<p>
[quote]
..kids are likely to have a miserable, robotic high school experience....
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Hey, my kids are having a wonderful FIRST-rate robotic experience!</p>
<p>;)</p>
<p>The irony of all this is that by many measures (quality of faculty, facilities, research opportunities, foreign study options, academic quality of peers, selectivity, you name it) many more students today are having a college experience that would have been considered "elite" not long ago. Maybe students and parents need to be urged to recalibrate; getting admitted to, say, a top-40 university or LAC puts you in amazingly select company.</p>
<p>"What's best for the child?"</p>
<p>DW came from a rural area in the midwest where Valedictorians with ability in science were encouraged to become nurses and forest rangers. D#1 went to a private HS where five hours of nightly homework was the norm. Niece went to a "better" public HS where she made high A's in AP courses and low scores on AP tests. Two other nieces seem happy in careers their parents picked for them.</p>
<p>If there's one preferred path to that leads to happiness and success for all kids I surely don't see it.</p>
<p>I think there is a lot of unnecessary angst occurring which is bolstered by articles like these. On another thread I'dad cited some statistics from the Swarthmore College Fact Book. Now Swarthmore is a highly selective and very fine college.</p>
<p>And while the acceptance rate from 2000-2006 has declined from 24 to 19 percent, other numeric data tell a different story. Average SAT scores have declined from 1429 to 1407(median scores from 1450 to 1440), the percent of admittees in the top 10% of their hs class has declined from 89% to 83% and those in the top 2% of their hs class declined from 51% to 41%.</p>
<p>These are all impressive statistics but indicate that, while there has been a significant increase in applicants, there is not a corresponding increase in the quality of students accepted and choosing to enroll.</p>
<p>I doubt that Swarthmore's data is unique. There are only so many highly qualified students that are competitive candidates for admission to the most highly selective colleges and universities like Swarthmore. But for a number of reasons(multiple applications, Ivy envy, costs, merit scholarships, geography, adcom priorities, etc) it may be more difficult for many of these colleges to entice them to enroll.</p>
<p>Using this example (Swarthmore), you better duck and cover. The counter response may be looming in the wings. ;)</p>
<p>"These are all impressive statistics but indicate that, while there has been a significant increase in applicants, there is not a corresponding increase in the quality of students accepted and choosing to enroll."</p>
<p>^ Them there could be fightin' words.....</p>
<p>Random Data:</p>
<p>Amherst:</p>
<p>College Class Average (Mean) SAT of Enrolled Students</p>
<p>2004 1398
2005 1402
2006 1416
2007 1422
2008 1443
2009 1442
2010 1417</p>
<p>Admit rate basically flat throughout at 18-19%</p>
<p>
[quote]
And while the acceptance rate from 2000-2006 has declined from 24 to 19 percent, other numeric data tell a different story. Average SAT scores have declined from 1429 to 1407(median scores from 1450 to 1440), the percent of admittees in the top 10% of their hs class has declined from 89% to 83% and those in the top 2% of their hs class declined from 51% to 41%.</p>
<p>These are all impressive statistics but indicate that, while there has been a significant increase in applicants, there is not a corresponding increase in the quality of students accepted and choosing to enroll.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>There are many factors that render the analysis of the changes in "quality" of such a small sample misleading. The changes in average ranking might come from a simple switch to fewer "ranked" students or to more students from extremely prestigious high schools where a 11-20% rank is remarkable. In addition, the changes in the SAT are meaningless, especially in the aftermath of a new test format. Swarthmore does not operate in a vacuum. </p>
<p>Lastly, Swarthmore has increased its efforts of diversity and the results might simply show that the school ... means what it says when it comes to reaching out to candidates who bring more than stellar grades.</p>
<p>Swarthmore certainly qualifies as very selective. I am sure that if it chose, Swarthmore could greatly increase the stats for admitted students. Congratulations to Swarthmore for not selecting solely based on SATs and GPA. Many colleges are looking beyond these simple measures and trying to do "holistic" selections for making offers. They are looking for kids who fit and have special interests and abilities and they are looking to build a class with excitement and diversity. Inspite of a lot of cynical comments on this forum, I really think most of the elite schools have more important concerns than improving their USNWR ranking. Inspite of some other cynical comments, I also think it is pretty easy for adcoms to distinguish really exciting students from the student who may work hard but lacks curiousity, drive and excitement.</p>
<p>"I also think it is pretty easy for adcoms to distinguish really exciting students from the student who may work hard but lacks curiousity, drive and excitement".
Although I agree with the concept of holistic admissions, I not sure it does anything to reduce the pressure on kids to perform. In the days when I applied to school, admissions were largely based on GPA and SAT scores - so you pretty much knew where you stood and where you should apply. Now, we have kids loading up on ECs, traveling to exotic places to do community service, hiring coaches to write essays, applying to 20 schools, and "burning out" before they hit senior year - all with the idea of impressing an adcom in a very subjective (and sometimes random) process. OK - so maybe this doesn't exist everywhere. But it does in my school district! I don't think the articles on this topic are all hype - I do think this craziness exists in certain places. I see it here and it's out of control...</p>
<p>Sure some highly ambitious kids with the help of eager parents can fool the adcoms. I do suspect that is fairly rare. I don't think many adcoms are impressed with the typical laundry list of school activities and clubs. I doubt adcoms would be overly impressed when parents foot the bill to send their kids on a group community service outing to South America. I suspect a professionally-written essay might not have the ring of truth.</p>
<p>edad - agree with all you say. But regardless - overly competitive peers and parents do pressure the kids to do these things (perhaps not realizing that they don't work until it's too late). At least that's true in this area. It's sad.</p>
<p>
</a></p>
<p>Heh.</p>
<p>WashDad
Mentor, FVC Team yyyy, 2006-present
Retired mentor, FRC Team xxxx, 2004-2006</p>
<p>toneranger: It's interesting what you say. I think we probably live not far from one another, and I don't see that kind of frenzy much. Anxiety, yes, competitiveness, yes. But the kids I know with great admissions results at the most selective schools have generally done it the old-fashioned way: by being really smart and ambitious, doing really well in school, pushing themselves, and showing leadership and accomplishment within the context of their school community. Of course, other kids in the pretty much the same position may not have done as well (but no one like that does terribly). I can honestly say I haven't seen a single situation where I have thought that someone gained an advantage artificially and unfairly. And I haven't seen any kind of arms race. Yet.</p>
<p>I know one kid well -- at a boarding school -- whose family went the whole nine yards with a private counselor and a two-year campaign plan. It did NOT accomplish what the family's goals were. (The kid is a legitimately great kid, regardless, and will be attending a really great college. No tragedy.)</p>
<p>Re Swarthmore: Its class-by-class minority enrollment has barely changed over the period 2000-2007. So it's hard to blame any SAT/GPA decline on that. (What HAS changed, a lot, is the number of "undetermined race" students. That has increased, with a corresponding decline in caucasian students. I am assuming that "undetermined race" students are not the target of any Swarthmore diversity initiative.) The tiny decline this past year may mean absolutely nothing.</p>
<p>So...for the sake of argument...admissions this year seemed to be such a "crapshoot"...so many students were exceptionally qualified--strong GPA, Ecs,Sats/ACT scores....I wonder how the following years students will be able to determine what school is a match/reach/safety....I feel for these kids/parents...</p>
<p>"I also think it is pretty easy for adcoms to distinguish really exciting students from the student who may work hard but lacks curiousity, drive and excitement". </p>
<p>Really? I think holistic admissions makes people crazy. What exactly are they looking for? Nobody really knows. It creates anxiety. If a kid knows a lot about pretty high-level stuff by the end of high school, they must either be smart or be driven to learn. That should be enough. End of story.</p>
<p>totally agree.</p>
<p>As if the high school race for the elite school isn't bad enough, I'm hearing that the demand for internships and research opportunities in college is also growing at a crazy, competitive rate.</p>
<p>It is not clear what the SATs measure, but we do know that there is very little correlation between SAT scores and success in college or later in life. If we want to measure smarts, then maybe an IQ test would be a better approach. There is a strong correlation between high school grades and success in college. Unfortunately, grades aren't real useful for selection among the applicants who apply to very selective or selective colleges. At many good high schools, there are a high percentage of kids with gpa's of near 4.0. Often a couple of tenths variation in the gpa can make a huge difference in class rank. GPA is only useful when there are very substantial differences between students.</p>
<p>Selective colleges use SATs and gpa's as only a rough guide. It is unfortunate that less than precise criteria make you crazy, because most things in life are in the gray zone. It is important to spend the time and energy to understand how admission decisions are made.</p>
<p>I just finished interviewing someone for a job. I did not ask what courses they took in college or what grades they got. Even so, I can predict with a high level of certainty how that individual will do in the job which is very technical in nature. I know that when it comes to the technical aspects, the individual is in the ballpark. I am not much interested in their interviewing skills or salesmanship so I doubt it would make much difference how they tried to prep and make a good presentation. I could make a long list of attributes that I would consider important: maturity, interest in the position, professionalism, ability to work well with others, communication skills, teaching and learning skills, etc, etc. With some pretty minimal input, I believe I could accurately rate this individual on a large number of attributes. To validate the accuracy of the assessment, three of us interviewed and scored 20 items. Almost every score matched exactly. Clearly this was a subjective process. The applicant probably had a minimal understanding of the evaluation criteria. Even so the process seems to have some consistency. I guess if the applicant does not get the job, he can consider the process to be arbitrary. If the individual had good grades in college, maybe he would believe we should have hired on the basis college performance.</p>
<p>Have to admit that I haven't read all the responses since the Swarthmore comments. i did read down to the "fighting words" reply.</p>
<p>I don't have statistics as I am sure that I'DAd will, but I must say that Swarthmore is a unique school that marches more to its own drumbeat than most of the top schools. They have a mission to have an undergraduate population that is DIVERSE in the biggest possible way. Knowing what I do from 'special' sources, I know that this goal will bring down SAT scores to some extent. That does not mean that Swarthmore is less selective -- actually more selective if you mean how much attention is paid to specific criteria in the selection of the admitted class. You have to parse the numbers to know what is actually happening.</p>
<p>I hope I'DAd comes in with some actual stats.</p>
<p>And, don't bet that undetermined race is not a factor in Swarthmore admissions. Mixed race kids are an interesting group that would be attractive to Swarthmore, imo.</p>