What you say would be sort of correct on weighted scales only in the sense that a percentage can correlate to a specific non-integer. However, for unweighted for grades, an A is a 4, B is a 3, etc and some schools, namely Clemson, were using that convention to convert the grades to a baseline GPA. NC was only an example provided by the state, though many other states had already transitioned to 10 point scales causing the same problem.
My example in theory was someone who say got 92 percent in all classes, which would have been a 3.0 unweighted GPA in SC, but in some other states would have been a 4.0 by that convention.
The typical high school grading scale of 90% or 93% = A does mean that high school teachers will load up graded items (tests, assignments, etc.) with easier stuff so that C students can get 70% or 79% of the stuff correct, so that the distinction between C, B, and A students is in only a small part of the graded material. Obviously, the 7% grade ranges do this even more than 10% grade ranges.
Where are you getting the impression that the schools in the US, whether they practice holistic admission are not, graduate engineers that are better at the oboe than physics? That’s patently untrue. Engineering majors have a lot of weed out courses including calculus and physics and then another 1 or 2 more weed out in their major. For Mech E’s and Civil engineers building the bridges, it’s typically a course in structural mechanics, and if they don’t do well in the class, they’re switching majors or becoming oboe players. In the good old days when I went, early 80s, the toughest engineering majors where Nuclear and Aeronautical, and trust me on this, they know more about physics than the oboe.
I think the suggestion was that some US colleges admit engineers on the basis of their oboe skills (or athletic ability or legacy status) rather than simply their aptitude for physics. It’s hard to describe that statement as “patently untrue”.
Thanks for the background on that. But in the US aren’t they in college to learn? They don’t have to already know all the physics if they can learn it in class. And no problem if they play some oboe or flute on the side.
Interestingly, the merit scholarships at both schools are heavily touted by the CC at D22’s school here in the UK, and 2-3 years ago, one of D22’s classmates snagged a Robertson.
Students certainly don’t have to know all the physics (BTW, no one ever does) to learn physics. However, they do need certain aptitude and preparations to learn it. Not only they need to be very good at math, but they also need to have very good physical intuition (and sometimes, counter-intuition) to succeed. There’s a good reason AP Physics C is often considered the hardest class in most US high schools and viewed favorably by AOs for those applicants who aspire to major in physical sciences or engineering.
Imagine if you had to pick a 5 person team to compete in a 100m sprint competition.
Option 1 is to time how long every entrant takes to run 100m in a try out and then pick the 5 with the quickest times.
Option 2 is to pick 5 who can run 100m within a predefined time but can also play an instrument to play the national anthem to cut the costs of hiring extra musicians at the competition.
AP physics C is hard probably because it is designed to be and typically taught before the students have sufficient mathematical knowledge. I.e. it is listed by the College Board to be taught concurrently with single variable calculus, while college calculus-based physics is typically started after the student has completed at least a semester of calculus (and the course with E&M typically has at least a corequisite of multivariable calculus).
I know y’all are making a point about how trivial musical knowledge is in the hard sciences.
But I’ve hired engineers during my career- lots of them- and at a certain point, being able to work in a team becomes MORE important than technical knowledge. You can have the highest scores, top grades, be the most brilliant whatever- the point was made earlier about building a bridge so let’s take civil engineers-- and still be an utter failure at work.
There is no credible employer of civil engineers who hands off responsibility for design, site evaluation, material specs and sourcing, not to mention build and post- construction evaluation to ONE engineer, no matter how brilliant he or she may be. Big design/infrastructure firms have a team of people staffed on a project. Being able to communicate, sublimate your own ego, understand when another engineers solution is safer or more cost-effective than yours, taking direction but pushing back when you have better data than someone else (i.e. teamwork) is ESSENTIAL. Not trivial- essential.
Ditto in aero/astro. So sure- laugh about how ridiculous it is that in the US having musical talent is a consideration, but in the UK it’s not. But there is zero evidence that the UK educational system is producing engineers and scientists at a significantly higher/better trained level than the US.
Why? A HS kid who is strong in physics AND played flute in a youth orchestra already understands teamwork (even if she can’t articulate what that means). And ditto for all the other “extraneous” things you guys believe shouldn’t be part of admissions. Calculus may be a solo endeavor, but using calculus or any other analytical tool to build, design, construct, repair, etc. is a team sport.
I don’t want to take a cancer medication developed by one person, tested by one person, no matter how brilliant. And I certainly don’t want to drive over a bridge where one person was in charge of the 40 different functional elements which go into bridge construction.
Of course, the analogues of US college admission stats would be:
Option 1: submit past 100m competition times and placements, even though they may have been in varying conditions (weather, running surface, level of competition, etc.). (analogous to HS courses, grades, and rank)
Option 2: go to a standardized testing facility and have things like stride length, vertical ratio, etc. measured to be submitted. (analogous to SAT and ACT)
Agree 100%. It took time and effort to apply in the dark ages…before you could add an application to a reach school by clicking a mouse and paying $75. US News and other rankings were driven by the total number of rejections more than by any significant change in ability. Sure, there are more international students, but they aren’t the reason for low admittance rates.
U of Chicago is a great school, but the amount of mail we received from them 8 years ago for one child was outlandish. It was something every week. You look at a school like Colby, who in the last 6 or 7 years (since they hired a new President and Admissions director) has become so much more “competitive”…by eliminating test requirements, eliminating essays, and eliminating application fees…are they really getting more qualified applicants, or are they amassing rejections in the name of selectivity?
It would be really interesting to see how many Ivy League applications would evaporate if they required students to submit hand-written applications in booklets they published. Acceptance rate would skyrocket, and I’d bet they would welcome 95%+ of the exact same kids to school in the fall. At that point…I think we’d be at the point where 80% of the students are “qualified”. Not a chance we’re even close today.
With so many kids running non-profits and curing cancer, how is it bragging to talk about that? LOL
As I noted, context is important. Significant difference between what you say on call app or college/job interview than what you can in casual conversation or on a message board. Ultimately, not all bragging is equal. But I totally get that some people believe that holistic admissions is viewed by some as one of the greatest evils of all time.
Completely agree. At the very top (HYPSM and a few others), once you understand the actual admissions criteria, I’d bet way more than 50% of applications are throwaways.
“Qualified” as in “able to do the work in college and graduate” is a far lower bar than the bar set competitively for admission to most of the most selective colleges. Only at a few colleges with highly rigorous general education requirements (e.g. Caltech) is it the case that a substantially higher minimum academic standard is required to get students who are “able to do the work in college and graduate”. Of course, Caltech does holistic evaluation, but with a much greater emphasis on finding those “able to do the work at Caltech and graduate”; it also apparently does not find the usual US standardized tests to be useful in making this evaluation.
It’s a small sample set, but everyone I know that applied to CalTech submitted AMC-10/12 and AIME scores to show their math talent. The SAT math section has too low a ceiling to differentiate between applicants.
If this were the case, then there would not be a system to allow for the social engineering that is so strongly desired by the academic elites. The system would be a meritocracy which is against all that is politically correct. The current system allows them to “shape” the class as they deem acceptable and not have accountability for discriminatory practices. It allows them to pick “winners” and “losers” based on a series of mysterious non-academic factors.
How do you know? A quick glance at SCOIR from our HS reveals relatively few “unqualified” students applying to these schools. For example, over a 4 year period about 70 kids applied to Harvard (and that’s many more than applied to any other Ivy during that same time frame - probably because of name). About 15 could be considered real “moon shot” candidates - the rest (all but one rejected) were kids with 3.8+ UW GPAs (and W of 4.4+) and SAT’s north of 1450. The same is true for all the Ivies and in most cases the kids applying to those are even stronger - maybe 1 or 2 kids with dubious qualifications. I don’t doubt that the ease of submitting applications on-line has increased applications significantly but it may be a stretch to suggest kids that are applying are not qualified.
But not Option 3 (the Oxbridge method), where you travel to an elite national training camp at which the best coaches in the country test, observe and interview you to assess your talent, motivation and coachability in order to understand if you are capable of reaching the Olympics.
15/70 had no real shot. That’s 21%. If they had to write an app by hand, they wouldn’t have wasted anyone’s time, most importantly their own.
Of the remaining 55, let’s say that 1/3rd really didn’t have much of a shot. They may squeek into the range…but they aren’t going to play the flute or a sport…they are good students without a lot going on. If you had 18 to the 15 above, you’re close to half of the applicants who really, honestly, have no shot. They know it, but for $75 and maybe one essay…why not.
That math makes the acceptance rate at your school for Harvard roughly half of what it would be for honestly qualified students to apply. The quality of kid from your high school hasn’t changed. The 1 kid who got in was going to get in with a 5% acceptance rate or a 10% acceptance rate at Harvard.
Being inside the 25th percentile on SAT alone doesn’t make you a qualified candidate for a school. Believing that helps drive acceptance rates lower. If you live in a town where 15+ kids each year apply to Harvard, you’re going to need more than just an SAT score in the range.
