<p>right, pg- I get that. I said it was a curiosity. And in some instances, it would be interesting to know that out of 500 people with the same stats as one student, only 200 were admitted. And you could probably draw more conclusions from the “outliers” with some additional info too. </p>
<p>I think that additional overall information may help students (that live in the real world) with planning and choosing those reach and safety schools.</p>
<p>What’s next? “We have binders of rejects! Binders!”</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes because a person recruitable for playing Big 10, Pac 10, SEC etc football or some basektball programs is most likely going to land somewhere and with scholarship.They are not taking the seat of a non-football playing in-state student who is losing a seat to a non-in state non-football playing kid and having to pay more to go to the other flagship because of it. Football recruits are competing for football seats and those are seats that are not available to anyone else.</p>
<p>One of those football seats belong to a women’s field hockey player.</p>
<p>
“Good enough” doesn’t seem accurate. </p>
<p>Student A - accepted at Harvard, rejected at Yale. Not “good enough” for Yale, but “good enough” for Harvard.
Student B - accepted at Yale, rejected at Harvard. Not “good enough” for Harvard, but “good enough” for Yale.</p>
<p>Using “good enough” doesn’t make sense. I mean, technically if you aren’t selected you are rejected but there’s nothing “lipstick on a pig-gish” about it.</p>
<p>“right, pg- I get that. I said it was a curiosity. And in some instances, it would be interesting to know that out of 500 people with the same stats as one student, only 200 were admitted. And you could probably draw more conclusions from the “outliers” with some additional info too.”</p>
<p>American U. has been publishing all of that data for more than a decade.</p>
<p>For the football team, especially for the interior line, they need to publish admits/rejects by weight, and basketball team, by height. For developmental candidates, by dollars pledged; for legacies, by generations. For writers, by number of novels/short stories already published. For STEM majors, number of patents applied for/granted. Then they need to do admit/reject rates by instrument. For cheerleaders, point on the “perky” scale.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Because in holistic admissions, stats are only half the criterion for basis of admission.</p>
<p>Youve argued before that students should not be admitted based only on stats. So why are you arguing that applicants have enough data to decide to apply to a school, based only on schools reported stats.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Okie dokie. Got it. No accountability, no standards, no formula. Public universities admit whomever they like best. Makes sense to me. (eyeroll)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That ‘s how we end up with nepotism & cronyism in the awarding public contracts: no accountability</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is so off-base it is pathetic. The point isn’t about people wanting everything to be about THEM. Its about government employees allocating tax payer money on the basis of decisions using undisclosed criteria, and not having to answer for those decisions. If you cannot see the issue, I hope you are not a public employee in CA spending my tax dollars.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>bovertine…if you read my whole post, I was responding to calmom who said it was not a “rejection”, but rather just “not being selected”. I felt her use of words “not selected” was just putting lipstick on a pig. Because yes, not being selected is a rejection.</p>
<p>“Okie dokie. Got it. No accountability, no standards, no formula. Public universities admit whomever they like best. Makes sense to me. (eyeroll)”</p>
<p>Many public universities do admit by formula. Actually, nationwide probably most do - just not the ones the fan-boys/girls here like so much.</p>
<p>If you do not like the way your home-state public Us decide who to admit/reject, and if you do not like the way they give information about the decision-making process that they follow, this is not a forum where you will be able to effect any changes. You need to be communicating with your own state legislators and with the board of regents or board of governors or whatever it is called in your state.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m pretty sure the mission of my state’s university system is to provide the best education possible, not to get a football team to the Rose Bowl. If you are serious about expecting accountability from public institutions, you need to be consistent. You can’t say it’s OK to have subjective qualifications for one group of applicants but not others. And by the way every scholarship dollar that is offered to a running back is one that will not go to a first-generation farm kid.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Really? Gee, thanks happymom, but I was just responding to the OP’s question. I didn’t actually expect anyone reading my comments to change policy at my state universities. (eyeroll)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Because, for the umpteenth time, the holistic/subjective part of it is not quantifiable. Let’s say our kids have the same GPA and test scores. Mine has only one EC–violin–but has spent 20 hours a week on it since fourth grade. Yours has three ECs–soccer, karate, and guitar lessons–adding up to the same number of hours a week. How are (biased, human) adcoms going to decide in an OBJECTIVE way which kid to admit if they’re down to the last spot? Don’t you see the folly of this exercise?</p>
<p>Both our kids can choose to apply to the flagship, or not. Yours might say “you know? I think my martial-arts training reflects who I am and is what I want to right about in my essay,” while mine might submit an arts supplement with a DVD of her playing Shostakovich in her end-of-year recital. It may be the year the college is interested in self-aware kids with the discipline of martial-arts training. Or it may be the year there is some push to improve the student orchestra, and they need violinists. OR it may be just a “sense” the adcom gets from reading both applications–that one sincerely wants to attend and the other is just going through the motions. Or whatever! As earlier posters have said, if the process bothers you so much, take it up with your state legislators.</p>
<p>
Then the reporting task will be easy for the ones who admit by formula.</p>
<p>
**But the colleges ARE ALREADY quantifying the holistic/subjective part. ** We’ve already had the examples of UT, Duke & Columbia in this thread.</p>
<p>Essays, recs, EC’s, etc. are rated on a scale of 1-5 at Duke, and on a scale of 1-6 at Columbia.</p>
<p>A star football player will probably get a 6 for EC’s.<br>
A kid whose brags his best EC is that he empties his family’s recycling bin will probably get a 1.<br>
A kid who has to work after school to help his immigrant mom pay the rent will probably get a 6 for character.</p>
<p>That’s how it’s already done now.</p>
<p>sally, Athletic boosters at the big programs probably give to the athletic programs. I would imagine scholarship money is in different pools-athletes vs. general students. Of course, many schools (like Ivy) don’t give athletic scholarships. But most big state schools with strong athletic programs do. Top heavy with money to football and basketball .</p>
<p>GMT, what Duke and Columbia do has no relevance to this thread. And what I have been saying all along is that public institutions STILL have subjectivity in their rankings–even if they throw numbers at them. Have you ever had to interview job candidates according to some kind of grading rubric? Have you ever filled out a survey of “how satisfied you were with your experience at X conference” or whatever? WE ARE HUMAN and there is no way to take bias or preference or opinion out of every last living thing.</p>
<p>For those who are looking for information about how large public universities review applications - take a look at the colleges’ websites. Many admissions offices provide very clear and detailed explanations of their criteria and the evaluation process. Examples: Berkeley, Michigan. Colleges that do holistic review can’t provide a formula either before or after the student applies, but they can and do tell students what they’re looking for when they read.</p>