<p>
</p>
<p>The first three are still subjective. I’m guessing you have never had to “score” a job application. It’s fairly easy to work things to get the outcome you want.</p>
<p>But they don’t use it in a way that you get x points for this and y points for that. Not in a way that you could send it to an applicant and say “You only got 95 points and you need 100 for admissions.”</p>
<p>momofthreeboys, in many states, the reductions in state appropriatons for higher education have been real, not merely perceived cuts.</p>
<p>I like the idea. It is important for public institutions to be held accountable for their decision making. As it is now, one’s application (or thousands of applications) could have been negligently misplaced or unlawfully discriminated against, and we will never know this. </p>
<p>Students spend hours perfecting their applications and pay a significant fee for the time spent by reviewers. Its not like the colleges are doing this work for free or out of their overall budget. How long would it take for a reviewer to check a box indicating that one’s scores were too low, or one’s ECs insufficient, or one’s race/gender/SES category was already over represented? There HAS to be a reason for a rejection; otherwise the student must be admitted.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You don’t need to guess what they do, one school has spelled it out:
</p>
<p>The school could just copy and paste the matrix/scatterplot in the Decision Letter and show Johnny which point on the scatterplot is him.</p>
<p>Johnny needs to grow up, move on and get a life. So tired of all the whining and entitlement on CC. The failure is the one who obsesses why he didn’t get in his “rightful” spot. The winner is the person who picks himself up and says “their loss!” and goes on to kick butt. </p>
<p>This is about as tedious as expecting the girl you ask out who turns you down to provide a reason. She’s not into you. Get over it.</p>
<p>ONE school, GMT. They don’t ALL work like that.</p>
<p>What’s the source for that matrix? and what’s your source?</p>
<p>What will you learn if H says 90/100 and Michigan says 75/100. And so on. How does it improve the kid? Or is it picking at a scab?</p>
<p>I keep saying, the U I work at does not break down these ratings. Over time, I wonder how I could be, well, according to you, so wrong.</p>
<p>Holistic. One rating for x and one for y. Multiple sets of ratings, from multiple reviews.</p>
<p>Why don’t you like this? - for yourself/your kids and for the university?</p>
<p>EDUT: I see it is one of the TX briefs. Going to read it.</p>
<p>So, let’s say that state colleges are compelled in the future to check off boxes indicating where an applicant fell short and include that information in the rejection letter. I ask again, then what? Will students and parents then barrage the admissions office with arguments that the student in question was unfairly or incorrectly assessed? A rhetorical question - of course they will. They do now, even without the supposed reasons. Imagine the tsunami of response if reasons were given. Will there be a grievance procedure? Who will oversee it? How will that be paid for - with state funds? Tuition dollars?</p>
<p>Can we say, when we’re turned down for a publicly-funded job, that we are entitled to an explanation of where we fell short? It would never occur to me to ask for one.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Duke University’s holistic process scores these criteria on a scale from 1-5:
- Achievement
- Curriculum
- Essay
- Personal Qualities
- Letters of Recommendation</p>
<p>I think it would raise lots of political issues. College admissions officers don’t judge all high school transcripts and GPAs the same. If a kid goes to a selective (test-in) high school where teachers don’t practice grade inflation, the relationship of grades to learning is going to be very different than a high school that admits a wide range of students with large class size. I spoke to an admissions officer at a top-ranked research university in my state and she told me that they have institutional experience with virtually all the high schools in the state and rank them accordingly. </p>
<p>If they had to reveal how they evaluate the grades presented by students, there would be a tremendous incentive for grade inflation throughout the state, just as there have been many scandals of K-8 teachers and principals artificially boosting test scores due to NCLB requirements. And students at schools that didn’t cheat would be punished.</p>
<p>GMT, exactly what is your beef? Do you think there are too many whimsical admissions decisions as the officers make their list and check it twice? Do you think colleges are illegally considering race under the holistic umbrella and this would reveal the violation and eliminate it?</p>
<p>You can keep giving examples, GMT, but the fact is that not all schools work on a scale like that. I’m not saying that there are NO schools that do.</p>
<p>If you like Duke’s admission process, make sure you and/or your children apply to schools like that. Some of us like the holistic process. Some of us have GPAs (or replace with some other factor) that don’t reflect our abilities due to factors outside of our control. We choose holistic admission schools.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I have both gotten (and not gotten) publicly funded jobs and served on search committees for them. HUMANS are evaluating other humans and even with a matrix there is subjectivity. How does one “measure” teacher recommendations or ECs?</p>
<p>
Why are you asking me? </p>
<p>Ask the colleges how they do it. They do it systematically each year, and they base their admissions decision on how they “measure” that and other subjective criteria.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No, I think it would do the opposite. As it is now, don’t colleges state that their decisions are not appealable? So they still would not be appealable, but a student would actually get some closure.</p>
<p>Why are people opposed to requiring public institutions to be transparent? If there is systemic, or even isolated discrimination going on, you have no way of knowing. If decisions are being made arbitrarily, wouldn’t you want to know this? Its not like it would take much effort to disclose.</p>
<p>And regarding the “entitlement” slam, citizens ARE entitled to know how their government operates. Moreso, they have an obligation to know. If you want to argue that public universities are not really public, then I would feel differently. Private businesses should not be required to disclose how they operate.</p>
<p>Pizza, my beef is not so much about holistic admissions, although in some cases it is a cop-out for crafting the financial class the uni wants more than anything. My beef is selling seats to out of staters and then pushing kids into more expensive schools in the state system. It’s akin to baking your cake and eating the whole thing and it’s awfully, awfully close to what private schools do. There should be a difference in public vs. private in how they accept students. If the “push down” schools had the same financial benefits and in Michigan’s case they don’t, MSU is virtually equal in cost to UofM, except kids with need pay MORE to be rejected from Uof M. </p>
<p>I don’t have a problem with holistic admissions, but they can work in favor of admissions more than most kids. Most kids will have GPAs and test scores that make sense in the absence of other considerations and state unis know full well how to take the GPA in context of all high schools within the state. They are drawing a line and saying they are going to take x number of instate kids and no more which has nothing to do with the GPA and qualifications of the particular student outside of a few EC type things like if they fill an athletic spot or a music spot or a diversity spot. The only transparency is that they will probably take x number of instate kids. </p>
<p>It just feels wrong to me and it’s not tedious because it’s not solely about “not getting in” and being a whiner it’s more about “not getting in and then having to pay more for that fact” so that the state can educate kids from other states and the university can make money. And since none of this impacted me or my kids in any way I can be somewhat objective about it. A few years ago I was totally against Michigan privatizing, now I’m slightly more for it as they progressively diminish the in-state class so that all the small state dollars can go to the other world class flagship and the kids can benefit from some aid. Part of that tilts ever so slightly for telling in-state kids just why they can’t attend when they are totally qualified and possibly telling them why they won’t get their need met at the other public flagship.</p>
<p>
I agree with this.</p>
<p>UCSD used to use a point system called “comprehensive review”. But I think they did away with it a couple years ago.</p>
<p>You knew exactly how many points you got for grades, tests, about how many you could get for “challenges”, ECs, etc, just about everything. You didn’t really know the “cutscore” for sure, but it was floating around out there on the interwebs.</p>
<p><a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/university-california-san-diego/120289-what-point-system-ucsd-uses-admission.html[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/university-california-san-diego/120289-what-point-system-ucsd-uses-admission.html</a></p>
<p>Anyway, they probably got rid of it because they want to see how many full pay they can get these days. Or maybe too many applicants to make it work.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Absolutely, otherwise they’d have to “explain” why they are taking out of staters over in-staters that are equally qualified. What public uni wants to do that?</p>
<p>Detailing individual rejections is overkill. There is, however, much that could be done in increasing transparency through detailed statistics. The admission percentages should be broken down by race, GPA, and scores. Schools should not be allowed to make a mockery of the percentage of top 10 percent by guesstimate it widely a la Columbia and UC, and Spring admits should be excluded. </p>
<p>The numbers should be available on each school site BEFORE the applications for the next year are released.</p>
<p>
Yeah, of course to me that’s silly since everyone knows… They should just say you get X extra points if you will be full pay, because they need the money. Then even some rich people who live in state might pay extra to get those points. But maybe they aren’t legally allowed to do that.</p>
<p>
What’s the percentage of top 19 percent? That means something?</p>