I misunderstood this the first time I read it, but I guess it’s another attack on affirmative action. While I do think elite colleges are trying to provide more access to historically underserved communities, it’s not like they’re doing all that a great job at it–most of them still have very modest numbers of URMs, because they are applying pretty tough standards to hooked applicants (even if somewhat less tough than those applied to other applicants.)
But what I’d really like to respond to is the idea that a “true meritocracy” is one that is based on concrete measures like scores and grades. That isn’t really “merit” at all, any more than being able to run faster than other people is “merit.” Either of these may be a valuable capability in some circumstances, but neither one is the first thing I’d look for in a person who I am hoping will be a future leader–whether in politics, business, academia, or elsewhere. What I consider to be “true merit” is a lot more subjective–is the person kind, does he care about others, is he thoughtful, is he creative, can he work well with others, does he have a personal drive that comes from within, is he passionate about something that really matters, etc. And this kind of analysis is what the most elite colleges claim to be doing (while still caring about the other kinds of “merit” as well.)
So, if you really want to get into Harvard, the paradox is that the secret is not to act like you want to get into Harvard. The secret is (after getting great grades and scores, of course) to act like there is something outside the walls of your school and the common activities of your social group that you really care about, that you are willing to work hard at, and that you can do very well.
There are plenty of good schools out there where admission is highly predictable for those with the grades, test scores etc. that fit the school’s desired student profile, but obviously the Ivies, Stanford etc. do not fit that model of selecting students.
My basic view is that for those who don’t like how these schools select students, there are plenty of other good choices out there. Holistic admissions is part of what makes these institutions what they are . . . it seems a little inconsistent to me to place a high value on what these schools offer but disagree with how they decide who to admit.
“Do you think these elites want all their students to be best at the national or state level at something?”
No.
Some parents (or kids) can point to that in the record of a kid who got an admit, but it’s not necessary, ime, not part of the U’s plan.
Nor do they want “ALL their students to be diversified in their interests,” IF that means every kid has some wacky standout thing or two. (Diversified in their own interests/efforts is good.) They’re building a campus community and that requires some commonality.
I am not opposed to strategizing for your app to a top school. Not at all. But to understand the commonality, you have to now what that commonality is. And, it isn’t all 4.0+, a couple of hs titles and X hours of any old vol work.
And as Hunt says, the softer factors matter very much.
“Holistic admissions is part of what makes these institutions what they are.” Yes.
The lawsuit that was filed last month by a coalition of 64 Asian groups accuses Harvard of having an Asian quota. They allege that beyond the test scores and GPA, the Asian students not admitted also had stellar extracurriculars and leadership positions.
If Harvard feels that it’s admissions system comports with the law and the Constitution, then they should have no worries in the discovery process during the lawsuit. Turn over all the applications, the notes made by the admissions counselors, the notes of the adcom meetings and all the rest. If they fight this sort of discovery during the litigation, then they do have something to hide.
Firstly, my use of the word “qualified” here was obviously with respect to test scores, and I’m not suggesting that schools should use the tests more or less than they already do in determining qualifications. Rather, I’m suggesting that test optional schools are setting up a “backdoor” means of admitting some Hooked students with lower test scores while still secretly valuing those tests.
That said, are you seriously buying the “everyone admitted is equally qualified” line? That is just a tautology, i.e., “since you got in and we only admit those who are qualified, you must be qualified.” It is what you get from public relations – no one really believes it… The 25th percentile SAT component scores at Harvard are each about 710. How many unhooked applicants do you think are getting in with scores below that? Hint: probably rhymes with “hero”.
Not true. Consider one prominent test-optional school: Hamilton College. The Federal IPEDS admissions data is at http://nces.ed.gov/collegenavigator/?id=191515#admsns. Note that the percentages reporting SAT (58%) and ACT (25%) sum to 83%, meaning for at least 17% of students, no test score was provided. Non-test-optional schools will either sum to 100% or a number greater than 100%* Bowdoin College is another highly selective, test-optional example: http://nces.ed.gov/collegenavigator/?q=bowdoin&s=all&id=161004#admsns.
*some schools report only one test per student, others both.
@foosondaughter Check your notes, Hamilton is not TEST OPTIONAL.
And you are wrong on all counts of the argument. If you knew the history of the SAT and how it is used in shaping high school curriculum your attitude would change.
The SAT and ACT should be abolished, and high schools would improve, students would do fewer college applications and make better decisions about where they apply.
Grades almost always correlate to test scores, so being test optional means nothing except the schools need to do more work.
By the way, the most recogizable test optional schools also have the stricest rules on recruiting athletes, namely no sports money, along with lots of other requirements.
“Grades almost always correlate to test scores, so being test optional means nothing except the schools need to do more work”.
I strongly disagree. My son had a 36 ACT, but only a 3.7 UW GPA. He would have never have made it to his choice of college were he to have only his GPA to rely on.
^That would make BatesParents2019 correct. Hamilton, like schools that have always accepted the ACT, is SAT optional. It is not, however, test optional.
“Stellar.” Yeah.
Subjective judgment made by people with zero experience or qualification – speaking of qualification – to assess extracurriculars and leadership in the way that a particular college does.
No one in 2015 apparently believes that he or she is not an expert on EVERYTHING, including matters he or she has no intimate acquaintance with. Applying to a college or giving birth to someone who has does not anoint someone with expertise on the subject of college admissions.
The quoted statement above reveals further ignorance in assuming that students are evaluated alone. Students are evaluated comparatively, so even if the above characterization, “stellar” could be verified, I will guarantee you that someone else – maybe even another Asian student – was evaluated as more stellar.
Affirmative Action based soley on race or ethnicity is unethical and wrong.
Affirmative Action based on low SES namely as relates to not having the same opportunities in HS and in life as others of a higher SES is the only form that should be allowed.
I’ve mentioned it more than once on CC, my experience and opinion is a rich black kid has more in common with a rich white kid than a poor black kid has in common with him. And a poor white kid has more in common with a poor black kid than with a rich white kid.
This is even true for so-called middle classes - even when my dad was out of work, we never went hungry, we never qualified for welfare or free lunch. My spouse did get free and reduced lunch as a kid. His HS was in the bottom 5% in our state (no, it was not urban by the way). They had one AP class; at the time my suburban HS had six AP classes, a friend from another HS he met at a summer program had around 20 at the time. Let alone I am sure he couldn’t afford the fees. Should he be passed over for someone who is rich and black or Hispanic?
I certainly did not mean to make this a semantic discussion about the definition of “test optional.” Regardless of what we call it, however, students at Hamilton can submit test scores which are not reported to IPEDS because they do not have to submit either of the SAT or ACT. This is noted in: http://www.hamilton.edu/news/story/hamilton-makes-permanent-its-sat-optional-policy: “The college will not require the SAT or ACT as part of a student’s application…” [my emphasis]. Thus, the college benefits by not having to report the lower SAT/ACT scores. It is the same loophole whether the student submits nothing (a truly “test optional” school by your definition), or submits tests other than the SAT/ACT.
foos, if you mean,they are not taking the “highest test scores,” then say that. Rather than, “while also admitting less qualified Hooked individuals.” You can’t know.
And, no idea how you came up with, “test optional schools are setting up a “backdoor” means of admitting some Hooked students with lower test scores while still secretly valuing those tests.”
"That said, are you seriously buying the “everyone admitted is equally qualified” line?
Me? have you read the thread? Obviously, I don’t believe every applicant is equally qualified. And most certainly NOT every high performing hs kid with friends and family who think his ECs are stellar.
Disappointed this doesn’t make sense to you, since it is essentially my whole point. To avoid the possibly confusing nature of the difference between “test optional” and “test flexible,” consider Bowdoin’s test optional policy: https://www.bowdoin.edu/admissions/apply/testing-policy.shtml. Despite actually asking that those who didn’t submit scores still provide them over the summer “for academic counseling and placement as well as for the College’s ongoing research into the relationship between standardized testing and success at Bowdoin,” Bowdoin does not report these scores to IPEDS (SAT % + ACT % is only 80%, per http://nces.ed.gov/collegenavigator/?q=bowdoin&s=all&id=161004#admsns). Thus, the SAT and ACT score distributions reported by Bowdoin look higher than they actually are. If Bowdoin feels good about admitting people who themselves feel that their SAT/ACT test results don’t “accurately reflect their academic ability and potential” then why should they not report those results and just indicate that they didn’t consider them?
@ephiphany: those are the allegations. My point was that if Harvard is confident that their admissions system is not violating the law, they will fully disclose all pertinent documents relating to how those admissions decisions were made. Then the courts will decide.
@foosondaughter,
Do you seriously think Bowdoin is willing to forgo something it thinks is a valuable tool and instead take inferior candidates simply for a minuscule bump in the USNWR rankings? Do you realize that graduation rate, peer reputation, and guidance counselor reputation, all of which are weighted more heavily than test scores would all be hurt by the admission of substandard students? Do you know that Bowdoin and Bates went test optional before the US News ranking even existed?
I don’t understand why people insist on believing there’s some big conspiracy here. Why not take these schools at their word-that in their process standardized tests are of limited value and that their admissions staff can do a perfectly fine job of figuring out who will be successful at their institutions without them.
Hi @Sue22. I’m contending that the Hooked admits at Bowdoin (and other test-optional schools) have lower test scores than their regular admits. I’m also contending that being test optional gives them a way to not report those test scores despite themselves admitting that they value them (at least “for academic counseling and placement as well as for the College’s ongoing research into the relationship between standardized testing and success at Bowdoin”) and consider them “important” for admissions (see http://www.collegedata.com/cs/data/college/college_pg01_tmpl.jhtml?schoolId=138, also pulled from IPEDS). I’m not saying anything about the value of those scores relative to other qualities. If Bowdoin values the scores less than other schools, great. If so though, why not report all scores? Seems like they want to have their cake and eat it too…
I don’t think I’ll have the patience to take part in a prolonged war of words/opinions about test-optional, considering this thread is about the holistic admissions process and how stats alone don’t trump. It feels off to go backwards with a newly offered opinion that TO slides in stats-underqualified (or unqualified in general) kids when the point at the elites is that more than stats can determine a great candidate.
And don’t let the USNews marketing machine so easily convince you a H or S- or a Bowdoin- is quaking in their boots over some media ranking. Get past that. Sheesh. (Anyone who thinks H is great because a magazine told you so, better have puh-lenty of safeties lined up.)
Too many want to quantify everything, even asking how the qualitative factors are…quantified.
So, how unqaulifed are the kids at, say, Bates or Bowdoin, foos? You know? And, TO is not limited to URMs.
To avoid the possibly confusing nature of the difference between “test optional” and “test flexible,” consider Bowdoin’s test optional policy: