<p>I am not even arguing about that. The URMs, athletes, legacies, kids from unique parts of the country, etc. will all be given preference in order to diversify the class.</p>
<p>Weasel8488:
[quote]
Actually they don't. How would a college be able to decide whom to give merit aid or send likely letters to if they didn't view qualification as a continuum?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>First of all, how colleges go about deciding whom to give merit aid is vastly different than how they go deciding whom to admit. </p>
<p>As for likely letters, it is pretty hard to argue that those are given out based on who the colleges deem "most qualified." A majority of likely letter recipients are athletes, and last time I checked athletic ability wasn't necessary to be qualified for admission to any schools--except military academies, etc. Moreover, recipients of said letters simply are those who the colleges desire to have attend the most which is not the same thing as the "most qualified." Read any likely letter--quite a few have been posted on CC--and you will find this to be true.</p>
<p>fockeyplaya1:</p>
<p>You are missing the point of considering race. Go read a couple of school's holistic admissions policies and you will see why schools like Harvard consider race/ethnicity, gender, geography, etc. The only legitimate argument against schools like Harvard considering race/ethnicity in their holistic admissions process is that race/ethnicity has little/insignificant/irrelevant impact on an individual's life.</p>
<p>While many likely letters are sent to athletes, this is not always the case. Back in the day, I received a likely letter from Duke. It was definitely not for my athletic ability :D. Maybe I got the letter because I was more qualified than other applicants, and maybe I got it for some other reason because the college really wanted me to attend. Either way, Duke still had to decide to send the letter to me and not to some other guy. My point is that colleges do distinguish between the cohort of admitted students. Hence qualification or desirability or whatever you want to call it is not boolean.</p>
<p>One sitting of the SAT, no prep classes allowed, like it was in the olden days. All that happens when the test is gamed is that some people miss out and many others waste time and money gaming the test, raising the average/mean/median score for all, it becomes somewhat meaningless, but if you don't study and prep and retake you may fall behind.</p>
<p>It was so much less stressful a generation ago</p>
<p>The perceived need to be a renaissance person at age 16 is suffocating our youth. No, it's not hurting the type A brilliant superachievers who wouldn't be happy any other way, but the admissions game is damaging a lot of good, smart kids with only average energy levels, moderate financial means, and limited professional connections who desperately want to attend a top school but can't survive on 3-4 hours of sleep a night, can't sustain a non-stop pace of extra-curricular activity, can't afford private tutoring to boost GPA and SAT scores, and don't have the pull to land themselves impressive internships and research opportunities....but could do the work at that top school.</p>
<p>Therefore, I would also eliminate the consideration of most extra-curriculars from admissions because so many of them depend on school resources, parental support, or family financial means. These are supposed to be institutions of higher education, not country clubs or finishing schools. Why should a student have to be so uber-accomplished to even get in? Expecting perfectly groomed applicants is anti-democratic and classist. You need to have the requisite smarts and motivation to make it (as evidenced by grades and scores and ?), but beyond that, nothing else. I think you'd still obtain plenty of students who would sustain the colleges's clubs and teams. </p>
<p>Take, for example, athletics. Our high school is holding summer practices for all sports. These practices sometimes end mid-morning or begin mid-afternoon. My child can attend only because my DH makes just enough money to pay for our very modest lifestyle, thereby allowing me to be a full-time mom and chauffeur. If I were working in either of the two major employment centers to which most people around here commute over an hour, there's no way I could get my kids to these or many other activities which begin before commuters get home. Coaches here assume kids have their own cars, for example, and that they can load lots of underclassmen in them (contrary to the law). Socio-economic factors will of course influence the quality of school kids attend, but at least a public school education is free and every student can study hard and compete for a grade in a class for free.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Maybe I got the letter because I was more qualified than other applicants, and maybe I got it for some other reason because the college really wanted me to attend.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You got it because you were more desirable--in the eyes of the college admissions officers--than other students who were eventually accepted/rejected. </p>
<p>
[quote]
My point is that colleges do distinguish between the cohort of admitted students. Hence qualification or desirability or whatever you want to call it is not boolean.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Please go back a read what I said. I said that colleges view whether or not an applicant is qualified as a boolean. I never said or suggested anything about desirability being a boolean. We all know this is not the case as some students are accepted while others are waitlisted even though both groups of students are qualified for admission.</p>
<p>Also, to be clear on one thing, when people on CC talk about someone being "more/less qualified" than someone else they mean that one person has a higher SAT/ACT/GPA/Class Rank than someone else; all subjective assessments like leadership, character, etc. are disregared.</p>
<p>why not eliminate the process of applying to specific schools entirely. My analogy is going to be to harry potter, but obviously there are differences. First off, do away with USNWR Rankings etc. Everybody knows that Gryffindor is better than HufflePuff, but it is understood, not gloated. Secondly, develop a truly common application (keep the current one if you wish) and also retain the standardized tests in their current form, while possibly adding personality tests etc. Once all this information is compiled, every student in America (or the world) could send it in to a central agency whose function is that of the Sorting Hat: Student Sits in a chair, Sorting Hat Reviews Personality, Sorting Hat Spouts out their college, student runs off stage as the crowd cheers.</p>
<p>Yes it may seem far fetched, and yes H.P. may not be the best analogy, but hell, if online dating sites can make reasonable matches, why can't we do the same with college selection.</p>
<p>if you were applying early decision, you could write your online common-app essay just for that school (include its name.) and then if you had to sent in apps to the other schools you could either write another one or go back and take out references to the specific school. or maybe you could personalize it for one or two top choices during the regular decision time.</p>
<p>maybe that would just make things worse...but that was the only thing that really frustrated me when applying.</p>
<p>
[quote]
bartleby, you appear to favor a much greater emphasis on objective measures of academic achievement, especially standardized test scores. One of the things that I have enjoyed most about attending a top school is the enthusiasm with which my peers approach not only their studies, but their extracurricular activities as well. I wouldn't want to be at a school where students didn't do anything but study. Could you explain why you don't feel that a student's soft qualities (personal characteristics, EC's, etc.) are worth selecting for?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Nor would I like to attend a college where students do nothing but study. That's a strawman, however. People, however committed to their studies, like to do things other than read their textbook. With all the opportunities and freedom college provides, people will pursue what they like.</p>
<p>This is all beside the point though. In my eyes, the purpose of an academic institution is to teach people to think in ways that are likely to result in the betterment of our society, whether it be through a more efficient and productive economy, technological advances that enhance quality of life, the creation of a more just society, whatever that means, et cetera. Non-academic extracurriculars don't aid this, really.</p>
<p>
[quote]
that is absolutely ridiculous. So you propose to ignore athletes, musicians, humanitarians, entrepreneurs, and artists?
[/quote]
Unless athletes are applying for admission to a physical education school or major, yes. Unless musicians are applying for admission to a music conservatory or a music major, yes. Unless artists are applying for admission to an art school or major, yes. I don't know what you define as a humanitarian. If you're applying to a undergraduate business or economics major, then surely entrepreneurial experience is pertinent and ought to be taken into account.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The perceived need to be a renaissance person at age 16 is suffocating our youth. No, it's not hurting the type A brilliant superachievers who wouldn't be happy any other way, but the admissions game is damaging a lot of good, smart kids with only average energy levels, moderate financial means, and limited professional connections who desperately want to attend a top school but can't survive on 3-4 hours of sleep a night, can't sustain a non-stop pace of extra-curricular activity, can't afford private tutoring to boost GPA and SAT scores, and don't have the pull to land themselves impressive internships and research opportunities....but could do the work at that top school.</p>
<p>Therefore, I would also eliminate the consideration of most extra-curriculars from admissions because so many of them depend on school resources, parental support, or family financial means. These are supposed to be institutions of higher education, not country clubs or finishing schools. Why should a student have to be so uber-accomplished to even get in? Expecting perfectly groomed applicants is anti-democratic and classist. You need to have the requisite smarts and motivation to make it (as evidenced by grades and scores and ?), but beyond that, nothing else. I think you'd still obtain plenty of students who would sustain the colleges's clubs and teams.</p>
<p>Take, for example, athletics. Our high school is holding summer practices for all sports. These practices sometimes end mid-morning or begin mid-afternoon. My child can attend only because my DH makes just enough money to pay for our very modest lifestyle, thereby allowing me to be a full-time mom and chauffeur. If I were working in either of the two major employment centers to which most people around here commute over an hour, there's no way I could get my kids to these or many other activities which begin before commuters get home. Coaches here assume kids have their own cars, for example, and that they can load lots of underclassmen in them (contrary to the law). Socio-economic factors will of course influence the quality of school kids attend, but at least a public school education is free and every student can study hard and compete for a grade in a class for free.
<p>Let me ask you all something: In an AP class, your teacher decides to give you an A when you really deserve a C. Who is going to tell the teacher not to do so? </p>
<p>Does GPA really reflect how smart/hardworking you are or how slick and ass kissing you are?</p>
<p>I would increase the weight of standardized test scores and decrease the weight of GPA. </p>
<p>Call me bitter, but I have experienced favoritism and even sexism my entire high school career. I could do the same thing as someone who got an A for her persentation and get a lower mark. I could hand in an essay of equal or superior quality and receive a lower mark. </p>
<p>The SAT is objective; the answer isn't what you think it is or based on an infallible human being's opinion. The answer is right there, in front of you. I love SAT's.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The perceived need to be a renaissance person at age 16 is suffocating our youth.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Colleges aren't responsible for this though. It's mainly the parents who pressure kids into becoming "renaissance persons"--just look at some of the posts by "helicopter parents" on CC. </p>
<p>Moreover, colleges are actively discouraging this. Colleges are beginning to ask GCs about the level of parental involvement in students' academic careers.</p>
<p>Dr. Science:</p>
<p>
[quote]
Let me ask you all something: In an AP class, your teacher decides to give you an A when you really deserve a C. Who is going to tell the teacher not to do so?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That sort of thing does not occur at most schools.</p>
<p>Also, SAT scores are the worst predictor of success in college; GPA and class rank are much more reliable. That, rightly, has led colleges to give the transcript more consideration than standardized test scores.</p>
<p>"Make standardized tests more difficult and harder to spend 2000 dollars on for a good score."</p>
<p>Um, what exactly would making them more difficult accomplish? The relative distribution of scores wouldn't change. And the claim that coaching raises scores by hundreds has no empirical basis. </p>
<p>"One sitting of the SAT"</p>
<p>People have bad days. Seems rather draconian.</p>
<p>But some like to do more stuff outside of class than others. And this is admittedly speculation, but I believe that those who show more commitment in EC's are more likely to possess the leadership qualities necessary to make an impact on society. I agree that academics should be the primary qualification for admission. But with SAT averages for non-URM/athlete/legacy students at HYP well into the 2200 range, I really don't have a problem with adcoms looking at other factors.</p>
<p>Oh, favoritism definitely exists at most schools I would think, because fallible human beings run schools. Teachers, no matter how honest and professional, will always be influenced consciously, or unconsciously, by gender and personality preferences, as well as by factors such as social relationships (eg. if the kid is the S or D of another teacher or BOE member, etc.) I, too, like standardized tests for that reason. Sure, they're not perfect, but they make meaningful distinctions. They differentiate between the kid with the 4.0 in an easy school from the kid with a 4.0 in a very difficult school. They illuminate the meaning of an AP course grade. There are A's which are 3's and A's which are 5's.</p>
[quote]
Quote:
Let me ask you all something: In an AP class, your teacher decides to give you an A when you really deserve a C. Who is going to tell the teacher not to do so?
[/quote]
That sort of thing does not occur at most schools.
<p>"And this is admittedly speculation, but I believe that those who show more commitment in EC's are more likely to possess the leadership qualities necessary to make an impact on society."</p>
<p>Maybe so, but not because of the reason you state. They are more likely to make an impact because they're willing to work harder and put up with doing things they don't like. On the other hand, the girl who's been doing musical theater for the last seven years, puts in a lot of work, and does it simply because she likes it is not necessarily any more likely to have leadership qualities than anybody else.</p>
<p>"But some like to do more stuff outside of class than others."</p>
<p>Yeah, some people just need to relax. Doing "more stuff" isn't always particularly beneficial to anyone.</p>
<p>Okay, people. Can anyone create a digest of the main points proferred here so far? Can we start to manufacture a composite, "ideal" admissions process?</p>