What Reforms in College Admission Do You Propose?

Applying to College
21

<p>Let's see, so far suggestions have included </p>

<p>a) limit applications to top schools, </p>

<p>b) eliminate college rankings, </p>

<p>c) expand online application, </p>

<p>d) have ED at all top colleges, for some of the class, </p>

<p>e) don't have ED, </p>

<p>f) make interviews mandatory, </p>

<p>g) get rid of the Common Application, </p>

<p>h) let students apply to as many top colleges as they want, </p>

<p>i) eliminate affirmative action (on basis of ethnicity), </p>

<p>j) get rid of top 10 percent high school student rules, </p>

<p>k) make no supplements to the Common Application, </p>

<p>and probably some other points I inadvertently forgot to list above. There is clash between a) and h) (and possibly c) and e) ) , between d) and e), and possibly between other pairings of these suggestions. Interestingly to me, there are some colleges today that fit almost any of the suggestions above, suggesting that everyone can get what they want already. What do you think? What other issues should we consider here?</p>

22

<p>Give true transparent realistic gender/ geographic distribution of acceptances/scores/GPA. </p>

<p>For example,
NE high schools that are over represented in applications in the NE, give a true breakdown of how many from NJ/NY/CT/MA applied and how many got in.</p>

<p>The area we are from have kids that were rejected at schools that they had well into and above the 75% range of scores, yet I have seen kids on here from the west coast that were in the 25-50% range get in or at the least waitlisted.</p>

23

<p>The common application is a reform, not a vice. I suspect that only rich students with a lot of time on their hands (or who can hire servants/advisors to do it for them) are the ones suggesting getting rid of it, just to pander to their elitism.</p>

24

<p>Most of the changes people are suggesting will not happen because they involve private colleges acting in the best interest of the marketplace. When push comes to shove in a competitive market, it's not in the best interest of the individual college to, for example, get rid of ED or limit the number of applications a student can apply to. </p>

<p>Until it is in the best interest of the college, change will not happen.</p>

25

<p>Less emphasis on standardized testing. More on recommendations, essays, and interview.</p>

26

<p>yeah stanardized testing is rediculous. doesn't prove anything besides how well you do on an exam/knowledge which personally doesn't add to a college environment per student. </p>

<p>Recommendations essays and interviews I THINK ARE KEY. Like when you apply to a job. They call your references, which in this case would be your counselors/teachers, etc. Obviously if teachers/counselors think highly of their students than they'd be able to not plan on paper what to say, and say it verbally. Especially if one teacher is giving out a lot of recommendations, that way the school can compare and contrast the students on the phone with that teacher.</p>

27

<p>
[quote]
yeah stanardized testing is rediculous. doesn't prove anything besides how well you do on an exam/knowledge which personally doesn't add to a college environment per student.</p>

<p>Recommendations essays and interviews I THINK ARE KEY. Like when you apply to a job.

[/quote]

The difference between schools and jobs are that schools are primarily academic while the vast majority of jobs aren't. Therefore, testing should play a role because it, though imperfect, is the most objective measure of one's academic competency. Interviews mostly depend on social skills while overvaluing recommendations would be flawed because:</p>

<ol>
<li><p>Unlike most employers, teachers only see a kid less than one hour a day, five days a week, for just 9 months.</p></li>
<li><p>Many schools don't have the resources to facilitate personal interaction with counselors. Mine has a ratio of hundreds of kids per counselor.</p></li>
</ol>

<p>I would also disagree about how "knowledge which personally doesn't add to a college environment" isn't important. While it would be nice to have interesting peers, you're not there to live in a social utopia. You're there to learn and the same initiative and abilities which help you on standardized testing in high school are important for examinations in college.</p>

28

<p>"When push comes to shove in a competitive market, it's not in the best interest of the individual college to, for example, get rid of ED or limit the number of applications a student can apply to."</p>

<p>It is an application of game theory -- it would be globally optimal to restrict but not locally optimal to do so.</p>

29

<p>
[quote]
Harvard, Yale, and Princeton have publicly discounted their costs, even for upper income families. With the new finaid policies, there is no reason NOT to ED. But, so they don't completely fill the class, I suggest a ED cap.

[/quote]
Yeah, and those 3 schools also don't have ED anymore because they don't need it to lower their acceptance rates. Ironically, the schools that still have ED are also the ones with shaky financial aid policies.</p>

30

<p>"Give true transparent realistic gender/ geographic distribution of acceptances/scores/GPA. </p>

<p>For example,
NE high schools that are over represented in applications in the NE, give a true breakdown of how many from NJ/NY/CT/MA applied and how many got in.</p>

<p>The area we are from have kids that were rejected at schools that they had well into and above the 75% range of scores, yet I have seen kids on here from the west coast that were in the 25-50% range get in or at the least waitlisted."</p>

<p>Ditto, ditto and ditto.......and while you are at it, it's not just the West Coast who has the advantage...add the South......</p>

31

<p>I'll bite, this topic is near and dear to my heart and no sour grapes as D got in everywhere she applied except UGA where she only did EA and elected not to complete the RD app, so here goes:</p>

<p>All schools rolling admissions and on the same schedule:
Accept apps Starting in September
One uniform scholarship/honors program app date (January 15th?)
By March 1st all scholarships & Fin Aid must be offered (with option to add more after April 1st)
Keep May 1st as decision notification date</p>

<p>Other ideas:
Remove all questions/boxes from apps regarding race/ethinic background, sex and intentions to apply for financial aid.
Additionally, have a two-pronged, separate but equally weighted, review of each app -
Part #1-gpa, test scores, class rank, rigor of curriculum chosen
Part #2-ECs, essays, teacher recs, other</p>

<p>Actually UGA's method is great(except they are not rolling admissions) but it is the only school I know that does it that way (although I am sure there are more)->
UGA's EA (non-binding) is just test scores, gpa/transcripts, couselor's letter/form(if I remember correctly), one notification date for all and it is either admit or deferred.
Those that elect to have a go at RD after being deferred can then submit essays, ECs, recs, etc. and then there is one notification date with that too.</p>

<p>I am sure I will think of more ideas but those are the biggies right now.</p>

<p>I'd also like to see a "Suggested Reforms for High Schools Preparing Students for College" thread... :)</p>

32

<p>My biggest problem, not necesarily with admissions, is college prices.</p>

33

<p>Yeah that TOO!!!</p>

34

<p>
[quote]
The difference between schools and jobs are that schools are primarily academic while the vast majority of jobs aren't. Therefore, testing should play a role because it, though imperfect, is the most objective measure of one's academic competency. Interviews mostly depend on social skills while overvaluing recommendations would be flawed because:</p>

<ol>
<li><p>Unlike most employers, teachers only see a kid less than one hour a day, five days a week, for just 9 months.</p></li>
<li><p>Many schools don't have the resources to facilitate personal interaction with counselors. Mine has a ratio of hundreds of kids per counselor.</p></li>
</ol>

<p>I would also disagree about how "knowledge which personally doesn't add to a college environment" isn't important. While it would be nice to have interesting peers, you're not there to live in a social utopia. You're there to learn and the same initiative and abilities which help you on standardized testing in high school are important for examinations in college.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>In my response, I see the point to your argument, which makes me retract my answer and say that I guess testing would be better suited as optional. The top schools that seek high test scores, or naturally have a student body with high test scores often more than not seek diversity as well. how else do you tell apart 1600's from another 1600? this is were test scores reach a limit. the simple fact that someone who got a 1200 out of 1600 isnt considered competitive doesn't mean that person should be disqualified or not taken serious. a 1200 doesnt mean that person wouldn't be able to manage college level work at a top university, nor does it mean they'll succeed.</p>

<p>in terms of personality, i was also referring to the need for diversity. if you're learning for the sake of learning, you're most likely to learn from people who aren't like you than someone who is. a different personality adds more to a class than someone who is the exact same person as you on paper, or who has the same views of life as you do. i'm not saying that you wont learn from people who are like you, because you will, i'm just saying that you're bound to learn more from someone who isn't like you.</p>

35

<p>Pretty much every person favors reforms that would benefit them personally. People with high stats and low ECs want a numbers-driven process with no "holistic" admissions. Applicants who belong to no minority want to do away with Affirmative Action. Kids with no legacy affiliation want legacy abolished. People with strong ECs and low SATs want standardized testing done away with or at least given less emphasis, and so on.</p>

36

<p>Actually I think the converse is true - people who benefit from special circumstances/classes/extra weight to a given area want to KEEP those "extra advantages" to their given category. Since we are talking about academia I believe that all "academic" criteria(gpa, test scores, ECs, leadership accomplishments, ability to communicate) should be considered but equally and all non-academic criteria (race/sex/financial status) should be ignored. D would not have benefited any different were those things to have been removed as she got into all her schools, but I just don't see how race/sex/financial status have any bearing on either the potential for academic success or on the learning environment. Afterall, the brain doesn't have a race or a wallet and some would argue that the brain doesn't have a sex either.</p>

37

<br>


<br>

<p>Of course people wish to keep their own advantages. It's another form of the same thing I was saying - keep your own advantages and/or take away the advantages of others. Either way it is simple self-interest.</p>

38

<p>
[quote]
Applicants who belong to no minority want to do away with Affirmative Action.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I fit a minority - female going into engineering.</p>

<p>I still want to get rid of race/sex based AA.</p>

39

<p>Terminate athletic scholarships and impose real standards on admission - make it more difficult for those at the bottom of the GPA/score ranges to get in, and eliminate weak majors and courses that cater to these people.</p>

40

<p>I suggest allowing state grants (such as Cal Grant from FAFSA) to be transferable to colleges outside of that state. If you are going to pursue an education in the U.S., should states really care which state you are going to pursue one in? I lost 9.8k in Cal Grant just because I am going to Columbia University.</p>