<p>Blossom, you so completely hit the nail on the head!</p>
<p>IKF - yes, the groups do interact significantly, thankfully, otherwise they would end up some academic version of tunnel vision.</p>
<p>Of course music conservatories are not universities. I was just using that as an example that talent-based institutions admitted the most talented applicants, and sports teams recruit the strongest athletes, but academic-based institutions (whether chemistry or linguistics) don't admit the smartest students. </p>
<p>As I said, I do realize I'm swimming upstream. From what I have observed, there is less meaningful interaction between diverse groups than we would like to believe. Do diverse groups attend the same university? Certainly. Does everyone branch out to socialize and exchange ideas with students very different than themselves (course of study, ethnic groups, etc)?...not so much.</p>
<p>lkf- I think it depends on the school. At Rice the residential colleges are set up so that the athletes (and everyone else) are all mixed together. There are no separate athletic dorms, so a football or baseball player might be sharing a suite with a music major. At Florida State and UT do the football players spend a lot of time exchanging ideas on the health care crisis with the business honors kids? Probably not.</p>
<p>Yes, MOWC, I'm sure it does depend alot on the particular school. Lots more kids graduate from state universities and smaller 2nd and 3rd tier colleges than ivies and top LACs, so the group that benefits from this diverse class building is probably pretty small. But I guess that for those that experience it, it's a good thing.</p>
<p>"Do the theater majors really interact much with the computer science majors? Does the premed student really socialize with the football team?"</p>
<p>To this specific question I can say yes. At my alma mater, where most friendships revolved around dorm life, especially freshman year, engineers hung out with religious studies majors, musicians with rugby players. In some instances, people gravitated to their comfort groups -- usually along socio-economic lines. And sadly, there was not as much interaction among different racial groups as I would have liked. I really noticed the difference when I visited my friends at a state school, and the lack of diversity was striking compared to where I went. </p>
<p>I can't imagine a more boring place than a college that accepted students solely based on academic record. Kids with straight A's who do nothing else but study are not going to contribute much to campus life or to society if they continue in that vein. The world needs people who volunteer at their church, contribute to community theater, run school PTAs, and so on. While I think the bar to get into the Ivies and other top schools has risen a bit too high, I'm glad those schools look at a range of talents during the admissions process.</p>
<p>All the different talents, interests, backgrounds and perspectives add life to a campus. Few people want to spend four years on a campus where all anybody does is study. </p>
<p>These elite schools that reject 90% of applicants are rejecting entire freshmen classes of academically qualified students. A couple more A's in a couple more AP classes here or there is neither here nor there. These schools also have very high graduation rates--athletes, legacies, URM's, etc. included. If they're graduating, they must have been academically qualified. </p>
<p>These schools do indeed admit academically astounding students who have little in the way of EC's. Amassing a lot of A's in lots of very challenging AP classes isn't astounding. Many kids do that. It's often the result of a lot of hard work and determination, and it should be rewarded, but not necessarily by a fat envelope from Harvard. Those kids do get into good colleges...great colleges. Astounding is different; astounding is more like the kid who has teachers writing recs saying that in 20 years of teaching, they have never had a student like this. Those kids do get in, even without water polo or an oboe. </p>
<p>With schools that have the luxury of denying admission to 90% of applicants, if you're not academically astounding, being academically superior without anything more might not be enough to put you over the hump into the 10% that get in. But you'll get in somewhere great. I have no patience with people who cry in their soup because they had to accept Tufts or CMU or JHU or You Name It other great school instead of HPYS.</p>
<p>Frankly, after so many A's in so many tough AP classes, I'm not sure that grinding away at yet another one is superior to going outside and playing in the mud. I suppose it depends on why you're doing it. If you're taking another tough AP class because it's something you want to do, that's great. You'll get your reward just by doing a good job doing something you want to do. If you're doing it just to be more competitive with Harvard admissions out of some expectation of being rewarded with a fat envelope, and then instead you get a thin envelope, you have just had a learning experience. If you've already got a dozen A's in a dozen tough AP classes under your belt, you've made your point with admissions. Go out and play in the mud. Or practice the oboe. Or something.</p>
<p>1Down2togo- I agree. From my time as an alum interviewer, they told us that grades and test scores, no matter how high, were never enough to classify someone as a top academic prospect. That required something much more- a Math Olympiad medal, published author, national recognition for intellectual work, etc. Those sort of people don't grow on trees, and even top high schools rarely see someone like this. A place like Harvard might get 100 applications a year from such people and if they deny any of them it will be due to some MAJOR unrelated problem, like a criminal record. </p>
<p>However, top grades and test scores are a dime a dozen. There are so many kids with this that HYPS could not possibly admit them all. Further the differences in grades and test scores among these very bright, but not brilliant, students are so small as to be meaningless. Someone with 1600 on math and verbal is not any better than someone with 1550 or 1500. All are clearly qualified to do the work and which of the three gets in will not depend on SAT scores at all. Similarly, differences in grades among excellent students are not important. </p>
<p>Once HYPS have accepted essentially every brilliant kid who applies, they have to fill up the rest of the class with smart people who do a wide variety of things very well. Some of these students have near perfect academic records, but most do not, and it does not matter. The vast majority of people denied admission would have done just fine academically, and further increasing the emphasis on grades and test scores would not increase the output of scholars (since they are taken care of by admitting every genius who applies), but it could easily ruin the extracurricular environment.</p>
<p>Okay, here is a dumb question: </p>
<p>Since it is clear that colleges need to admit students based on the needs of the school in order to round out all the ECs -- and the various academic departments, for that matter --- what is wrong with having the colleges MAKE KNOWN to the public where they need to fill gaps? 'We need five violinists, fifteen mathletes, 27 football player, 112 humanities majors, 52 biology majors, etc, etc'. --- Then it would be much easier, less stressful, less time consuming and cost less money for the applicants to apply. They in fact would be then making INFORMED decisions on where to apply, and would reduce, if not eliminate the number of applications to colleges whose needs do not meet their qualifications, even though they could handle the work. </p>
<p>It has often been said that higher education is really a business and the applicant is a consumer (or buyer). Well, would you buy something that you had information on or would you buy something blind?</p>
<p>There is probably a gaping hole in this, so please feel free...</p>
<p>I think the problem with that approach is that colleges don't know who will be coming down the pike. I also don't think they're so set, in most cases, as to the particular niches they want to fil ,with the exception of athletics, and to some extent, the coaches do make it known who they want by recruiting. How can colleges know what kind of amazing kids will knock on their door in any given year? They want to see what's available, and then make their decisions.
In some broad areas, I think the informed person can find out when a school is trying to build a particular department. A couple of years ago, Yale wanted to attract top math students. Several early offers of admission went out to kids who were "astounding" in math. I believe that a student with MIT-type credentials applying to Yale would still have a better chance of admission than say, a prospecive history major, all other factors being equal. They don't advertise the fact because they still need great kids in all their other departments as well, and want to attract the best in all areas.</p>
<p>Also, if a school is telling the world that it "needs" astounding math students, will the best math students come? Maybe they'll go where they feel the program is already very strong.</p>
<p>"need" can be of the rebuilding sort, not of the 'we need to start a strong department' sort.</p>
<p>If athletic departments can forecast, why can't the others?</p>
<p>I agree obviously that a university at which only academic work went on would not be a terribly appealing place in which to live. However, I would like to know whether posters who have suggested that selecting on academic merit would result in a sterile lifeless enivironment think of university systems (such as the UK) which do select primarily on merit are entirely filled with dull computer geeks?</p>
<br>
<blockquote> <p>what is wrong with having the colleges MAKE KNOWN to the public where they need to fill gaps? 'We need five violinists, fifteen mathletes, 27 football player, 112 humanities majors, 52 biology majors, etc, etc'. <<</p> </blockquote>
<br>
<p>If they did that, then (using the above example) they would suddenly get flooded with apps from bogus humanities majors. The new way to game the system would be to (temporarily) choose a major the top schools are looking for. </p>
<p>We see this here on CC: kids asking if they apply as this or that major, will it increase their chances?</p>
<p>The applicant would have to provide reasonable assurance to the college through the application that he or she has indeed a bonafide interest in humanities. Admissions people are savvy and if they can 'see through' applications for spurious responses by the applicant, can they not do so for the ones puporting to have genuine interest in areas the college needs to fill but really do not?</p>
<p>Sly wrote: "I can't imagine a more boring place than a college that accepted students solely based on academic record. Kids with straight A's who do nothing else but study are not going to contribute much to campus life or to society if they continue in that vein."</p>
<p>And I could say that I can't imagine a more intellectually vacuous place than a college that accepted students solely based on how well they threw a football or where their daddy went to school. Our smart kids don't "do nothing else but study." They manage to get their 4.6 gpas in addition to their ECs which may not involved dribbling or catching, but do otherwise enrich their world. I'm sorry if this sounds harsh, but I'm really tired of being expected to apologize because I want the best for my son because academically he is the best and brightest. That used to count for something. In a year, I'll find out if it still does.</p>
<br>
<blockquote> <p>Admissions people are savvy and if they can 'see through' applications for spurious responses by the applicant, can they not do so for the ones puporting to have genuine interest in areas the college needs to fill but really do not?<<</p> </blockquote>
<br>
<p>I think it would quickly become be just one more angle that college admissions counselors would start advising their clients on --> "strategic" selection of major, how to express "genuine" interest in that major in your essay and interview, etc. It would just be a new layer to the admissions game.</p>
<p>On the other hand, we used to get frustrated because people automatically assumed that because S was a tremendous athlete, that he could not also be academically one of the best and brightest.......
:)</p>
<p>BT, you're not going to find colleges filled with vacuous student bodies of athletes and legacies. However, it's a fallacy to think that colleges want--or that the best college environment would be provided by--student bodies accepted solely on grades/test scores. </p>
<p>However, if that model appeals, it is a model that's used in many European and Asian countries.</p>
<p>The U.S. approach is a matter of balance. When people propose revisions to the system, for some odd reason it always benefits <em>their</em> kids.</p>
<p>coureur,</p>
<p>If it weren't for the "gaming" you mention, would my suggestion do anything to relieve stress and wasted effort on the part of the applicant? Is gaming the only reason preventing colleges from taking such action? If so, is there not a way around it? If not, are not the potential, overall benefits greater than the fact that another layer of gaming has been added to the mix?</p>
<p>
[quote]
The applicant would have to provide reasonable assurance to the college through the application that he or she has indeed a bonafide interest in humanities.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Do you think that a 17 or 18 year old should be "committed" to a major and never have the opportunity to change his/her mind. Apply as a chem major, remain a chem major come hell of high water even if you have found that linguistics has sparked your passion. </p>
<p>This philosophy would IMHO would not lead growth on the part of the student, nor does it really give them the freedom to explore other things just for the hell of it, because now they are married to a major based on their limited frame of reference.</p>
<p>It is not unusual for a student to go in to college with their mind set on being a "x" major and then take a class in Y and find that they would like to pursue that topic instead.</p>
<p>sybbie,</p>
<p>No, I don't think one should be "committed' to a major, nor would the colleges expect it. A student would still be free to change majors, but I am guessing that a good number (perhaps the majority?) would stick to their avowed interests. </p>
<p>There is such a lot of hoopla around 'passion' these days, and how all kids either have it or should, well here is an idea that separates the wheat from the chaff. Let them put their money where their mouth is, if you will.</p>