I’m old enough to remember the draft and the lottery- which at the height of the war meant getting shipped off to Viet Nam if you got a bad lottery number.
Seriously- it’s hard for a kid to figure out that if the GC says take foreign language you should take it- when there is the internet (didn’t exist back in he day), zillions of publications and blogs and websites dealing with college admissions (didn’t exist back in the day) and even the college’s own website which shows what you need to take???
The boys in my HS class who went off to Viet Nam- props to them. They were a mixed bag- some from military families who were motivated by patriotism, some hadn’t done well enough in HS to qualify for any sort of educational deferment and not interested in fleeing to Canada. But I think over a period of the years when the lottery was in effect, there were likely ZERO kids who did not know what you had to do (if you chose to) to avoid serving. Conscientious Objector, Ed deferment, Canada, finding a doctor to give you a diagnosis of something or other (remember bone spurs? That was a thing. Along with idiopathic asthma, severe migraines, several new forms of psychosis. Very popular).
In an age with no internet where every 18 year old teenager understood what to do and what order to do it in- or get drafted and sent overseas-- everyone figured it out. And we’re going to assume that “kids today” who are college bound can’t figure out that there are going to be academic requirements to attend college? The generation that goes on Yelp to buy a sandwich, or uses a mapping app to buy a cup of coffee can’t google “What are the requirements to attend City College” or “Do I need a foreign language to get admitted to U Mass Boston”?
They probably don’t need to know at age 14 if a college needs 4 years of foreign language but they probably should know that they should be taking a foreign language course in grade 9 (which would be easy to do if it was a mandatory requirement).
I think the AOs can make good decisions based upon considerations outside of SAT/ACT. I think the problem here is that the students can’t. If everyone applying and admitted is taking one of two tests, you can compare your score to get a general sense of how you compare. If 40% go TO, a sampling bias is introduced and it becomes more difficult to know how you compare. This doesn’t affect the admissions decision, but it does affect how applicants budget their resources/time and choose schools.
An unhooked kid may have better than average #s compared to enrolled students, but if their chances at any one of HYPSM is 5%, don’t waste your time. Focus on the next ten schools that match your goals. But if those chances are 15-20%, it’s worth a shot.
Is the guidance counselor saying “don’t worry about college until junior year”? I don’t think so. Even a rural, under-resourced HS has the vocational track and the “not vocational” whether it’s called college prep, or just plain vanilla “Graduation requirements”. And if the HS offers a foreign language, a kid is going to know that NOT taking it is a decision with consequences.
I cut gym for four years in HS. It was mandatory for a HS diploma in my state, and there were consequences to my decision. I knew it was mandatory- everyone did.
We have students every year who decide in March that they want to go to college in the fall and begin asking questions about how to apply - even though our school details everything out starting freshman year and increases that junior and fall of senior years including everything from applications to financial aid.
Those aren’t our brightest and best students TBH. They usually end up at cc or take a year off without necessarily applying the next year.
Our bright students ask questions from teachers and guidance as well as friends/family. It’s not super common to turn to the internet as a first source about college in general, only when they start looking at specific colleges.
Every other day there is a post from a parent confused about the FL requirements. Apparently, many people have difficulty with this. Yes, I too remember the draft, and a whole lot of parents were involved in getting medical waivers, education deferment, or cushy assignments in the national guard. Let’s not pretend kids figured that out on their own. They did not.
Most high schools have sample 8 semester plans they give to kids: non-college prep, college prep, honors/advanced track. And college prep track usually shows 4 years of math, science, English and FL with 3-4 of social sciences/history.
It’s far more than 50%. For example, in the Harvard sample ~92% of non-ALDC/non-URM kids had a high 1-2 academic. I imagine the remaining 8% really excelled in a combination of non-academic factor, but for the typical unhooked admit a 1-2 academic is standard. In contrast, only 25% of admitted athletes received the standard 1-2 academic. Of course not everyone with a standard 1-2 academic is admitted. The admit rate for unhooked applicants with a 1-2 academic was only ~14%. So I think it’s safe to say that most of the 25% of athletes with a 1-2 academic would not have been admitted without their hook. It might be as low as 10% admitted without hook.
Consistent with this, Harvard’s expert did an analysis showing how his model predicted that the admitted class would change, if there were no hooks besides a boost for lower SES kids. He predicted the following changes among admitted kids:
Harvard Admitted Class Changes without Hooks Except for Lower SES
Athletes – Decreases by 93%
Legacy – Decreases by 71%
Dean/Director’s List – Decreases by 69%
Black – Decreases by 51%
Faculty/Staff Kids – Decreases by 28%
Hispanic – Decreases by 12%
Humanities Majors – Decreases by 10%
White – Decreases by 5%
Female – Decreases by 2%
Biology Majors – Increases by 9%
Engineering Majors – Increases by 10%
Physics Majors – Increases by 12%
Asian – Increases by 43%
So the question then becomes, do you value diversity and the notion that exposure to different backgrounds, cultures, interests is good…or do you make it a statistical challenge for winners and losers.
If the Ivies went pure math and the selective LAC’s held on to diversity…applications at the Ivies would fall and Williams would be even harder to get into.
I’m not sure that’s true. Part of the cachet of the Ivys is the belief that they represent the epitome of academic excellence. If they went strictly admission by the numbers, that belief would just be further reinforced (and it would be more accurate).
I think this thread and the “chance me” threads both get to the heart of why some of us hang out here on CC. There is a lot of misinformation out there about college, not the least of which is the whole “HYPSM” “Top 20” blah blah blah defining who you are and what you are worth. It pervades a lot of schools, social networks, and families.
We hang out here to try to counter those destructive story lines. To quote the ever wise Steak-umm Twitter account, “If you really want to curb misinformation and reach people with the best available data, don’t look down your nose at them. it’s one thing to criticize sources of misinformation, it’s another to attack or patronize victims of it. the messenger is often as important as the message”
Foreign language requirements vary by college. UMass only requires two years. But for the most selective college, you need to be on the 4 year track from the beginning.
This may be why some high school districts, particularly those with substantial numbers of students from lower SES and/or non-college-educated parent families, have made their graduation requirements align with the minimum entrance requirements for state universities (which also improves the students’ non-specialized readiness for other post-high-school destinations, including community college, skilled trade education, or enlisted military service).
Wasn’t the draft system in use then widely criticized for unfairness, in that higher SES parents had much better access to knowledge and connections that can help getting the various deferments or disqualification from mandatory military service? Of course, to the extent that college enrollment skewed toward higher SES parents, that itself was a way that helped those with higher SES parents to avoid the draft more than those with lower SES parents.
It is not a matter of valuing those things, which I greatly do. The question is, is it legal to do it the way Harvard does under the current law as written.
You probably grew up in a more affluent neighborhood than I did. There weren’t a lot of parents in my part of town who knew how any of this operated (I know zero boys who went to the National Guard, for example- that WAS a hack that required parental intervention since the Guard did not recruit at my HS for reasons I don’t understand…) But the chem teacher (who was arrested at one point for a protest he ran at a navy recruiting office, the history teacher (an elderly radical/hippy type), the guidance counselors, etc- they were the underground railroad for draft deferrals and worked with the gym teachers making sure athletes got benched in time to claim an injury consistent with a medical waiver down the road…
But my point- is it hard in the age of the internet to find out the minimum requirements to do ANYTHING these days?
Yes, the draft was widely criticized for unfairness. And was replaced by no draft (today’s system) which is MONSTROUSLY unfair, with enlisted personnel coming from the bottom quartiles economically and socially.
But isn’t legacy preference anti-diversifying, in that it boosts groups that are already overrepresented (in the case of Harvard, those from very high SES families and who have other family advantages)?