There are many in the same situation as your son. Totally understand your not wanting to pay taxes for this treatment. College admissions should be more predictable. Hard work and results should mean something. If admissions were more predictable students would not need to apply to more than 2 or 3 colleges. And that would help colleges too because they wouldn’t have to do yield management and predict who is likely to enroll and so on.
1 Like
most 1600 are not genius. My standard of genius is very high. most 1500+ also need hard work but on relatively easy materials.
2 Likes
Except if you’re high stats and competing for an impacted major then it gets more “holistic”.
One of the higher ranked players in the class, Reece Dixon-Waters graduated from high school early and joined the team in January so I think his ranking (#4 in California, #52 in the nation) was taken out of the class of 2022 rankings for some services. I think that explains the discrepancy in national rankings.
Yes… Exactly. Well said. Excellent post.
I’m from the UK, where for most unis, admission is VERY predictable - i.e. if you are predicted XXX at A-level (which will be on their website) you should get an offer.
I think the US system of more holistic admission is better.
At my school, there are very very strong students who get into top UK unis who, no offense to them, are a walking textbook - they sit at the back of the class and don’t contribute anything, have no passions or achievements outside of school, and don’t add anything to our school community. On the flip slide, you have very strong students who are capable of doing the work at top UK unis, but who are also vital parts of our school community ad make great, positive contributions and are great additions to the classroom, something all other students benefit from. I know who I’d rather have as a classmate in college.
I’m not saying that academics shouldn’t be the main factor - of course they should - but there are other things that make students more appealing or less appealing, which aren’t quantifiable and therefore make college admissions less predictable.
1 Like
@lemonlulu I agree, hence why I put it in quotes. I was just quoting another poster.
Right, impacted majors are even tougher - everywhere. But my point was about public schools in CA vs the rest of the country. They are an outlier. Not sure why CA residents mostly hang their hats on UC’s year after year, knowing the numbers as they are. Look out of state too, plenty of scholarships for CA kids to be had that makes it about the same price as a UC. It’s a totally saturated market.
If you lived in NC, or Michigan, or TX, or VA, you’d be in at your state school. Just not necessarily in CA.
1 Like
When I graduated from the University of Texas, which was many years ago, you had to have a certain class rank and a minimum SAT score.
Employers don’t do “holistic review”. They care about your ability to do the job and your ability to work in a team. Universities should not use a finer filter than employers.
1 Like
…Yes they do. Holistic just means they look at the whole applicant.
2 Likes
Maybe in the UK they do.
CA residents don’t hang our hats on getting into UC schools…but it is nice to pay in-state. Given the higher cost of living here, we tend to make more than the rest of the country - but are by no means well to do given housing costs, etc. But that works against us since many other states then disqualify us for scholarships/aid (and yes, I know there are merit scholarships that are not need based, but those are a lot fewer). Just trying to provide some perspective.
2 Likes
What?
“They care about your ability to do the job and your ability to work in a team.”
Universities care about who will be the best addition to their campus. They just don’t purely look at academics to determine that.
1 Like
What? Students aren’t there to decorate the campus. They are there to get an education. If they are capable to receive that education they they shouldn’t be denied it, not by a public university.
Some employers (esp high tech) still look for “good fit” they have you interview with multiple teams and groups
I saw that detail after my post, but thank you.
Yes. Students are there to get an education. So how well they contribute and what they are like in the classroom should also play a role.
You also learn a lot outside the classroom, in clubs, in discussions with passionate people in your dorms etc.
Again, go back to what I said here:
“At my school, there are very very strong students who get into top UK unis who, no offense to them, are a walking textbook - they sit at the back of the class and don’t contribute anything, have no passions or achievements outside of school, and don’t add anything to our school community. On the flip slide, you have very strong students who are capable of doing the work at top UK unis, but who are also vital parts of our school community ad make great, positive contributions and are great additions to the classroom, something all other students benefit from. I know who I’d rather have as a classmate in college.
I’m not saying that academics shouldn’t be the main factor - of course they should - but there are other things that make students more appealing or less appealing, which aren’t quantifiable and therefore make college admissions less predictable.”
Are you saying you would rather people who don’t contribute to classes then do in the classroom?
“I’m not saying that academics shouldn’t be the main factor - of course they should - but there are other things that make students more appealing or less appealing, which aren’t quantifiable and therefore make college admissions less predictable.” Unfortunately, there simply aren’t enough spaces for all qualified applicants. I get it though - it sucks.
2 Likes
The date was announced on USC Admissions Instagram—3/30
That is not the reason holistic reviews were introduced in the US. I am done with this discussion but if you’re interested you can read more here:
2 Likes