<p>Thanks, barrons. Someone finally provided an answer that at least makes sense.</p>
<p>Sadly, people feel they would rather trust government employees to spend their tax dollars with incomplete public oversight, than have elected officials involved. Sign of our times, I guess. I still think it is better to have it all out in the open. Taxpayers might actually be more supportive of their state universities if they had more confidence in how the decisions are being made. On this last page of the thread alone, someone raised an issue that cannot be answered with the information currently provided. And an applicant earlier expressed the emotional fall-out that occurs when denied applicants are kept in the dark, for no good practical reason.</p>
<p>^^I’m not sure what you are talking about? I think the idea is whether or not better transparency in the data that is released by colleges is a good thing. I’m not sure what you mean by individual scores? Not all public universities use actual scores or rank orders, but if they did that would be one form of better transparency e.g.,1500 enrolled students had 6/6 1,000 enrolled students had 5/6, 2,000 enrolled students had 4/6, etc. etc. I also don’t understand why that makes people feel uncomfortable or think that it will make people feel uncomfortable.</p>
<p>“What struck me was that 1% of the students scored less than 400 in the CR SAT and also 1% (not necessarily the same) scored less than 400 on the Writing portion.”</p>
<p>Yeah, but many of them weight 350.</p>
<p>And those under? The skinny rejects play for Podunk.</p>
<p>Most states have room in their schools for most qualified students. The room might just not be where the student wants to go. For example most UW campuses accept the vast majority of state applicants. None accepts less than 60% of instate. That’s pretty reasonable with limited funding these days. So if you don’t get into Madison there still are many state supported alternatives so the parental taxpayers are getting their money’s worth. Just not their first choice. Do well and you can transfer in a year or two.</p>
<p>barrons hit the nail on the head. There is no reason to expend additional taxpayer dollars to inform the small percentage of in-state applicants exactly why their clearly marginal HS record didn’t meet the high bar to matriculate at their state flagship when they have a clear path for meeting the transfer admission bar in order to graduate from their state flagship. When did we get to this place where freshman year over all others conveys such extraordinary added value? (As a Texan, this is one of my beefs with the Fisher case. Recently interviewed, Ms. Fisher claimed her damages were loss of networking and access to the Texas Exes alumni network, which would have enhanced her job search–yet she was guaranteed the right to spend sophomore-senior years on the Forty Acres and obtain that precious sheepskin had she only been willing to spend her first year (and make a 3.2) at a branch campus.)</p>
<p>Or from the standpoint of the CA system, is there a reason to explain why a kid didn’t get into Berkeley but did get into Merced or Irvine or Santa Cruz or any of the other UCs which do offer guaranteed admission based on stats. The state funds what it funds, and if Berkeley is perceived as “better” it’s because of non-state funds.</p>
<p>If universities did give an “explanation” as to why someone was rejected, I am skeptical that it would give that applicant any satisfaction. Then would then want explanations for the rationale for any of the subjective criteria, which is part of the “holistic” process. It’s impossible to keep subjectivity out of a score on an essay. There is no way to give prospective students a quantitative measurement to shoot for on something like an essay or leadership qualities or ECs which show not only quantity, but quality, or passion, or whatever it is they are looking for. So any “explanation” for rejection is still going to remain unclear. Giving rejects a bunch of numbers is not going to tell the tale. There will still be head scratching or gnashing of teeth, people who don’t “understand” their rejection in light of someone else’s acceptance.</p>
<p>^Sure they do. The longer the essay the higher the score. And no points off for making up facts. :rolleyes:</p>
<p>As much as anyone I would have liked to have been a fly on the wall at the admissions office. Who wouldn’t want to know if they thought the essay was funny or just weird? Or whether all those low B’s in Latin made a difference? Or how the letters of recommendation came off? For both kids I knew (more or less) what the strengths and weaknesses of the application were. </p>
<p>Just to use an example from our experience, so what if MIT said, “Oh no another computer nerd!” while Harvard said “Oooh, cool a computer nerd!” ? It’s not as though we could go back and say to MIT, “But didn’t you appreciate how funny his essay was?”</p>
<p>I’m curious why you all assume immediately that transparency has to come down to the individual student? Would not greater transparency into aggregate numbers be something that makes sense for a public institution? I would love to know more about the bottom third or quartile and why they are an imperative to the health and wellbeing of an institution or what qualities are essential for the middle of the pack that would preclude accepting students at the top of the pack. I would love to know more about the increasing numbers of out of state students and if money is the sole imperative, and exactly how much money that is in the revenue stream. How much are OSS being subsidized. All kinds of things that have nothing to do with reporting to an individual student applying to a public university.</p>
<p>momofthreeboys, There is already plenty of info out there. As others have said, no matter what info a kid (or parent) is given about the process and about a rejection, there will still be a small percentage of people that would never be satisfied with ANY explanation. It may be best to do the best you can in high school, apply to a range of schools and hope for the best. Most kids and their guidance counselors should have a pretty good idea of where the kids are competitive for admission. Luckily, the majority of kids are able to move on if they do get a rejection .</p>
<p>I’m through the college thing, so no horse in this game, but I do believe if ANY tax dollars are going to public education there should be some transparency about who is getting educated and how those people are being chosen, especially with nearing half the class is coming from out of state, displacing in-state kids who end up paying more for their next in-state option since that uni doe not meet need. So yeah. I’ve flipped my position. But I think some posters who are focusing on individual scores and what it might do “to them” or what they perceive might happen to “others” are missing the point.</p>
<p>So what? There are extremists in every situation. Including some who want to keep information out of the hands of the public.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes. Its about what the public universities are doing with our tax dollars. A side-effect of keeping the info secret is that individuals who both pay fees to produce the information and pay taxes don’t get the information either, and there is no practical reason why it cannot be released to them.</p>
<p>The difficulty in providing such information is that the decisions that don’t seem to fit the typical profile usually are due to individual circumstances. Why did the kid with the 3.8, 1400 (M&CR) get rejected from Big State U, while the 3.5, 1200 got in? Perhaps the second kid is an athletic recruit or applied to an art program where a portfolio is more important than the grades/SAT. Perhaps the first kid never submitted his or her recommendations. Maybe the second kid was not a native english speaker and his or her grades in math/science were all As, but LA and History brought down the GPA. </p>
<p>The schools report the general outline of who gets in and who does not. There is no way to explain all of the anomalies.</p>
<p>There seems to be concern over OOS students taking instate students places, and how much state tax payers are paying to subsidize the education of OOS students (correct me if I’m getting this wrong). There is no such issue in my state. The designated available spaces in each class for instate and OOS students are clearly mandated by our state legislature so there are no surprises there. It must be at least 2/3 instate, 1/3 OOS. So we’re all good on that. No OOS students taking spots from instate students. We are also clear on the cost of a students education, what the state provides per student (pitiful and well under peer institutions), what instate students pay, and what OOS students pay. I can’t remember off the top of my head, nor do I wish to look it up, but OOS students are paying well over 100% (closer to 150%) of what it costs to educate a student. So we’re all clear there. No state dollars are subsidizing OOS kids. The monies received from the state accounts for less then 10% of the total operating budget. We’re not too reliant on them.</p>
<p>What’s happening and information readily available in some states may not be what’s happening in other states. This may account for part of the difference in opinion, beyond the fact that we’re all individuals.</p>
<p>*I’m curious why you all assume immediately that transparency has to come down to the individual student? *</p>
<p>Every time we get to what public accountability would look like, someone on the advocate side says something like- you’ve already got the ratings, how hard is it to send them to the kids? </p>
<p>They need to clarify the expectations, not just the category types or ratings, to educate an oversight committee.</p>
<p>Do you have a link, blueiguana, about the full cost of educating a student? I hadn’t realized that OOS are paying more than the cost of educating a student would be so am curious. I do know that UVa does meet 100% of need for OOS students and some people seem to gripe about that. Most of the states with good publics do seem to consider some softer factors in admission. Some kids are sure to be left out at the more competitive schools in the states with schools that are sought after.</p>
<p>Bay, what is the info that you seek that would satisfy you? I may have missed that and , if so, I do apologize. I’m still confused about what full transparency means to some of you.</p>