"Meritocracy" vs "Well Rounded Class"

Applying to College
21

<p>When you deal with an issue as contentious as this, it is more effective to refrain from making moral judgements in an article. The author does, however, depict the origins of the subjectivity of Harvard/ivy admissions in a negative light.</p>

<p>What I find interesting is that the author posits, and I agree, that law schools use a best-students model. Yet people still want to attend Harvard Law School. Also, what is the logic for law school using a best students model and medical school NOT using a best students model. I would think that medical schools should be using a best students model.</p>

22

<p>
[quote]
When you deal with an issue as contentious as this, it is more effective to refrain from making moral judgements in an article.

[/quote]

I was not passing any moral judgements.</p>

<p>
[quote]
The author does, however, depict the origins of the subjectivity of Harvard/ivy admissions in a negative light.

[/quote]

And rightly so.</p>

<p>
[quote]
What I find interesting is that the author posits, and I agree, that law schools use a best-students model.

[/quote]

But in this model the "best-students" are typically those who scored highest on the LSAT, since there are not any completely relevant undergraduate majors. This is a key distinction because when most people think "best-students" they think about grades. Basically, it makes sense for law schools to use this method because what else could they base admissions off of?</p>

<p>
[quote]
I would think that medical schools should be using a best students model.

[/quote]

They pretty much already do that though. Also, do not overlook the fact that for the good of humanity medical schools should make sure to admit those who are genuinely interested in helping others and bettering the larger society.</p>

23

<p>"I was not passing any moral judgements"</p>

<p>I was not implying that you were. Sorry if that was unclear. I was commenting that the author of the article seemed to resist the temptation to come out and endorse or denounce the way admissions is done. I think this is an effective writing style when dealing with highly contentious and controversial issues.</p>

24

<p>Aren't most elite engineering programs more numbers driven in terms of admissions? I have the impression that well-rounded kind of falls second to grades and test scores. I am not implying that they don't want a well-rounded group, just saying that given the eng curriculum, Rigorous and Rigid, that if you don't have the numbers to begin with, you might not be successful. Perhaps eng schools do look at numbers first. Just my opinion--</p>

25

<p>"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>

<hr>

<p>I never said that the author completely agrees with the OP's perspective. All I wrote was that the article gives a different point of view on the subject by telling of its discriminatory origins.</p>

26

<p>
[quote]
Aren't most elite engineering programs more numbers driven in terms of admissions? I have the impression that well-rounded kind of falls second to grades and test scores. I am not implying that they don't want a well-rounded group, just saying that given the eng curriculum, Rigorous and Rigid, that if you don't have the numbers to begin with, you might not be successful. Perhaps eng schools do look at numbers first. Just my opinion--

[/quote]

It is rather easy to predict whether or not someone will be successful as an engineer (depending on the kind though), so a numbers-based approach is probably the most efficient way to produce the best engineers.</p>

<p>
[quote]
I never said that the author completely agrees with the OP's perspective. All I wrote was that the article gives a different point of view on the subject by telling of its discriminatory origins.

[/quote]

Fair enough. My complaint, however, was that people may draw false parallels between the original holistic admissions system and today's.</p>

27

<p>It seems like colleges these days are looking for a fair share of BOTH. At least the top-notch universities, where everyone who applies has near perfect gpas and test scores...extracirriculars just make others stand out.</p>

28

<p>"There is more to merit than simple grades and test scores. "</p>

<p>I don't know why I'm pasting just one portion of your post when the entire message should be repeated. (And I've been saying it also for several years here, but coureur always likes to anticipate me or echo me, depending.;).)</p>

<p>"Also, what students in Korea, China, India, etc. have to go through to get into top colleges is much worse."
^^ And it's so bad that thousands of those have come, and seek to come, here instead. 'Pure meritocracy' has its limits. Not all that attractive, really. The OP should be careful what she wishes for. You really wouldn't like it all that much. </p>

<p>US colleges & universities are not pure academies, in the classical sense. That era was over in this country maybe a hundred years ago, or more. Perhaps they never were pure academies in the tradition of Western Europe back in, say, the Baroque period or the 19th century.</p>

<p>US colleges are academies and more. They are consciously & publicly social transition years from adolescence into adulthood. They are opportunities for self-discovery & experiments in personal leadership, group organization, self-evaluation against peers BOTH similar & different from oneself, as well as exposure to students of different cultures, subcultures, regions, & countries. They are opportunities, both through experiences & through classes, to form a personal ethos. They are not just libraries with quads.</p>

<p>They are also opportunities to discover & develop a career path, with training either in that environment or beyond there. This is not a minor aspect of admission. The U cares about where their grads are going, and the higher the profile of the U, the more they care about the institution being 'represented' in a variety of industries.</p>

<p>American colleges are also laboratories for the performing arts & their artists. </p>

<p>I haven't mentioned sports, either, but I hardly think the OP has been "misled," unless your reading inventory is limited. (Not being sarcastic.)</p>

29

<p>collegealum, you either contradict yourself or you are not clear: you claim MIT was always holistic, then say they were never that way (rejecting perfect scorers), then add they are more like Harvard recently (meaning they had been less holistic previously) etc.</p>

<p>All the differing arguments can be reconciled if you all view it this way: the Ivies (the futures test model according to a New Yorker writer) admit a bit of every type, the best grinds, the smartest on a numbers only basis, the smartest on numbers plus passion plus acad competitions, the not so smart but full of life energy in the form of ECs, etc etc etc. So, more likely to have real world success as more grads will be successful in more fields and add to real world prestige and influence of the school.</p>

<p>The Asian/Oxbridge model is the smart/unidimensional smart only, hence maybe the best scientists but not real world success in many fields. Please note that whilst Asian schools have always had by the scores attitude, Oxbridge has only had it since world war 2. Paradoxically, prior to that they were more like HYP. Note how many British Prime MInisters went there.</p>

30

<p>"collegealum, you either contradict yourself or you are not clear: you claim MIT was always holistic, then say they were never that way (rejecting perfect scorers), then add they are more like Harvard recently (meaning they had been less holistic previously) etc."</p>

<p>Well, I guess I'm not being clear. MIT admissions used to be holistic in the same way Caltech is now. Caltech admissions is holistic, but they take the person they think is the smartest candidate. For instance, they may take one applicant who gets a 750 on the SAT math over an 800 scorer if the guy who got 750 had better recommendations because they were better students (even if both got straight "A"s.) Or if the 750 scorer did better on the AMC, showing that his/her mathematical maturity was higher. This is the kind of holistic admissions that MIT used to practice. </p>

<p>Nowadays MIT might take a 650 SATI math scorer with straight "B"s in math and science over a perfect scorer on the SATI and II with a perfect GPA and who had qualified for USAMO just because they liked their personality or liked their sense of humor.
This is how admissions has changed.</p>

31

<p>It's also changed because the world has changed. Engineers now need to be able to write and speak in non-technical English to a greater extent than ever before. If an individual wants to go progress into management as an engineer, communications skills are necessary, and even schools like MIT are now looking for people who can communicate. And how do prospective students show that? In their application essays.</p>

32

<p>"And how do prospective students show that?"</p>

<p>How about in their english class grade and recommendation and their SAT verbal score?</p>

<p>Grading the applicant essay for writing skill would be fine too. However, most of the time when people say that their essays got them in, they are referring to some story they told in their essays about hardship or how they volunteered in some third-world country. Usually, people grading the essays are grading the personality of the applicant.</p>

33

<p>"...and their SAT verbal score?"</p>

<p>The SAT verbal score offers a limited glimpse into the verbal promise of the student as a critical thinker & critical writer. Recommendations, if specific enough, can provide a better evaluation, especially if the content describes or summarizes the array of assigned work & the student's performance on that.</p>

<p>The essay provides a different but important perspective on writing ability, as it relates both to the recommendation and to SAT performance. Anyone who thinks that "usually, people grading the essays are grading the personality of the applicant," is insufficiently informed about the value of the essay and the various reasons it is included.</p>

34

<p>"Recommendations, if specific enough, can provide a better evaluation, especially if the content describes or summarizes the array of assigned work & the student's performance on that."</p>

<p>Right, that's why included recommendations. I agree that it is probably more important than the other two factors. Many people can get "A"s in English without being stars, and you need recommendations to show who the stars are.</p>

<p>"Anyone who thinks that "usually, people grading the essays are grading the personality of the applicant," is insufficiently informed about the value of the essay and the various reasons it is included."</p>

<p>Well, I know adcomms don't think of it as grading personalities or the worldviews but I think it sometimes boils down to that. Also, I think even noble intentions like trying to look for personal qualities from the essay can end up leading to paradoxical results. Let's just look at MIT's admission process, since that is what we are discussing and because it is what I am most familiar. It seems communicating a happy-go-lucky attitude and writing an essay about your failures and how they didn't bother you equate to the personal quality of resilience. So you have two candidates in the same advanced math class and both of them bomb the first exam. The first one is intense and results-oriented, and he/she studies extra hard and gets perfect on the next few exams and ekes out an "A". The second happy-go-lucky guy says failure is part of risk-taking, and studies a little bit harder and gets a "B-". The second guy writes an essay about it and the adcomm give him points for resilience. The first guy doesn't mention his initial struggles and it looks like he/she doesn't know how to deal with failure. Frankly, I even think if the first guy wrote an essay it would be interpreted as worse than the other happy-go-lucky guy. Because after all, who cares whether you are at an A-level or B-level. Showing pride in results is another thing which seems to hurt you.</p>

<p>Part of this is because of the high suicide rate in the nineties. Over the span of 5 years, 10 undergrads committed suicide. Hence the emphasis on "resilience." However, I think they have overcompensated to the extent that qualities which help you be successful like pride in one's work can actually hurt you in MIT admissions.</p>

35

<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.</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.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Another thought: encouraging the kids to do well in school is the right thing, but saying that it's to get into the best schools might not be the right rationale. I try my damndest (if the CC censor ****'s that, just substitute "best") to remember that I want to be most concerned with the kind of person my kid will turn out to be at 30, not necessarily at 18. With that in mind, I want them to do well in school for all the reasons that doing well maps over to post-college life. Discipline, perspective, ability to write and reason and think critically, yada yada yada. College is part of the picture, but not the entire picture. This way, I can get up on a soapbox about the virtues of doing well in school, and not feel like a liar no matter where D1 and D2 end up at college. CYA is definitely one of my parenting memes ;)</p>

<p>This approach only goes so far. When young D2 grouses about math, telling her she needs it for life just annoys her more; telling her that she'll need it in order to get into DreamySchoolProgramWhichHasNothingToDoWithMath gets a much better response.</p>

36

<p>
[quote]
So you have two candidates in the same advanced math class and both of them bomb the first exam. The first one is intense and results-oriented, and he/she studies extra hard and gets perfect on the next few exams and ekes out an "A". The second happy-go-lucky guy says failure is part of risk-taking, and studies a little bit harder and gets a "B-". The second guy writes an essay about it and the adcomm give him points for resilience. The first guy doesn't mention his initial struggles and it looks like he/she doesn't know how to deal with failure.

[/quote]

Actually, I've seen more of the opposite scenario. The first "perfectionist" falls apart because he can't handle not getting an A. (I've seen that happen if the perfectionist gets a B+, never mind failure.) The "happy-go-lucky" one studies and gets a B-, then a B+, then an A. There you see resiliency in the happy-go-lucky student.</p>

<p>And from what I've seen, there aren't that many "happy-go-lucky" types who apply to MIT; having more of them may make a better class, if they can get the "perfectionist" to lighten up a bit! So Student B as has been posited may very well be more of the type that MIT wants.</p>

37

<p>I knew several perfectionists who went to MIT and graduated with a perfect GPA and won NSF Fellowships. (I went to high school with them so I knew them pretty well.) In fact, one of them got straight A+s in one of the harder engineering majors and was offered a faculty position at MIT. By your logic, these people might not have gotten into MIT. And I think that's ridiculous.</p>

38

<p>"Actually, I've seen more of the opposite scenario. The first "perfectionist" falls apart because he can't handle not getting an A. (I've seen that happen if the perfectionist gets a B+, never mind failure.) The "happy-go-lucky" one studies and gets a B-, then a B+, then an A. There you see resiliency in the happy-go-lucky student."</p>

<p>The point is you are predicting that someone will screw up and some point when there is no evidence of it yet. The example I gave was a true story, btw. Anyway, why would the "happy-go-lucky" student study hard enough to get an "A" if they haven't done that before. It's more likely that they study hard enough to get a "B" and spend the rest of their time socializing. And besides, if they can't get an A's in high school math chances are that they are going to have serious trouble passing the required classes.</p>

39

<p>From the OP: "I encouraged my children to do as well as possible in school assuming college admissions was a meritocracy."</p>

<p>I need to ask, as I have in many threads over the past year or two: do people actually believe that the United States is a meritocracy? That our educational system provides for one? Do we, as a society, actually believe that we all, in the United States (or abroad, for that matter), have the same chances and opportunities to achieve as everyone else? I've been in hundreds of high schools during my time as an admissions officer and think it is safe to say that we don't live in a meritocracy, as far as education is concerned. I raise these questions because, after reading this site for over a year, it appears a lot of people do think we live in a meritocracy. </p>

<p>College admissions officers do their best to make sure that they understand the context of each individual applicant's achievements. Sure - if you go to a strong high school in an upper-middle-class community and your parents went to college, the bar is going to be set higher than for a kid who goes to a crappy school in a lousy community with little or higher education in their family. In most selective college admissions, we don't set the bar at "can do the work" - we set it at "can do the work and has done the most with the opportunities they've had or even created opportunities for themselves and others."</p>

<p>The fact is - as much as INDIVIDUALS hate to admit this - higher education is not only an instrument for individual improvement, but also one of social change. We as a society do not seem to value higher education as a common good, but rather, it is viewed most often (particularly by, although not exclusively by, the privileged) as an individual one. It has become a commodity to many. It has become an entitlement to many. There's something wrong with this. </p>

<p>There are literally THOUSANDS of colleges and universities out there that can provide students with tremendous academic and social growth, yet for many, only a handful are good enough for them. College admissions is not a zero sum game, nor is it the end of one's life should Harvard or MIT or Stanford say no. Folks need to understand that a rejection letter is not personal in that IT IS NOT JUST ABOUT YOU OR YOUR KID...it is about the thousands and thousands of kids who apply to an individual school every year and the most good a school can do with its allotted slots. It may not seem that way, but those of us who work in "elite" or so-called elite institutions understand the social responsibility we have in making our decisions. </p>

<p>The truth is, most applicants to elite schools probably do "merit" a spot, but they aren't entitled to it just because they work hard. If that were the case, public education (both secondary and higher) in this country would be supported and revered a heck of a lot more than it is.</p>

40

<p>
[quote]
I knew several perfectionists who went to MIT and graduated with a perfect GPA and won NSF Fellowships. (I went to high school with them so I knew them pretty well.) In fact, one of them got straight A+s in one of the harder engineering majors and was offered a faculty position at MIT. By your logic, these people might not have gotten into MIT. And I think that's ridiculous.

[/quote]

A perfect GPA? Straight A+'s? Uhhh...?</p>

<p>Anyways, if anything is ridiculous it's your comment, "By your logic, these people might not have gotten into MIT. And I think that's ridiculous." Where is the proof of that?</p>