<p>Engineers at work in industry and academia do need to read and write extensively.</p>
<p>However, it is the case that technical reading and writing is somewhat different from reading of fictional literature and writing about it as commonly taught in high school and college English courses.</p>
<p>Of course, it is different problem that assessing reading and writing skills in a standardized test that can be quickly graded is not an easy task to do. Vocabulary (in the SAT CR) and the writing sample (in the SAT W) may be seen as proxies, but both are imperfect indicators, and can be gamed by test takers.</p>
<p>That would make the tests more like the super-high-stakes tests in other countries where there is only one chance to take them – not necessarily desirable to many people. Is it also desirable that bad luck, like getting sick on test day, should shut a student out of admission to colleges using those tests?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, probably their waste of time and money for the last three to five tries (assuming all six were in junior/senior year, not middle school talent search tries or whatever). A more reasonable test-taking strategy for the SAT and ACT is to take one each of the SAT and ACT in junior year; if not satisfied, do additional preparation for the initially higher one and retake.</p>
<p>What I’d do is teach kids “critical thinking” and how to research for understanding. That’s not measured by standardized tests or “thesis statement” writing assignments. It’s not about discovering and retaining details and formulas for tests. They’re fundamental in decision making. The “yardstick” isn’t everything. </p>
<p>And then they’d approach later high school and college decisions differently. Wouldn’t necessarily increase the chances of a Harvard admit, but it sure would keep some from spinning their wheels…and then getting all bent out of shape when their assumptions didn’t work out. The kids who can do it now (and many of us can name some of them on CC,) are ahead. </p>
<p>@lookingforward You miss the point of my posts. Young high school seniors apply to these holistic admission schools because they are made to believe that they have a fighting chance at getting in. My point is these colleges need to stop giving these students false hope and provide an actual minimum GPA and SAT for admission and then the college can use its holistic process.</p>
<p>Washington and Lee is a top LAC that claims to use holistic admission procedures and has an admission rate under 20%. The flaunting of it being a “holistic” school entices many students with relatively low GPA and/or low SAT to apply.</p>
<p>Here is what the W&L Dean of Admissions Bill Hartog said in a recent interview about its admission process.</p>
<p>“W&L is among the most selective colleges in America. Oversimplified, we have approximately 6,000 applications for 470 places, typically half for men and half for women. In most years, we will offer admission to approximately 1,100 applicants, with the hope that 470 will accept our offer and enroll. Of the 1,100 offered a place, there are roughly 500 whom we call ‘undeniable.’ They excel both in and out of the classroom. There are also about 1,500 candidates who, despite in many cases having fine personal qualities and talents, just do not have competitive academic records and test scores.” </p>
<p>The last line of his interview quote says it all. Dean Hartog stated that 25% of the applicants had no shot at getting into W&L despite superb ECs. Had W&L given its parameters, many of those students would not have bothered to apply and that would have relieved these kids of any additional heartache and more money to spend on schools they had a legitimate chance of getting into.</p>
<p>As we speak, ALL of the top schools continue to pour $$$millions into continued recruiting efforts even when their year after year acceptance rates are way under 20% with many under 10%. Why do you think that is???</p>
<p>Voiceofreason-
“Holistic” does not mean “low standards” and any student who doesn’t understand that hasn’t done his or her research. It’s not hard to check a school’s common data set to see if your stats fall in the range of those commonly accepted.</p>
<p>The point of a holistic process is that there are no hard and fast numbers. A kid with a 550 on the math section of the SAT isn’t likely to be admitted to W&L, as shown in the school’s CDS, but if he’s a brilliant writer who has overcome significant challenges, earned top grades and contributed a great deal to his high school he may have a decent chance. Should the school discourage him from applying simply because another 550 kid with mediocre grades and EC’s really doesn’t have what it takes to be admitted?</p>
<p>No, Voice, they apply because THEY think they can get in (or they think lightning will strike, a miracle.) They don’t research what these schools are about, what the schools want from them and what is offered- and weigh that against their record and attributes. Pie in the sky. I see it all the time, including from 4.0 high stats kids. What false hope is in the Harvard blurbs I linked?? It’s controversial when I say it, but if a kid can’t see past a couple of lines about how the college adcoms will review your whole app, if he cannot grasp that B’s in important cores rarely cut it in a fiercely competitive pool, if he thinks adcoms are going to cut him a break because he really, really wants to go to School X…what’s the world supposed to do? It’s not all about stats and the kid who can’t see beyond stats is in trouble.</p>
<p>Many can’t answer a “Why Us?” type question or explain why they want their majors. They get a lot of kudos and status from their hs, friends and families for getting good grades and high scores and holding some title in a club or two. Great. And then what?</p>
<p>Can a kid NOT read 6000 apps for 470 spots (or 500 undeniables) and then smell the coffee? The better of these kids may be shoo-ins at their one high school for Top Kid awards, but this is not about their one hs or one peer group. Nor is it about a move to another high school or a better hs. It is the leap to college.</p>
<p>No, plenty of kids who add a college to their Common App list, should not have bothered. Thats not because there is some mythical stats bar. It’s because they don’t fit, they haven’t tested themselves in the ways different colleges value, – and more things I probably shouldn’t say. Just how much hand holding do you think the competitives are supposed to do?</p>
<p>Back to the original mention of Hampshire. It’s a unique college. If a kid doesn’t get what Hampshire is about, it’s structure, environment and more- and then can’t show he matches the expectations and opportunities- then TO will be zero advantage.</p>
<p>@Jarjarbinks23 Their website says they do. AP scores come before any other common standardized tests. Not sure if they’re before grades though.</p>
<p>@Sue22 When did I ever state that holistic means low standards? I believe you should reread the threads. </p>
<p>However you state the very thing about the notion of holistic that is troubling. Giving false hope to a kid with a 550 Math SAT that “if he’s a brilliant writer who has overcome significant challenges, earned top grades and contributed a great deal to his high school he may have a decent chance.” Dean Hartog stated W&L does have hard and fast standards for grades and SAT but the problem is that he won’t share that with the potential applicants. The applicant you give as an example had no chance based upon Dean Hartog’s statement.</p>
<p>@lookingforward I agree with much of what you are saying. What I disagree with is that there is a reason why these kids “THINK” they can get accepted and that I have outlined in my prior threads.</p>
<p>Made to believe by who? How did they give them false hope? I have not seen a school, at least not any of the ones being talked about here, ever say anything that implied their admissions criteria were watered down in any way because they took a “holistic” approach. If a student took a giant leap for no good reason in equating holistic admissions with easy-to-get-into, they were inferring things that just were not there and that is entirely on the student. And saying the schools should provide minimum GPA and test scores is ludicrous. Anyone can look at the CDS and other resources and see what is happening at that school with regard to stats and admissions. There is no onus on the school to straightjacket itself to certain minimums. In some ways that would be more misleading. It is better to look at the typical ranges and assess ones chances based on that. The student (and parents if they want to be that involved) have to take some responsibility for looking into the school. It would be one thing if the data were not readily accessible, but it very much is.</p>
<p>Your quote of Dean Hartog: “There are also about 1,500 candidates who, despite in many cases having fine personal qualities and talents, just do not have competitive academic records and test scores.” You then say
First you don’t know they had “superb” EC’s, just EC’s that met their criteria. But of course there are academic records too poor to have any level of EC’s make up the gap. Universities and colleges are academic institutions, after all. But to criticize him because they didn’t publish exact numbers that would have saved those students from applying is absurd. As I have said, they either did zero research on the school, or they did see the typical stats and knew they were a long shot going in and chose to take a shot anyway. Happens to all schools. Besides the CDS, nearly all schools give typical stats of incoming students on their websites. It is completely off base to say a school should have a banner that says “Anyone scoring below X on the SAT and having a GPA below Y need not apply”. Total nonsense. </p>
<p>“A reason why these kids “THINK” they can get accepted” ??? They should think. And research and weigh. Not be so easily swayed. Just look at the body of CC hopefuls.</p>
<p>Superb ECs in the context of your one high school, are not necessarily superb at all in the context of a highly competitive admissions pool. </p>
<p>Had W&L given its parameters, many of those students would not have bothered to apply and that would have relieved these kids of any additional heartache and more money to spend on schools they had a legitimate chance of getting into.</p>
<p>Funny, but I find this very informative: “We have no litmus test for standardized test scores. The competition tends to drive our expectations. Last year the 1,100 students we admitted averaged above 700 on all three sections of the SAT, and the average ACT composite was 32. The enrolled class of 2016 averaged over 690 on all three SATs and over 30 on the ACT. But, there were plenty of high-scoring candidates who were not offered admission. It is important for a candidate’s test results to be in the range, but there are many other factors which influence our decision.”</p>
<p>That was published before the app deadline in 2012- same interview with Hartog. </p>
<p>There are plenty of reasons why that continues to happen, and probably plenty of different reasons as schools comes in different sizes and selectivity. Are the repeated efforts of Tulane, WUSTL/WashU, or Chicago really the same as the efforts of Harvard or Stanford? Are there reasons identical? Tulane, for instance, has been very active and successful in sending pre-filled applications and waiving the cost of applying. It receives TONS of applications but has to then to fight a very low yield by accepting many students. It is the policy that works for them. WUSTL and Chicago in turn prefer to bombard the candidates on the lists they bought … over and over. And then one more time for good measure. On the other hand, the HYPS send very little marketing material out, except for their “minority/disadvantaged” recruiting to complete their participation in programs such as Questbridge. </p>
<p>Why does Stanford continue to recruit despite being the most selective school in the nation? Do they need to increase their numbers more or lower their admit rate to 2 percent? Nope, but according to the Dean of Admissions, there are still places where the school is not well-represented (read the Southeastern part of the US) and where the school wishes to find attractive candidates who might do well … under the school’s holistic approach. </p>
<p>Fwiw, the schools are also very much aware of the changing demographics and the upcoming financial pressures to … keep it all going. </p>
<p>As far as “telling the students” more clearly, there is some validity to the argument that the school encourages unconventional students to apply. On the other hand, there are plenty of others to blame. Aren’t many telling the 30,000 to 40,000 valedictorians that they are shoo-ins at HYPS? Aren’t the Kumon and other donut shops/SAT academies selling a dream that a 2300 SAT means great riches? </p>
<p>The reality is that applicants read what they want to read. The SAT scores are easy to spot, but the argument that 25 percent of the students got in with XX SAT is quite appealing. </p>
<p>Recruiting should be at this stage for these selective schools about finding and targeting a student “where the school is not well-represented” but it has been about getting more applications so the admit rate approaches 1%. If these schools really wanted to they should be recruiting like their athletic coaches to get the students they want. </p>
<p>Really, says who? You have any idea what it takes to go through those larger and larger pools? Or you think they are lying about reading them? All so they can get some news rag to rate them higher? </p>
<p>And then they should go sit in classrooms with kids, as recruiters attend games? Coaches who put gloss ahead of academic potential? Sheesh, the web you weave. Right now, adcoms travel. They meet GCs and kids, get to know them and a host of details about the schools and their communities. In general, the more competitive the school, the more and farther. It’s costly and not only did Harvard, among others, cut its adcom expense budget, they instituted many of the same control measures used in corporate. </p>
<p>I’d say, before picking at this thing and that, try to look at the large picture, all the ramifications. Get a wholer picture. As one example, why should each college invest in forming, maintaining, overseeing and reviewing their own entrance tests, when no one has studied the effectiveness and ROI? Think of the manhours and costs- for what?? And think of the supplemental apps as an existing, effective customized test.</p>
Easily the most ridiculous thing I have heard in ages. First of all, those campaigns cost a lot of money. Second, as @lookingforward says, it adds a lot of work to the admissions office load. And finally, what is the motivation? The rankings? The admit rate counts for 1.5% of the USNWR formula. It doesn’t even move the needle.</p>
<p>Recruiting like the athletic coaches? Are you serious? First of all there is a huge cost factor in what you suggest. At least athletics makes some money back in paying customers. Second, the sheer numbers involved are staggering. A couple of dozen athletes each year vs. thousands of students. Do you even think about what you are saying? It appears not.</p>
<p>I didn’t see where you suggested individualized exams for each college, I thought that was another poster. But it certainly is equally impractical in this day and age. In the year 1800 maybe that was fine. 2014 and beyond, not at all.</p>
<p>You have zero basis for your assertions, they are opinion based on no supporting evidence. I think responding to any more of your posts is a waste of time, quite frankly.</p>
<p>I completely agree with @xiggi that schools choose marketing strategies for different reasons. Tulane’s was motivated by Katrina in many aspects, but as he quite correctly points out it has worked for them very well, most likely beyond their initial expectations. I was initially surprised when my D received material from Harvard, thinking at first, as I expect most would, that Harvard has no need to recruit. But then I remembered back to my Marketing 101 class about how market leaders and even those with almost no competition need to be proactive in maintaining their image. Public perception is shaped by many factors.</p>
<p>My point with the coaches analogy is that the coaches recruit those they truly want to come to their schools. Admission’s version of recruiting is to cast an every wider net in hopes of perhaps finding another attractive candidate for its school of the many additional applicants it sends out recruiting info. So more applicants for the same small class size continues the downward spiral of acceptance rates.</p>
<p>College Admissions unlike the coaches recruit students they most likely will not admit and in the case of Stanford and the like 90+ out of 100 who respond to the recruiting efforts will be denied. </p>
<p>Although acceptance rates are not a significant factor in many ranking services, it is a source of bragging rights for colleges. </p>
<p>This is often suggested as a “tool” that would counterattack the impact of the test prep companies. It would, however, completely play in the hands of the … expert preppers! Think about it … the prep companies’ greatest assets are none other than having developed a system of access to the previous tests. Some do it legitimately by spending towards acquiring released material or sponsoring test takers. Others, mostly abroad, take a couple of shortcuts --if you see what I mean. </p>
<p>If there is only a one chance test, people with means will simply make sure to maximize their chances, and thus hiring the experts. The result would be an even greater advantage to the well-off. </p>
<p>This said, we could and should have a better SAT. The first step would entail a COMPLETE and universal release of the past tests as this would cut the advantages of the pirates by 95 percent. And, then we could have an expanded SAT that would relegate the AP boondoggle to the Saturday mornings and the circus it deserves. :)</p>
<p>But the practice of allowing unlimited retakes, within any time frame, completely undermines the statistical validity of the test and the scoring system used. </p>
<p>It would be different if it were a content based test & scoring system, similar to many high school exit exams or the written test for a driver’s license. One doesn’t make the mistake of assuming that the kid who passes the exit exam in math on the 4th try is as capable as the kid who passes it the first time around. There is no curve or percentile ranking, just a numerical score considered to be required for a pass. </p>
<p>But SAT’s / ACT’s purport to give a score that tells how students rank as a percentage of all test-takers.-- and the numerical scores are curved to meet that gradient. However, that can only work if all test-takers are on a level playing field – if I go into the local elementary school and give every 6th grader the same standardized test on the same day of the year – the test scores will allow me to draw a semi-valid conclusion about how the students compare. (It would take repeat testing of the entire group, again under identical circumstances, to improve the quality of the conclusion drawn – so if each successive year I administer a test to the same group, adding 7th and 8th grade scores to the mix – I might then have enough data to eliminate scores that were clearly erroneous outliers and draw some conclusions about relative aptitudes and/or achievement levels of the remaining group.</p>
<p>But you can’t have a norm-referenced scoring system under which everyone can select their own testing schedule, take the test over again as many times as they choose, subject only to the limits of the testing dates, and which is also supported by an entire test prep industry designed more around teaching test-taking strategy than content-based tutoring … and then draw any meaningful conclusion when student X submits a super-scored total of 2300 and student Y, who sat for the test only once, is submitting a score of 1950. </p>
<p>It’s basic science. If a company developed a cognitive-enhancing game and claimed to have statistics showing great improvement on a standardized test among those who played their game vs. a control group – and then you discovered that they were allowing their students to re-take the standardized tests as often as needed to boost their scores higher than the control group,and then only reporting the highest scores - you wouldn’t give credence to their stats. You’d recognize immediately that they were manipulating the data by using a skewed system to measure results. But that’s the exact problem with the SAT & ACT system. </p>
<p>Perhaps it would be improved somewhat if the SAT/ACT companies were required to instead report an average score for each student, along with some sort of weighting factor based on number and frequency of test administrations. So maybe the kid who takes the test once and gets 600 CR has that score reported-- and if a kid takes the test twice and gets a 700 CR the 2nd time around, then rather than a 700 being reported to colleges – the college board reports the 650 average (or 650 reduced by, say, 2% based on the repeat administration). Of course there would be howls of protest and that would probably give an added boost to the test-prep industry (which can’t be accounted for) … but it would definitely produce more reliable data for the college ad coms, if in fact that was their goal. (But of course, that isn’t their goal at at all-- that’s why they are wiling to continue to use the same flawed system, which probably functions mostly as a socio-economic status filter.)</p>
<p>Voice, you just don’t know these things you claim are so. It sounds like you heard or experienced a few things and turned then into broad conclusions, Agree it’s not worth responding to your assertions. </p>