I would also say that many schools don’t emphasize the things that the article laments but why should several thousand schools across the country have any single criteria for admission that they all use?
Just stop making kids think they have to go to an Ivy League school or other top 50 school to succeed. De-emphasize rankings. Emphasize fit.
No one “makes” kids think they have to go to Ivies et al except for stupid parents.
Increased weighting of interviews in college admissions would probably increase the “noise”. A college will not have enough interviewers to allow for any one to interview a significant percentage of applicants (so there will be lack of consistency), and the typical reliance on alumni volunteers means that it has less control over what each interviewer looks for (note the college interview stories that have been posted on these forums).
I wish I could agree with that, but unfortunately a student’s peers do a pretty good job of intimidating, especially at schools where the parents (yes) stress cutthroat competition. I’ve seen more than one situation in which the student was doing a better job handling pushy parents than coping with peers who mock and categorize. Just saying…
All nine current members of SCOTUS are Ivy graduates (law schools and in some cases UG too). POTUS and FLOTUS. In fact, every POTUS since Reagan can be associated with one of these schools.
If it doesn’t really matter whether you go to any Ivy or not, if it is meaningless and therefore anyone who thinks so is “stupid”, then I can’t reconcile that. If there isn’t a club or a ruling class that you either belong to or you don’t, based on who gets into these schools, then the above could never happen.
So there aren’t enough spots for everyone with perfect stats? I personally think that there are levels of ability within that group, and that those levels could be measured if there was an interest in measuring them. I think if the process were changed so that those differences were measured, most people would be more content with the process. People would be more satisfied with the process and could live with the outcome if they know it is designed based principles of meritocracy.
http://nypost.com/2016/02/07/former-yale-admissions-officer-reveals-secrets-of-who-
“Emmanuela was muscled out of the running by some superstars in her class…Years later…she did impressive work organizing Harlem tenants against a local slumlord. After graduation, she wanted to improve the lot of low-wage earners like her mother, and she became a widely respected union organizer and leader for health-care workers. In 2013, she ran for lieutenant governor of New Jersey on the Democratic ticket. WE MISSED A REAL GEM.”
This isn’t about running out of spots for everyone with perfect stats. It is about advancing a certain agenda. Certainly we aren’t making spots for anyone interested in advancing any conservative political causes. We have to make more spots for social justice warriors. We don’t want to stress these gems out with AP classes. They have more important work to do.
@LOUKYDAD #705: Huh? Since when does the existence of one example prove an anti-conservative agenda? Isn’t it possible for people on both the hard right and hard left to be brilliant? And, of course, if you pick one example from one of them, you’ll have not picked an example from the other—that doesn’t mean you’re discounting the other, it’s just the way logic works.
@dfbdfb, is this young woman “brilliant”? Explain to me why you think she is.
She’s a go-getter. That’s an admirable characteristic. It so happens she’s a go- getter for causes that are more liberal, but that’s not the point at all.
As far as I know, there is no legal barrier to the creation of private colleges with this as a primary goal. Indeed, I think a few of these exist already.
“but that’s not the point at all.”
Sure it is. It is so obvious to the author of the article and his audience that he didn’t even feel the need to explain it. She is busy with the right things, and therefore a “gem”.
“As far as I know, there is no legal barrier to the creation of private colleges with this as a primary goal. Indeed, I think a few of these exist already.”
A new Ivy for the children of the bitter clingers! Yes I like the idea. If it existed, it would be a bit more challenging to destroy the brand for the sake of these SJWs, wouldn’t it?
You don’t think the colleges that prominent conservatives attended make a big deal about them as alumni?
That a selective school wouldn’t be thrilled to get a future Bennett or Reagan or Bush or whatever?
I agree that the girl in the example was a gem because she went on to big things in politics (well, she ran…she didn’t win. but whatever). I don’t think it’s because she did it on the left side of the political spectrum.
I am sure Princeton and Harvard are very proud of Ted Cruz. Debate champion. Editor of Harvard Law Review. Off the charts brilliant.
The Ivy League, especially Harvard, Yale and Princeton, have long looked for leadership.
That’s (arguably) much rarer than high test scores.
In my opinion–which you need not ascribe to-- the institutions don’t educate leaders. They admit leaders, at least those whose test scores are high enough. (High enough, not perfect.) Attending HYP will not transform a follower into a leader.
For all the talk about “leadership” which stretches it beyond its bounds, such as being a good person, “leadership” in this sense means having the capacity to be elected to national office.
If Ted Cruz wins the election, I’m sure Princeton and Harvard will be quick to reach out to him. The other Ivy-affiliated candidates are:
Hillary Clinton (Yale Law)
Donald Trump (Wharton)
Dr. Ben Carson (Yale undergrad)
Interesting to note that George W. Bush attended Yale, but Jeb Bush attended the University of Texas.
We’ll see if the pattern holds. However, it’s not that HYP accept high test scores, and end up by accident with leaders. With the exception of Carson and Cruz, I’d be surprised if the other candidates’ test scores were outstanding.
I am sure that if they had rejected him, they’d now be sorry, yes.
Are you claiming code words, then? 'Cause that’s the only way I can see you getting that reading from that quote.
People are wired differently. They enjoy and excel at different things. I really think it’s a mistake to emphasize any one personal quality, such as leadership skills or go-getter traits, over others for the purposes of elite school admissions. If the top schools truly want to attract brilliant people who will go on to do brilliant things in a great variety of endeavors, then why do they seem to choose the same personality type? They clearly select for a certain ambitious, take-charge “type” of kid, and yet it seems these schools are now lamenting the fact they get too many of the same type of student. Personally, I think there is an overemphasis on demonstrating leadership and service to the community. Some really amazing students with a lot of knowledge to contribute are sometimes behind-the-scenes people who prefer reading in their bedrooms to ladling soup in a soup kitchen.
https://www.insidehighered.com/views/2016/02/11/should-it-take-more-kindness-get-college-essay
More talk about college admissions.
Harvard is happy to have conservatives as well as liberals. At one of my college reunions Grover Norquist and Patrick Deval (both in my class) had a lively debate.
I believe there are currently more conservatives in Congress who attended Congress than liberals.
According to the Daily Beast as of 2014:
Tom Cotton (Ark.)
Ben Sasse (Neb.)
Dan Sullivan (Ak.)
Elise Stefanik (NY)
Ted Cruz (Tex.)
Pat Toomey (Penn.)
David Vitter (La.)
Mike Crapo (Wyo.)
TheGFG, there isn’t an expectation that everyone do the exact same thing. If everyone ladles soup in soup kitchens, the child with a different list of activities will be more interesting.
I’d say the document calls for more authentic activities, with less stage-managing by parents and paid advisors. Rather than burnishing an SAT from 2170 to 2200, use the testing and cram time to do something more interesting. Don’t push children to try to outdo their peers by the sheer number of activities. Don’t assume competitive activities are more interesting to colleges than selfless acts.
If a child wants to become an Egyptologist, don’t pressure her to become a neurologist. She may have better chances applying to highly selective colleges with an unusual interest, than as an unhappy premed who longs for “the path not taken (because not allowed by the parents.)”