<p>dontno–your method (relying solely on grads & test scores) would eliminate people with talents in other areas. I am amazed by the “people skills” of some students…future businessmen and women, I’m sure…they may not have the “book” skills of my child but they can run rings around him socially, and any project they take on will succeed in a big way.</p>
<p>Not to mention the other talents that are not measured by grades and tests–art & music.</p>
<p>I don’t think that colleges should start an actual lottery system, but that more people should realize that in many ways admission to colleges acts like a lottery.</p>
<p>I went to a public, magnet art school that a few years after I left switched to a lottery of all qualified people, instead of the interview/portfolio process. It’s caused some strain between the classes, lost the school some of the best talent, and (I’ve heard) caused more people to drop out and go back to the regular public school because the school could no longer weed out those who applied but were a bad fit for the school, or who did not want to attend but whose parents wanted them to apply. They’re doing a combination of hand-picked slots and lottery now, which, given the high application numbers, may be the best compromise–but a lottery system isn’t always fair. It isn’t fair for a really good trumpeter to lose her spot on a nationally-ranked band to a boy who never wanted to attend and ends up back at his normal school, to either the trumpeter or the boy. For a college with more resources, I don’t believe that a lottery system of “good enough” candidates is a real answer, especially without screening for things like fit and interest. But yes, the admissions are random–I just think that its the students who have to take that in stride.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>agreed.</p>
<p>in my country the system is simple - everyone has to pass national exam to be able to go to any university. then, universities are setting cut-off scores for choosen subjects. in the best ones, they’re often quite low, and accepting about 300-400% of desired class. then… oh well, a horror - after first semester entire 100% lasts.</p>
<p>and for art schools always portfolio review, then invitation for a practice exam. the only factor is, how good are you.</p>
<p>I don’t agree with this thread at all. The college experience should be an all-around experience and should represent an all-around student body. Relying only on random picks would not lead to a well rounded student body. What about sports? Random power forwards? Band, random tuba players? Biology, oops no Biology majors picked out of the hat. I understand the EC problem, but EC’s are also band, sports, art, plays, chorus, ect. Those are the EC’s that should be (as in passion) considered. That way, the power forward, tuba player and Biology are all represted on campus.</p>
<p>I think it’s a bad idea.</p>
<p>But College Dad, you sound like you don’t understand very much about statistics to be making a statement like “a school will end up without any biology majors.” With a huge pool of 35,000 applicants, a school could easily end up with a representative sample of all of these characteristics – assuming they’re regularly distributed throughout the population of those applying. And if they were worried about not having enough of a particular group, then they would simply draw a sample of all of those having listed a particular EC or possible major on their actvities and then randomly draw from that sample. We do this all the time in statistics – in order to have sufficient public opinion data for specific subgroups within a population. But given how huge the population of applicants to the extremely select schools is, you would expect that a random sample would reproduce the major outlines (demographically, economically, etc.) of that population.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>A statistician would not make that assumption. Anyway, CollegeDadX3 has identified one reason why colleges have admission committees act on admission applications individually: the college does want to ensure that it doesn’t starve whole departments of major students by not admitting students willing to pursue those majors. Left unsaid in the Swarthmore professor’s article, which is one more sign of his ignorance of the process, is that most colleges want to considerably OVERrepresent students of certain ethnic backgrounds as compared to the percentage of such students in their applicant pools. If the professor wishes to argue that that is a bad idea, he should make that case explicitly.</p>
<p>I agree with you on other talents and certain kids running rings around others. When chaperoning my D when she tried to sell ads to local stores for a school journal, her friend, who is a very poor student and test taker was so advanced as a saleslady that she left my D and other D friend in the dust with her ability to speak up and sell. She definitely earned an 800 in communications (untutored!). Having a well rounded student body, with both power memorizers, power analyzers and power communicators is good for all, especially at select colleges. Talent is present in many unmeasured areas of a candidate’s life.</p>
<p>“And if they were worried about not having enough of a particular group, then they would simply draw a sample of all of those having listed a particular EC or possible major on their actvities and then randomly draw from that sample.” Wow - THAT is exactly what they do the present way in admissions! You answered your own question. That is why the present way works! They “draw a sample of those having a particular…”. Tuba players, Biology majors, power forwards, ect. Don’t tell me random statistics would come up with the best tuba player, Biology major or power forward. The human factor works no matter what some stat prof wants you to believe. The human factor picks the best of those based on their best abilities. I really don’t believe random picks are the way to go. Basketball players, Tuba players and Biology majors are not all equal and can’t be thrown into a hat.</p>
<p>He’s not a statistics professor. He’s a psychology professor. I don’t think any statistics professor would write an article that misses so many basic facts about the process.</p>
<p>So you’re assuming that the present system is objective, College Dad? Do you truly believe that it is always the best tuba player or basketball player that is picked, or even that it’s possible to look at things like someone’s GPA in a certain subject and conclude decisively that “this is the best biologist.” I would that randomization would be a good way for making up for a great deal of the subjectivity that is truly present in the system as it stands. Besides, what is the likelihood that a group of twenty something admissions officers would actually be capable of judging which of the applicants was, in fact, the best tuba player? Assuming that the kid isn’t a music major, he won’t have sent an audition tape. Where exactly would these nonmusicians draw their evidence from?</p>
<p>Token adult, can you explain what’s wrong about the man’s methodology? I’m thinking this might be a great topic for students to discuss in class – given their high level of interest in the subject, etc.</p>
<p>I like the idea of a computer-aided match system. By the way, it’s already done this way all over the world and they have no problem selecting for the appropriate distribution of majors. The main differences here are the generally high price overall and the variation in cost between schools which would have to be addressed.</p>
<p>I think all the application reading and absurd level of decision making on the part of adcoms is a big waste of time and money. Introducing randomness would alleviate some of the stress. It wouldn’t seem as much of a rejection when an algorithm is doing the selecting.</p>
<p>Well in a way I do feel that the best Tuba player or basketball player does get picked in the present system. The way you want it, all basketball players would be in the mix, whether you were a bench player or an all-state player. Then, the college coach would have to make do with whatever came out of your grabbag approach. Let the best at what they do make up the mix and let the college get who they think are the best make up their class. Not some silly lottery where the college ends up with 18 saxaphone players and no tuba players. (Not to put down saxaphone players) I just don’t agree with this, but I do love the discussion and your take on it!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Simply put, the statement that students above a certain threshold still don’t have a sure chance at admission doesn’t mean that they aren’t distinguishable from one another in the admission process at each college.</p>
<p>But that has nothing to do with his methodology, per se. I’d argue that that’s actually a separate normative argument that he’s making – that the mission of the admissions committee should be to fill the seats every year with people who represent a random sample of most of the characteristics of an average population (height, physical attractiveness, athletic ability, etc.) who are also capable of doing the work. </p>
<p>Most applicants work off the assumption that that’s more or less true – especially since many colleges (including most state universities) will tell you that they don’t practice affirmative action. I think that’s the reason so many students end up so bitter when they then are not chosen, because at least initially they were led to believe that they had a fair shot, or an equal shot at being chosen, provided they met the requirements. He’s saying in essence let’s go back to a system where everyone who meets all the requirements does indeed have a fair shot – but by choosing randomly, we would rule out any prejudice an admissions officer might have either FOR or AGAINST a certain pool of applicants. </p>
<p>On the subject of ending up with enough tuba players, etc. one way to get around the problems that College dad raises would be to have a threshold for what’s considered “really good” at something, like playing a sport or an instrument. In other words, only those who have played on a state level might be considered to fill a particular spot. </p>
<p>I guess my problem with the current system is that it’s one thing to say we need enough violas to have an orchestra, or enough breast strokers to field a swim team, but it’s the “experience candidates” that I have a hard time with – the ones who are considered desirable by virtue of what they have EXPERIENCED rather than what they’ve ACCOMPLISHED. Because if an admissions guy decides he really needs more people raised by, for example, two gay dads – it’s not like everyone else at a midwestern high school can then line up to have that experience to be considered for that slot. That’s not something that’s achieved or earned. That’s just who you are. Pretty much only the people born in that family are eligible. Likewise, if we decided we needed more british aristocracy at our university, only certain people would be eligible for those slots. But strangely enough, that would never happen – because that’s discriminatory. That’s why I think it makes sense to say, in that case, let’s have as many of these types of candidates as we would expect to find randomly distributed in a population, which we could achieve by choosing randomly.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>PROVE IT. Find me even one statement by any college anywhere on the record, on a college website that we can all verify, that the college doesn’t practice affirmative action. Then let’s talk about that.</p>
<p>A school like Swarthmore works hard (and trumpets its results) at meeting racial diversity. I suspect this guy has his own motives.
Let’s extend his ideas to other areas. Should our future MDs be those who COULD become doctors, randomly? Those who could do the work. Or are we after something else?
Or maybe a certain person met the cut-off for those who COULD make a good spouse. He would argue that we shouldn’t try to make too many useless distinctions on gradations of intelligence, sex-appeal, or world view.
If a reported 85% of applicants to Harvard “can do the work”, say those with an IQ of 120, does it follow that we should choose among them randomly?</p>
<p>
I agree.</p>
<p>All this talk of tuba players, etc. is silly. At a large school there will be enough of everything and if not, who cares – there are plenty of lopsided orchestras at small schools. Unless it’s Juilliard or similar it doesn’t really matter. I actually don’t believe admissions are really based on such things, though I think excelling at an obscure sport can be a hook. My own cynical take is that this idea of “building a class” is just the public explanation given to justify a very subjective process.</p>
<p>It would be a great experiment and I don’t think that anyone – students, faculty, or administration – would notice the difference if a class was chosen completely randomly from those meeting a certain threshold of stats. I think the stated goal of building a perfect class is ridiculous anyway. Who knows if those tuba players will even end up enrolling?</p>
<p>
Yes, if they meet the GPA and other requirements. Most med schools freely admit that at least half the students they reject would make fine doctors. Admission to med school is kept artificially low here by the limited number of spots available in medical schools. The AMA and medical establishment makes sure the numbers stay low to guarantee high incomes. A lot of perfectly qualified applicants are turned away. Medical school admissions is not so severely limited in many countries, and thus is not such a high paying profession elsewhere.</p>
<p>Do you really think it would be any less subjective to decide where the threshold is for getting into the lottery for each college? After all, if high school grade average is one criterion considered for getting into the lottery (which would be quite likely), how do you equate a 3.5 grade average from a prep school gained by a student who took calculus in eighth grade (I know of more than one example like this) to a 3.9 grade average from a mediocre school gained by a student who takes precalculus in twelfth grade? </p>
<p>Many more examples could be given, including the issue of relating “college preparatory” courses in different high schools or equating SAT scores to ACT scores, but anyway someone has to use human judgment to decide who gets into the lottery.</p>