<p>I happened to stumble upon this article while navigating through my social media news feed. I found quite interesting on how the author shares a bit of his own personal experience and how he overcame it.</p>
<p>It is said that in today's society, there is more emphasis/attention geared towards the numbers and rankings, more than individual students applying to college.</p>
<p>"Those of us in higher-education leadership must realize that our success should not be measured by how attractive our numbers look, or how selective we’ve helped our institutions become. It certainly shouldn’t be measured by how many points we help our institutions climb in the rankings."</p>
<p>The article also asks this question:</p>
<p>"Are we willing to lose an entire generation of students because we feel pressure to keep good statistics?"</p>
<p>Of course colleges want to keep good statistics - it helps with rankings and funding, which ultimately attracts better students.</p>
<p>The author’s case is exceptional, in my opinion. With mediocre grades and abysmal SAT scores, the truth is, students have a low chance of succeeding, not to mention even graduating. There are numerous disadvantaged first gen Americans who realize the importance of education, many of whom live in probably more deplorable conditions - that buckle down, study for their grades, and go on to receive scholarships to their in-state university.</p>
<p>Heck, if I were an admissions officer and students with mediocre grades and abysmal SAT scores wanted admission, I wouldn’t admit them - there is nothing to show that they even have the potential to succeed.</p>
<p>You think the Hispanics or African Americans have it tough? Tell that to the Asian american living in similar conditions, who also has to deal with discrimination in the college process.</p>
<p>SAT scores and grades show some indication/potential to succeed but not 100%. Heck, it’s possible to have amazing grades and high SAT score and find out the person is doing terrible in college.</p>
<p>Do you believe a child does not deserve a chance at a post-secondary institution just because of so-called numbers? I really do hope you never become an admission officer,then. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Even when some people do this,while commendable, sometimes it may not work out and it just might not be enough and one should not be limited to what’s within the region they live in. Maybe it’s just my own personal opinion, but if one wants to go beyond what’s within their region, if they feel as though they will work hard and do fine, I say give it a shot,even if it may be risky to an extent. </p>
<p>Also, I don’t think only Hispanics or AA have it tough. Matter fact, Looking at article once again, I don’t see where Mr.Angel specifically pointed out the minority having issues.</p>
<p>He says “Are we willing to lose an entire generation of students because we feel pressure to keep good statistics?”</p>
<p>Maybe it’s my own interpretation but it looks like he is talking about ALL students of ALL backgrounds who can have this happen to them.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Heck, having good grades and standardized test scores aren’t the only things that determine potential to succeed. Heck this may be a little bit off-topic but I remember talking this doctor who once told him how his patients trust a person who may have had some a’s ,a few b’s, and maybe one or two c’s, rather than someone with all A’s taking care of them. They prefer someone who may have average grades,yes, but when applying and actually doing hands on things, they are better at it than the person who is only smart in their books (I can’t remember word for word of what he said, so excuse me on that).</p>
<p>Here is a comment my friend also said when I showed her your comment ,arghwhy:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I agree with my friend. At least there are people who care more about learning and advancing their education and wanting to truly help society become better.</p>
<p>Heck, as silly as this may sound, Einstein didn’t even do well in school, he probably did not have a 4.0 GPA, or 2400 SAT or 36 ACT score,</p>
<p>But look at his accomplishments and how he is known to be one of the most smartest figures in the world,even after death.</p>
<p>One of my favorite quotes by Chuck Grassley:</p>
<p>Top schools are very careful never to say they recruit the best and brightest; they always use some qualifier such Harvard’s "While we value objective criteria, we apply a more expansive view of excellence.” That type of pronouncement allows college’s wiggle room to admit recruited athletes who might have mediocre grades and abysmal SAT scores. </p>
<p>A recruited athlete at any Ivy League school can have an Academic Index (AI) no lower than 176 — that roughly translates to 3.0 GPA and an 1800 SAT. However, because the team average Academic Index must be about 210, 216 or 220 (depending upon the college), every recruited athlete with a low AI must be offset with a recruited athlete that has a higher AI. </p>
<p>To help keep their US News & Report statistics from sliding, I imagine that kind of thinking spills over to non-athletes, such as URM’s, as well as to legacies and developmental cases (big $$$ donors). </p>
<p>Having followed College Admissions for the last five years, I think every Admissions office does this to some extent; as each kid is admitted their stats go into an Excel file that tracks the average stats of accepted students. I don’t find any of this surprising; it’s just how the system functions.</p>
<p>It’s true that quantitative scores are not absolute measures for a person to succeed, but GPA is still probably the best predictor of college success. (Just as the LSAT + GPA are very strong predictors of success in law school.)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t believe this. That’s why there are test optional schools and community colleges.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>But if they were truly ‘the best and brightest’, receiving scholarships and obtaining good grades shouldn’t be that difficult. I understand that some people aren’t academic superstars - but then they should have a way of showing what they can offer the college. i.e why they are ‘the best and brightest’.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>He doesn’t, but he said “Every day, my life experiences inform my work, and I think about how to help young people who share a similar story to mine.” I simply assumed he wanted to help those with poor academics get into college - which though a nice goal - is a little unrealistic.</p>
<p>
That’s great, but that doctor may be an exception to the rule. Again, there is a reason why GPA + MCAT is one of the biggest deciding factors for admittance into medical school. It may not be fair, but that is a large indicator of becoming a successful doctor.</p>
<p>
I assume your friend means a 36 on ACT. Again, you have to show people you have potential. Go to community college, perhaps while working part-time?</p>
<p>Schools with big endowments aren’t going to take a risk on people with poor academics unless they see something really special - something only they can offer that school.</p>
<p>
Einstein did do well in school. The fact that he didn’t is a myth (again, don’t believe everything you read on the internet). And I’m sure, Einstein’s was able to show his intelligence and I’m sure many people recognized it.</p>
<p>If you want tough - go to India, China, or South Korea. Those exams are all or nothing. At least in the US, you still have a fighting chance at success or post secondary education.</p>
<p>Unfortunately, everything is about competition, but most importantly, competition driven by numbers.
I see the cycle continued and even more robust. I am glad Pitzer is breaking out and doing something different.
That is why I applauded schools like Hampshire college that has complete gone “Test-rejected-option”; and Berea College that has been doing what Pitzer is now doing for years.
I was surprise with the statistics with Berea, sharing that kids with 30 on ACT and those with 23 on ACT when put in the same classroom were more likely to excel just as much if they put their minds to it with the resources they are both offered (plain field).</p>
<p>There are colleges for every type of student. Why should top schools lower their standards? It’s not all about rankings. These schools have more rigorous curricula than most. They shouldn’t admit kids who won’t succeed/graduate; that’s no good for the students. There are 3000+ colleges in the US -some for A students, some for B students, some for C students. Pick your poison.</p>
<p>It simply isn’t true that grades and SAT score can predict future success as the term success varies from person to person.</p>
<p>From what I see, people from 40 years earlier weren’t really concerned about “success” in life like we are. Thus the percentage of “passionate” people was relatively higher. Like people interested in a certain area rather than passionate about college. That’s why you don’t see same level of talents or successful people despite higher number of students in graduating class (maybe 5 times higher). And if someone wants to predicu success by SAT score and GPA, then i can say the number of preparation materials, money of family members is the reason behind those thing most of the time. Not necessarily the potential. And I don’t know if I’m right but their is a certain patern through which people can get into great places (Planned high school resume).</p>
<p>I’ve said it before, but I’ll repeat it here - “The race isn’t always to the swiftest or the strongest, but that’s the way to bet.” That’s all elite college admissions programs are doing, betting on the best students they can find.</p>
<p>^ Right. And through holistic admissions, it’s not just grades/test scores being considered. Besides considering determination/passion as shown through EC’s & strong character as shown through essays, what else can colleges do? They don’t have crystal balls to predict the future. They can only make educated guesses lol</p>
<p>Every? At some holistic review schools, all applications are read and scored by the admissions readers; afterward, they are ranked by the score and the admission cutoff is set. This means that in-progress admissions stats are not available to the admissions readers.</p>
<p>Numbers should play the largest role in college admissions, then things like socioeconomic background and LoR and EC’s.
I’m pretty sure nearly every student that makes somewhat of an effort in high school can get into some college.
The biggest problem is that “some” college is often times unaffordable. IMO, many more schools need to be nationalized and make tuition even cheaper; like SUNY cheap or more</p>
<p>" IMO, many more schools need to be nationalized and make tuition even cheaper;" Like India, China, Korea and Japan?</p>
<p>No thanks. Is secondary education imbalanced, cost-wise? Yes. But your idea of nationalizing them is crazy talk. “excuse me Yale and Harvard corporations, we’re going to take your $50B in assets because you’re doing such a bad job.”</p>
<p>Study shows interview and letter of rec is more valued, though they weight gpa/mcat in determining who to interview.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Of course this is about admittance into medical school, not about “becoming a successful doctor” which I suspect depends even less on college GPA and MCAT.</p>
<p>@T26E4
I said many more, not all. And if you read my whole post, I was talking more for the average student. Harvard Yale etc already do a pretty solid job meeting need, it’s more the average student who can get into colleges, but not colleges that are as generous (because they lack the funds) that are the problem.
At least from what I know about my family in India, nearly all of my uncles, Aunts, cousins (and parents) were able to go to nationalized/state schools that were very easily affordable (for mostly middle class families ), although getting into more selective degrees like medicine (no UG 5.5 year program in India) or engineering was more challenging, and the vast majority didn’t go to the most prestigious institutes. Even working class families there afford these colleges.
Here what happens instead is the average student gets into some mediocre, expensive school, goes there, gets a lot of debt, and flunks out.</p>
<p>And I would think that as far more developed and affluent nation, we would be able to do a similar job.</p>
<p>And you don’t see the problem with this? This is exactly why competition has gotten so out of control… few schools securing their positions at the very top, preventing other schools from moving up. Rankings attract students, and students increase the rankings… this leads to a ranking structure that prevents lower ranked colleges from improving. It’s a ridiculously corrupt system if you think about it.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>But where do you draw the line between prepared and underprepared for a given major? The fact is, admission into most elite schools is based on competition, not curriculum requirements. Case in point: Who needs to be capitan of 3 sports teams, have a 2400 SAT score, and be a winner of 10 scholastic competitions just to be a music major at “Hahvad”? … It’s music, not nuclear physics!</p>
<p>And what’s even more troubling to me is when people consider that “Hahvad” music grad to be intellectually superior to the lowly state college grad with a degree in Nuclear Physics. </p>