AOs at holistic schools are not ‘passing judgment’ on applicants. They are educated and trained by senior enrollment managers as to what the school wants an incoming class to look like. What the school wants in terms of class composition (and net revenues) is defined by the college’s senior leadership, and at some schools also by the faculty committee. I agree that the lack of transparency in college admissions is frustrating for some families/applicants.
US schools feel comfortable dropping test scores because data show they are only very slightly correlated with success in college. Given the many inequities in K-12 education in the US, it is an easy decision for many schools to go test optional or test blind.
“Holistic” admissions was begun as a way to keep Jews out of Harvard, since the smart, hardworking, Jewish boys were outperforming Biff, Skip, and Chip Christian on the admissions exam. In some ways, it hasn’t changed. These days, it’s promoting the entry of under-represented minority students with lower academic credentials, while keeping out students of Asian descent.
We shouldn’t allow it, because US tax policies subsidize the institutions that are doing this. Eventually, the Supreme Court will rule against this. Whatever other regressive horrors that come from this court, this may finally be the court that rights this wrong.
I miss the days when only 5-10 people got 1600 on the SAT each year and where a 1400 (and a 3.8/4.0) put you in the frame for Princeton. Less stressful because no one really aimed for 1600 given its rarity. Nowadays, a 1570 might prompt a retest because “so many people” get a 1600.
If they’re going to go back to their countries for university, why do they have to participate in sports, music, etc, if they don’t want to? It won’t matter there, so it makes no sense TBH.
Almost all of ours return to their home countries for one more year and then continue on to college there. They’d love to do college here, but the cost difference keeps them in their own country. Foreign students are almost always full pay here. If it were less expensive here they’d come back for college because they love all the colleges here offer too and are rather jealous of our students with their options. However, like many in the US, cost matters and paying 250K for an education is not always a wise budget choice even if affordable.
For a few wealthy students, they stay. One happily went to Penn State not that long ago as an Engineering major.
Few know ahead of time whether they will wish to attend in the US or home country or a 3rd country, and the tuition difference is not a factor for most.
It might be fun for some kids to sample an American process briefly, secure in the knowledge they will return to the home. Having to slog thru the US high school college prep process for years is not as enjoyable, our kids say.
Is there data that support this? (not challenging, but asking)
Fundamentally, many schools state that students with ‘lower academic credentials’ graduate at similar rates to the rest of the student body. That has always been true with the recruited athletes in helmet sports (or other sports with lower than average academics).
I do think the tax treatment of colleges is a slippery slope, but if a school wants to accept students with lower academics, and said students on the whole perform acceptably, I don’t see the issue.
I really wish I could hear this from the kids themselves since it’s so foreign to what I hear every single year from foreign “rich” kids, often offspring of doctors or business people or foreign nationals, etc. I wonder if they’ve been in the US so long they automatically think the grass is greener on the other side. Or perhaps since you’re in a private school where stress abounds and I’m in a public one where it doesn’t, the difference is there?
The more I read on cc about high school stress I’m really glad we opted to settle where we did. Our kids could still go to college and become who they wanted to be, but no stress getting there. Here getting into a “top” college just isn’t a thing. We have between 0 and 3 who opt for Ivy or similar each year, but it’s not any sort of race to get there.
British person here. There is a national, standard curriculum which ALL schools, public and private must cover, with an independent inspectorate to ensure that they do. Year 2 in primary school, for example, looks pretty much the same across the country, more or less. Exams are set by external exam boards and cover a set syllabus, with a set marking rubric. Even if this set up was desired in the US, I don’t see how it could be implemented across multiple states and school boards.
UK unis do not have AOs as understood by Americans. Admission decisions are made by faculty: do I want to teach this person, have they demonstrated mastery and interest in the subject? Any ECs mentioned are related to the subject in hand. And of course, you apply for one degree course and only study that from the get go.
Pros and Cons to each approach, and having been through one and shepherding my kids through another, I can see both sides.
This is only a gut feeling as I have no data to support it, but I think the reason SAT/ACT scores do not correlate with success in college these days is that kids test, test, test and retest , study, prep, and superstore so the scores are more reflective of a drive to get a good score than to learn. The kids that can afford tutors and prep classes and have parents pushing them in high school are floundering in colleges that are above them academically, especially without parents motivating and supervising their study habits. Personally, I think you should only be allowed to take the exam once in junior and once in senior year, no superscore, and that all the test prep companies should be dissolved. We are teaching kids that the outcome matters more than the process. The goal should be learning, not a hand stamp from an elite university.
I don’t know of any data that showed, at any point in the past, that test scores correlate with success in college. It’s one of the reasons Bowdoin states they went TO in 1969. Over 50 years ago. If you know of some supporting data, please share it with us.
Do you have data that support this statement? Making broad stroke statements like this need supporting data…it helps no one to be guessing/assuming. There is much good data from the UT system and how much student support (academic and more) they had to add once they went to auto-admit for top X% of each HS (currently 6%)…but that is primarily an issue of inadequate K-12 education.
How do you know that kids are floundering at schools that are “above” them academically? Actual graduation statistics from top schools would indicate the exact opposite - that once admitted your chance of graduating is practically assured.
I am glad your kids had no stress in the college process, but I think that is relatively rare among readers of CC. No doubt more common in the nation as a whole, but less so in certain suburbs and coastal cities.
I agree. It’s part of why I stay on cc TBH. I like to learn about the world outside of my area. It certainly seems like a different world - yet we get doctors, lawyers, investment bankers, artsy folks, and occasional sports stars too. We also add in the plumbers, electricians, farmers, retail, factory workers - pretty much any segment of society one can think of that private schools likely don’t encounter much.
I guess I can be the exchange student sharing what happens “elsewhere,” though I keep revisiting stats and those stats show my school is slightly above average when it comes to college. Those of you in private schools are just way above average (income and stats of students).
I feel for those with way below average stats in their school districts.
People forget that admissions is about assembling a class, creating an interesting mix of students who can contribute on campus. It is not about a hierarchy of individuals who are somehow better than those not admitted. It is not about the highest grades and scores. Looking at a class, it is about the forest not the trees.
While I agree, @compmom, that certainly isn’t how the elite colleges market themselves, instead lauding a"best and brightest" profile we know to be inaccurate. Perhaps if they were more truthful in their marketing, kids would be less dependent emotionally on their results