<p>
[quote]
...The bureaucracy of college admissions - and particularly the role of standardized testing - grew, in part to make it possible for students who never attended Choate or Andover to aspire to Harvard and Yale.</p>
<p>A book just released by Stanford University Press challenges that perspective head on. In The Power of Privilege: Yale and America?s Elite Colleges, Joseph A. Soares, an associate professor of sociology at Wake Forest University, writes that much of what is seen as opening up American higher education was actually the result of looking for new ways (albeit with mixed success) to keep the elite elite (and WASPy)...</p>
<p>What many of these analyses fail to take into account is the possibility that the College Board served it's purpose extremely well. The point was to open up elite colleges to the intellectually gifted but not economically and socially advantaged. At the time there was a pent up supply of such folks from many waves of immigrants over the previous 50 years or so. Imagine that it works perfectly what happens. Overtime these folks get integrated and their children and grand children are still intellectually gifted but not socially and economically disadvantaged. As a result you would expect a bump in enrollment from these classes following the introduction of the SAT's with a tapering off over time as the integration occurs. This prospect is somewhat masked by new immigrant groups but is nonetheless real.</p>
<p>Any idiot can do well on a Collegeboard test. It does not take one of any perceivable intellectual gifts to do exceedingly well in it. It caps off at such a incredibly stupid level it's sickening, e.g., the highest math test offered is the AP Calculus BC test, and that isn't even given a scalable score like the SATs. On the other hand, legacy and sports kids are worse, if possible, a dirty ball of hair that won't go down the drain.</p>
<p>Got up on the wrong side of the bed this morning, did you, Logos?</p>
<p>I do not think it would be economically viable for the College Board to provide tests that require extraordinarily high levels of achievement because only a small number of applicants would be eligible to take them. It costs money to develop these tests. Would there be enough people paying the fee to take a multivariable calculus test, for example, to offset the cost of developing such a test?</p>
<p>I think it is necessary for colleges to rely on evidence other than College Board scores in order to evaluate the qualifications of applicants who have gone far beyond the usual level of achievement in a particular field.</p>
<p>What would be the point of a test to discriminate between the top 1/10 of 1% and the top 1%. By the way what % of kids do you think score 2400 plus perfect 800's on SAT II's plus nothing but 5's on a half dozen or so AP's? I think your just grumpy.</p>
<p>I think elite colleges welcome the high-achieving poor and under-represented minorities. The students who they're concerned about accepting in large numbers are those with a conservative bent. From their liberal vantage point conservative=bad. As long as you write acceptably liberal essays and participate in acceptably liberal activities, I don't think any elite school will find you objectionable. This is why the subjective evaluation of applicants is so important for them today.</p>
<p>
[quote]
As long as you write acceptably liberal essays and participate in acceptably liberal activities, I don't think any elite school will find you objectionable. This is why the subjective evaluation of applicants is so important for them today.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I would defy anyone to detect the least hint of political sympathies in my S's essays or ECs which had to do with math and science (unless these are particularly liberal or conservative fields).</p>
<p>I'm not saying you have to be a rabid liberal to be accepted to an elite school, but if you are, you have a far better chance than if you're a strong conservative. Liberalism is the overwhelming ideology of the leaders at these schools, and conservatism is equated in their minds with racism and hating the poor.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The students who they're concerned about accepting in large numbers are those with a conservative bent. From their liberal vantage point conservative=bad
[/quote]
</p>
<p>. There are certainly large numbers of conservatives in high places at Yale!
Pres. Levin and Pres. Bush are good friends. Bush chose Levin to serve on one of his task forces after 9/11. Many of the legacy and large financial contributors are conservative. Although not true of the faculty, the administration at Yale is dominated by conservatives, starting with it's Pres. Levin.</p>
<p>A lot of high school students, most, I believe come to college without strong political views one way or another. It's the nature of the young to have liberal views in college because so many of the liberal causes ( which conservatives label "bleeding heart") are attractive to young people. These same kids may turn to more conservative views as they get older, when their own life styles and personal situations change. .</p>
<p>I can't speak for other schools, but Yale adm. is definitely not liberal.</p>
<p>The point she was making is that most people write an apolitical essays, and most kids participate in activities that interest them. Looking at my son's activities and essays, it would be hard to even determine the gender.</p>
<p>"The point was to open up elite colleges to the intellectually gifted but not economically and socially advantaged."</p>
<p>Nope. But I'm not sure you want to do the research.</p>
<p>"According to mini doctrine, it is a crime for elite colleges to accept full paying customers, and give aid to people making $100k+."</p>
<p>Nope. I could care less who private prestige colleges admit. It's their money, and they can do with it what they please.</p>
<p>It IS a crime for PUBLIC institutions to admt high-income students at the expense of low-income ones, as I believe the state has a legitimate and compelling interest to ensure that a permanent underclass is not created, and that kids from low-income families have the skills and knowledge to successfully compete, regardless of their past attainments.</p>
<p>"I think elite colleges welcome the high-achieving poor and under-represented minorities."</p>
<p>Evidence? Gordon Winston at Williams found there were three times as many high-achieving low-income students, achieving at a level of current prestige college admits, than were actually admitted to prestige colleges. That's no national tragedy (even if it is for the prestige colleges). Dartmouth's loss is UCLA's gain.</p>
<p>I suspect an even larger number of high-achieving middle income students are achieving at a level of current prestige college admits than were actually admitted to a prestige college.</p>
<p>Maybe Yale/Harvard simply likes being Yale/Harvard - schools that are bastion of the rich & elite but whose academic reputation for excellence is held up by a large pool of hugely talented non-elites admitted on the basis of meritocracy. It's a mixture that's worked very well for these schools, and I don't see a reason why it can't continue to work.</p>
<p>"Evidence? Gordon Winston at Williams found there were three times as many high-achieving low-income students, achieving at a level of current prestige college admits, than were actually admitted to prestige colleges."</p>
<p>"It IS a crime for PUBLIC institutions to admt high-income students at the expense of low-income ones, as I believe the state has a legitimate and compelling interest to ensure that a permanent underclass is not created, and that kids from low-income families have the skills and knowledge to successfully compete, regardless of their past attainments."</p>
<p>I know of at least 3 states in which if you are in the top X% of your student body from ANY High School - you get admitted. I am sure other states have similar mechanisms as well.</p>
<p>""Evidence? Gordon Winston at Williams found there were three times as many high-achieving low-income students, achieving at a level of current prestige college admits, than were actually admitted to prestige colleges."</p>
<p>What, the heck, is this supposed to prove?"</p>
<p>It means they don't get in, they aren't recruited, the schools make no contacts with GCs, the financial aid isn't good enough, or they don't even apply. It's a funny kind of "welcome".</p>