<p>yes or no.</p>
<p>Imperfect, but sincere.</p>
<p>I've ranted about this before, so I'll spare you the details.</p>
<p>edit: Damn, that's not a YES or NO answer. I guess, "Yes, but not for lack of trying"--it's a good idea, but it's consistently undermined by the efforts of people who attempt to pay their way to the top.</p>
<p>I'll agree with thisyearsgirl. It's certainly a lot better than "just by the numbers".</p>
<p>I don't believe any of us can truly judge whether or not the college application process is flawed. Since none of us work on admissions committees and can thoroughly explain how it works, we just base these decisions on whether or not we were accepted. I believe there is a reason as to why someone was rejected/accepted. I dont believe in the "crapshoot." So, no, I dont believe the college application process is flawed, mainly because I don't know how it works, but there has to be a methodology.</p>
<p>i think it's the best that it can be</p>
<p>"I dont believe in the "crapshoot."</p>
<p>You've never seen UC admissions at work :)</p>
<p>Yes*</p>
<p>*It's designed and run by humans, of course it is flawed. It is flawed because everybody including applicants and schools are encouraged to pretend they are more than they really are. Humble honest people sometimes are rejected because someone with a padded resume got their spot. Schools play fierce games with numbers to move themselves up the totem pole of prestige.</p>
<p>If you bring in the financial aid considerations things get even worse. Colleges front line their aid to make it generous for the first year and then pile up the loans after they got you. Parents declare vacations business trips to reduce their family contribution. Lets give every high school graduate a college education or a General Motors car...that would improve the economy.</p>
<p>Then it is flawed because its a bureaucratic mess with an overdependence on private standardized test and application companies. </p>
<p>How would I change it. I would have college applications done in part, on line at central sites like a local college. Students would be given several hours to answer their essays on line without benefit of outside coaching.</p>
<p>No child left behind is leading us to a federal education system, why not a federal high school exit exam to replace the private system. An optional section could be aptitude.</p>
<p>Colleges brag about how good they are by talking about who comes into their school. Lets have a reality check on value added when they leave school, and how long it takes to leave the school.</p>
<p>That was a yes.</p>
<p>pwned!!111!!</p>
<p>I think that admissions have evolved and are as good as they can be for the time being. I think they are flawed, but I don't think complaining about it will help. Colleges know their weaknesses, and every year it gets better and better. In 50 years, it will be better than it is today.</p>
<p>They are inarguably flawed.</p>
<p>Two words: affirmative action.</p>
<p>Yes:
Admissions Counselors think they can read into all the "intagibles" and tell if you will make a great student. Here's some criticism: <a href="http://www.townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/ts20050415.shtml%5B/url%5D">http://www.townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/ts20050415.shtml</a></p>
<p>Also, the college admissions process could be easily streamlined. College Board could start by sending all your personal information and test scores to the colleges you designate, via the internet, or at least cheaper than the internet. Further steps to digitize and cheapen the process would be your guidance counselor or someone else putting report cards online, so that the school would not need to mail them, although this is fraught with the danger of typos. There is no part of admissions, except for the interview, which could not be facilitated by digitization.</p>
<p>I think a more competition in the private industry is preferable to government takeover in the testing arena.</p>
<p>Another idea for reform: You prioritize the colleges you want to attend, ranking them. Your application is passed around, going down the list, until you are accepted, where you must attend, or reject the offer for financial reasons, and then your applications contiue going to colleges down the list. Colleges would not see how you ranked them. Possible complications with this are varying applications and requirements for colleges and the issue of rejecting acceptances.</p>
<p>I disagree with Affirmative Action too, but I put up reforms here that seem most agreeable.</p>
<p>yes. i'v been really impressed with this years decisions.</p>
<p>most admissions have been really fair according to me..</p>
<p>I'llbe back, you mean no. Reread the question.</p>
<p>What Maize&Blue22 said</p>
<p>It only makes sense that the better qualified student gets in.</p>
<p>The process is certainly flawed (what isn't?) but it's impossible to truly be fair to everyone. College adcoms say that the majority of applicants are able to succeed at their universities, but there simply isn't enough room. There is a lot of randomness involved in the college process, and unfortunately, it seems to be getting worse every year.</p>
<p>If you are talking about public colleges, I can see how you can say admissions might be flawed. In terms of private colleges though, they are there to make money, and everything they do is in an effort to perpetuate that goal. With that in mind, I don't see how you can say they are flawed because everything they do is the most efficient possible in maximizing profits. Granted there is some luck involved because no college can know who will truly succeed, but I don't see how it could be any better.</p>
<p>Just remember private colleges are businesses. They are not public service institutions.</p>
<p>
[quote]
In terms of private colleges though, they are there to make money, and everything they do is in an effort to perpetuate that goal.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Actually, they are entirely non-profit (except for some of the chain jr colleges).</p>
<p>The fact that many colleges are non-profit does not change the fact that more prestige and a larger endowment equates to even higher salaries for already very well paid professors and administrators.</p>
<p>The "crap shoot" aspect at the extremely selective schools doesn't mean that it is random who gets in. It means that for every person accepted, there are four or five practically identical applicants who are denied or waitlisted. This is the random quality. The adcoms admit to this themselves all the time and lament that they have to do it that way because they only have so many open slots. The problem is that so many students pick their schools according to the brandname.</p>
<p>Especially after reading the Korean testing post, I have realized that our college process is wonderful, but unfair.</p>
<p>Affirmative Action, legacy status, and geographic division is a dump full of BS when there are geniuses in countries making up half the world's population studying their entire lives (literally) for a 1% shot at a university spot and a career answering phones for multinational businesses.</p>