you actually agree with the status quo.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Why instead is there this need for a passion for 1 or more extracurriculars which may or may not having anything to do with seeking knowledge?

[/quote]

If you have no passions what business do you have wanting to go to a prestigious school? Why not go to a state school? </p>

<p>The whole point of going to a prestigious university is to be given opportunities to pursue your passions. Most of the kids who are admitted to prestigious schools generally have a passion that will benefit the larger society, which, in case you did not know, is a good thing.</p>

<p>I think your problem is that you think that you see attending a prestigious school as an opportunity for an individual to benefit themselves. Your "passion" is probably is to be "successful" aka make a ridiculous amount of money.</p>

6

<p>Admitting a well-rounded class IS a meritocracy. There is more to merit than simple grades and test scores. Having high grades is not the only form of achievement, and having a talent for taking standardized tests is not the only worthy talent. Selective colleges seek to enroll kids with talents and high achievements, i.e. merit, across a wide range of endeavors.</p>

7

<p>I wouldn't go to your meritocracy. Neither would many others. So, it is a self defeating spiral. Colleges admit who they do because they want the most top applicants as they can. And they admit people who they think will do something in the future, which helps them in the future. It's not like they take bottom end applicants to be 'well rounded'.</p>

8

<p>newjack88, lighten up a bit! I didn't think the OP's comments were that offensive. There is no need to be so condescending, seeing as your argument contained very flawed logic as well.</p>

<p>I think it is funny how everyone assumes that if a person doesn't have EC's, they aren't well rounded. Also, the assumption that accepting people based solely on intellect would make a "dull" campus is ridiculous! Look at universities like Oxford and Cambridge that don't even look at applicants' EC's. I don't think many people would say that Oxford and Cambridge are dull.
Anyways, if you ask almost any high school student, I bet they will admit that one of the reasons they got involved in XYZ club was for college. Sure, there are students who truly care about the things they do outside of school, but usually putting the activity on their college applications is in the back of their minds. If you want data to back this up, just ask people in college how many EC's they kept up with from high school.
In addition, the varying difficulty of high schools is a major factor. Personally, I would love to get involved in more things. I know that my friends would too. However, we can't control the ridiculous amount of homework we get. If I would have stayed at my old school, I would have 3X more time for activities. Don't assume that because people spend a lot of time on schoolwork, they are "grinders" or are obsessed with getting a 4.0. Honestly, I need more hours in a day just to get my work DONE.</p>

9

<p>
[quote]
newjack88, lighten up a bit! I didn't think the OP's comments were that offensive. There is no need to be so condescending, seeing as your argument contained very flawed logic as well.

[/quote]

What about it is flawed?</p>

<p>
[quote]
I think it is funny how everyone assumes that if a person doesn't have EC's, they aren't well rounded. Also, the assumption that accepting people based solely on intellect would make a "dull" campus is ridiculous! Look at universities like Oxford and Cambridge that don't even look at applicants' EC's. I don't think many people would say that Oxford and Cambridge are dull.

[/quote]

First of all, how else are you supposed to know if someone is well rounded? I think that short of actually spending a significant amount of time with an individual, the only practical way to determine whether or not an individual is well rounded is to consider things like extracurriculars, essays, and recommendations.</p>

<p>Also, Oxford and Cambridge require rather rigorous interviews though.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Anyways, if you ask almost any high school student, I bet they will admit that one of the reasons they got involved in XYZ club was for college. Sure, there are students who truly care about the things they do outside of school, but usually putting the activity on their college applications is in the back of their minds. If you want data to back this up, just ask people in college how many EC's they kept up with from high school.

[/quote]

First of all, like the OP you are completely forgetting about hobbies. Hobbies are what typically demonstrate passion. Things like clubs, etc. are typically opportunities to demonstrate leadership.</p>

<p>Anyways, this is a bit of a nonsensical argument to make. If you are so against kids doing extracurriculars to get into college why are you not so adamently opposed to kids taking a rigorous courseload, getting good grades, and getting good test scores just to get into colleges? In any admissions system you will have those trying to meet the criteria simply so they can be admitted. In a "meritocracy" you are encouraging kids to be unidimensional whereas in a holistic admissions system you are encouraging them to be multidimensional and learn to utilize all of their talents not just their academic ones. I think it should be rather apparent which system is better.</p>

<p>
[quote]
In addition, the varying difficulty of high schools is a major factor. Personally, I would love to get involved in more things. I know that my friends would too. However, we can't control the ridiculous amount of homework we get. If I would have stayed at my old school, I would have 3X more time for activities. Don't assume that because people spend a lot of time on schoolwork, they are "grinders" or are obsessed with getting a 4.0. Honestly, I need more hours in a day just to get my work DONE.

[/quote]

Well what perception does it create when you have an applicant who has good grades and good test scores but who has no extracurricular activities and another applicant who also has good grades and good test scores but has extracurricular activities?</p>

<p>Anyways, you do not really need to devote an exorbitant amount of time to extracurricular activities to show that you are passionate or are well rounded. Moreover, even if you are required to spend a significant amount of time participating in an extracurricular activity the experience of having to manage time is invaluable. It has been shown that kids who participate in extracurricular activities are more likely to have better time management skills than those who do not and are also more likely to succeed in college. So it can be argued that extracurriculars demonstrate that an applicant is both prepared and mature enough to succeed in college.</p>

10

<p>OP: Imagine if so-called "rankings" and prestige were set aside (yeah I know -- stop laughing) and you had one set of "holistic" admissions schools and another set of "metrics only" admissions schools. The first group makes no secret of the fact that they want the well-rounded classes. The 2nd group makes no secret of what it takes to get in their colleges either -- meet minimum GPA & scores. Now students as consumers have a choice of what type of educational environment they can pursue. </p>

<p>Well guess what? The market has made the first group EXTREMELY desired and the 2nd group less so. Does this mean that great educations are only had at the 1st group? No -- I don't believe that at all. However, students are attracted to the environment that holistically admitted students will generate. Due to this oversubscription, the admit rates of these type of schools plummets to below thirty percent.</p>

<p>Sound familiar? Well I've just described the real world.<br>
You can't tell Ivy "X" to admit by numbers only because that would change the very educational NATURE of Ivy X. For some reason, society has said that what Ivy X is doing is valued and therefore "prestige" follows.<br>
I've said this before: you can't have your cake and eat it too. You can't in one breath decry "holistic" admissions and then pursue getting into Ivy X and what its so-called prestigious peers offer.</p>

<p>The fact is there are 1000s of colleges that admit by metrics that educate 100,000s of students admirably. It's just that very, very few of them are in the "top-30" list.</p>

<p>BTW: I was admitted to three of the top engineering schools by the strength of my transcript & scores -- no holistic stuff there. But I'm one of those who had only OK ECs but my "story" (Asian kid, leadership positions in urban HS) and my academic achievement got me admitted to all schools applied, eventually matriculating at one of the HYP colleges.</p>

11

<p>They admit by metrics, but only moderate metrics. You can be guaranteed access to some state schools with a 1800 SAT and 3.2 GPA, but there's nowhere that requires a 2300 and a 3.9.</p>

<p>And I think holistic admissions are really much better. Is a student REALLY better just because he has a higher GPA? I mean, there's some correlation, but as you get near the top it becomes harder to tell.</p>

12

<p>@T2E64: MIT was not looking for well-rounded class for years, and it was perenially a top 5 school. Caltech still does the same thing. And I don't think the OP was referring to GPA/SAT only when they were saying, but also performance in academic competitions plus recommendations. The OP said relying on ECs for admissions was flawed, but academic competitions are typically referred to as co-curriculars. In other words, I don't think the OP has a problem with holistic admissions in general, just holistic admissions that counts non-academic factors as criterions.</p>

<p>If Harvard decided tomorrow to change its admissions philosophy, my feeling is that it would not lose any of its appeal for the vast majority of people. That's what prestige does. And all the same people spouting all the propaganda from the current philosophy would be spouting new propoganda.</p>

13

<p>
[quote]
@T2E64: MIT was not looking for well-rounded class for years, and it was perenially a top 5 school. Caltech still does the same thing. And I don't think the OP was referring to GPA/SAT only when they were saying, but also performance in academic competitions plus recommendations. The OP said relying on ECs for admissions was flawed, but academic competitions are typically referred to as co-curriculars. In other words, I don't think the OP has a problem with holistic admissions in general, just holistic admissions that counts non-academic factors as criterions.

[/quote]

MIT has always pursued what they considered to be an ideal class. They were never a "meritocracy." I think that what you are alluding to is that their definition of a well rounded class has changed.</p>

14

<p>"MIT has always pursued what they considered to be an ideal class. They were never a "meritocracy.""</p>

<p>MIT admissions was always holistic, but used to be geared solely toward answering the question: who are the smartest applicants?
Except for AA, admission to MIT was basically identical to Caltech.</p>

15

<p>I used to think that good grades and scores and everything would not help me in getting into top colleges, that I would be rejected from the schools I applied for because I did not have huge international accomplishments in my extra curriculars, that I would not be seen as an interesting person. But, then I got into Harvard and MIT, as well as the more grades/scores-based Caltech. </p>

<p>What did I learn from applying to college and seeing my friends apply?</p>

<p>Essentially, that good grades and scores ARE Necessary to get into a top college, though they may not be Sufficient. All of the people I know who got into Harvard, Tufts, Brown, Columbia, Dartmouth were in at LEAST the top 10% of my class, and had very respectable SAT scores.</p>

<p>Also, I read a really elucidating article about Harvard's admissions, that pointed out that Harvard is not looking to admit people who will be very good college students - they are looking to admit people who will do amazing things After college. This includes business leaders, political leaders, as well as musicians, and leaders in academia. </p>

<p>So, essentially, that kid who just loves learning CAN get into GREAT schools. But "loves learning" is about so much more than getting grades and scores - for me anyway, the grades and the scores were the boring part. Loving learning is about reading, or experimenting, or practicing an instrument, or learning to better condition your body by way or a sport, or learning to debate, or learning to work at a hospital, or learning to help others learn (tutoring), or learning to solve tough problems. Or any one of infinitely many things one can learn how to do! And the most interesting of these learnings takes place outside the classroom, without a doubt. The kid that REALLY loves learning is out there learning to do things he/she loves - even when he/she is not receiving credit for it. That's probably why ECs are so important: they show true love for learning or for doing X thing, rather than for getting credit or doing better than your friends (i.e., having very good scores and grades - NOT SAYING THAT ALL PEOPLE WHO HAVE GREAT SCORES AND GRADES FOCUS ON GETTING CREDIT OR DOING BETTER THAN OTHERS. just saying, without anything else, that might be how that seems). And also, top colleges like to go beyond the kid who just loves learning what is already out there, to the kid that will create new things to learn about - whether through daring political action, unprecedented research, etc...... </p>

<p>IMHO, that's why grades and scores are not sufficient. They do, however, help to show that one is capable of doing well at a school, and confirm that said student actually does like learning (though this is not the case with all people who have good grades and scores).</p>

16

<p>
[quote]
MIT admissions was always holistic, but used to be geared solely toward answering the question: who are the smartest applicants?
Except for AA, admission to MIT was basically identical to Caltech.

[/quote]

I don't think that is completely true. MIT looks for kids who are passionate about math and science. My school has had a couple of applicants with perfect test scores and amazing grades rejected from MIT simply because they didn't demonstrate a passion for science and math. (Long story short, school thought it may have been a mistake the kid was rejected so the GC called to verify the decision.)</p>

17

<p>^^That doesn't surprise me. My point is that MIT didn't used to do things that way. Their admissions process has become more like Harvard's in the past 10 years.</p>

18

<p>lalaloo6, I know what article you're talking about. It's in The New Yorker. Here's the link: Getting</a> In: The New Yorker . It is an incredibly interesting article, and for everyone who is bashing the OP I highly suggest that you read this article. It will give you a different point of view.</p>

19

<p>
[quote]
think it is funny how everyone assumes that if a person doesn't have EC's, they aren't well rounded.

[/quote]
The most selective colleges aren't looking for kids who are well-rounded. They are looking for a class of kids that have both top academics and excel in one or two areas outside of academics. They build a well-rounded class out of a variety of such kids.</p>

20

<p>
[quote]
lalaloo6, I know what article you're talking about. It's in The New Yorker. Here's the link: Getting In: The New Yorker . It is an incredibly interesting article, and for everyone who is bashing the OP I highly suggest that you read this article. It will give you a different point of view.

[/quote]

Already familiar with the article and I think it's pretty ignorant to compare those admissions policies to today's admission policies. Also, I do not think that the author of the article completely agrees with the OP's perspective. In fact, the author spends a great deal of time proving the ineffectiveness of the "best students model" which is what the OP is in favor of.</p>