<p>Facetious? Nah, I believe most of what I say. Unrealistic? That's more like it.</p>
<p>Right from your first post, that's what I assumed, given your proposals. I'll say that you couldn't have picked a better username.</p>
<p>You're asserting that of course potential is a better measure because it tells what someone can do rather than what they did do, and then stating that the best way to judge potential is to see what someone has done in the past. Which doesn't make any sense.</p>
<p>A person is not the sum of all the data about their past.</p>
<p>Potential is also not necesarily the top thing they look for. 'Do they have top-notch potential and are they fulfulling that potential?' is more important in the top colleges' minds.</p>
<p>There's no logic error, despite the way you flip the words. To try and judge someone's potential, you'll want to look from as many angles as possible, including looking at what they did do. I'm all for that. I'm opposed to solely looking at what they did do, without regard to context or potential. </p>
<p>I agree that a person is not the sum of all the data about their past. But they are closer that than they are a GPA+SAT score.</p>
<p>In my ideal admissions process, it's not exactly potential that they're looking for... it's how well is the applicant going to do in college and beyond, which is definitely affected by more factors than just potential.</p>
<p>When I talk about earned vs. potential, I'm more expressing dismay at the emphasis placed on outdated information. How well a person was doing in school six months ago is relevant to their performance six months in the future; how well they did in a class three years ago is not. In a situation where someone has shown growth, the outdated information should be discarded. Period.</p>
<p>bird, I'm not saying potential is the top thing they look for, I'm saying it ought to be. And in my view, people who aren't fulfilling their potential don't have much in the first place.</p>
<p>You've already defined context as a life history from birth to present. That = what someone did do. If you'd like to change your definition of context to "factors in a person's life beyond their control", you might have a slightly more valid point. What <em>specific</em> information (not "everything") do you think colleges should have that they don't already or that an applicant wouldn't already tell them if they thought it was significant?</p>
<p>Extracurriculars, teacher recommendations, interviews, and essays all tell more about who a person is and how they'll do in college than a fact sheet about their history does. Oh, my mistake... you want to eviscerate essays as any kind of meaningful information. As they stand now, essays are the only real chance applicants get to state their own case as a person and not just a data set, which could not happen if you took away the chance to be thoughtful.</p>
<p>I don't know where you're getting that definition. No, life history is life history, context is context. Scoring a 1600 in the ghetto is not the same thing as scoring a 1600 at a top private school. That's context. </p>
<p>Specific pre-high school information? How about socio-economic history, previous schools (hell, grades don't even matter, but environment does). Those things are important, but even unimportant things can only help give a well-rounded view of the applicant.</p>
<p>I know lots of teachers who let applicants write their own recommendations. Even honest teacher recommendations are so inflated that they're nearly worthless. Uncontrolled essays as I said before, are also just not truthworthy. Extracurriculars and interviews I got no beef with.</p>
<p>you have to trust that the applicants will be honest, which is why they also sign a statement saying that all of the above info is true. the admissions essay, in my opinion, is supposed to be a glimpse into your soul. it's impossible to write what you truly feel in a timed setting. it took me literally around 20x the amount of time it took me to write the essay to come up with an approach to the side of myself I wanted to display. I lost a lot of sleep just thinking about what portion of me I should share with the admissions officers. how many writers have deadlines? journalists don't count, as their submissions are supposed to be purely objective. as for mass-editing or the purchase of an essay, the voice just doesn't seem right.</p>
<p>Your words: "Colleges would get a <em>complete</em> life story of the applicant from birth- not just high school."</p>
<p>That's history. Context as defined by ghetto vs. private school is information schools already have. Care to try again?</p>
<p>I never said teacher recommendations were particularly valuable (and I don't think the current admissions process treats them as such), I said they were more valuable than information about someone's distant past.</p>
<p>If someone wants to tell a school "my 9th grade GPA sucked because when I was 13 I went to a horrible middle school/my father died/I had cancer," there's nothing stopping them. I think a better solution would be realizing that 9th and 10th grade are often worthless information.</p>
<p>History is full of context. </p>
<p>Ghetto vs. private school was just an obvious example of context and why it matters. Yes, they already have that information, but I don't feel that they give context like that enough credit. Instead colleges simply use affirmative action, and act like they've paid all their dues to society.</p>
<p>If 9th and 10th grade are worthless information, what is relevant? First semester senior year grades? Everything else is just the worthless past, right?</p>
<p>I said often worthless. Schools should still have that information from 9th and 10th grade, but they need to look at it a different way--as much, much less important than where someone is now.</p>
<p>Look when I say that colleges should look at more than high school, I'm not saying they should be basing decisions on 6th grade grades, or even that 9th grade grades are that important. I just think that there is a lot more to a person's character than the extra-curriculars they do in high school and some overpolished essays. </p>
<p>How they got here gives context to the <em>present</em>.</p>
<p>BigBrother: Should parents be allowed an essay or opportunity to write? Should the appliction be a video clip with documentation?</p>
<p>Parents writing about their kids is even less trustworthy than teachers writing about their kids. I wouldn't be opposed to the parents talking about <em>themselves</em> to help give more background to the kid.</p>
<p>Should the application be a video clip? Sure, why not have a video tape of the interview?</p>
<p>My simplified thoughts on the issue for anyone confused with what I'm trying to say.</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Current admissions policies don't give enough credit to the context of the applicant and any future potential.</p></li>
<li><p>Essays are extremely unreliable and quite often not a judge of the applicant's true writing ability. Human history is evidence enough against the honor system.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>Essays are NOT meant to be only a judge of writing ability. That's determined more by SAT II writing, AP English classes, AP exam scores, etc.</p>
<p>Essay are more importantly to showcase an applicants personality and give a human face to the application. A timed essay in a "controlled environment" would not allow the majority of the applicants to effectively achieve that goal.</p>
<p>I agree with you on the first point. The fact that they look at high school and very little else will probably help me quite a bit. I moved from a very good suburban school system in Texas to a much more rural and weak system in Alabama between 8th and 9th grade, so colleges aren't getting a holistic picture of my history.</p>
<p>However, regarding point 2, what exactly is going to replace the essay (for what it's used, which is to find out really <em>who</em> this person is that wants to go to school X)?</p>
<p>I'm not arguing to replace the essay, I'm arguing that they should be written in controlled circumstances (like the SAT II writing). It'll produce rougher results, but it will more advantage those with actual writing talent.</p>
<p>(In #2 I meant essays in the current process, not essays in general)</p>