Would Colleges Be Better Off If...

Applying to College
41

<p>my problem with the writing is how the questions are formatted (IE, four answers below the problem, all out of context). My mind just gets messed up when working those problems. On the other hand, ACT english is great. I got a 580 SAT writing, but a 33 ACT english.</p>

<p>My problem with the SAT is that it doesn't test creativity at all. You may be a number crunching robot, but who cares because a computer will always be able to crunch more numbers for less money than you. GPA/class rank at least have the opportunity to factor in creativity (while if they do or not is not the case).</p>

42

<p>OK, most of the ideas in this thread, I have seen before. One thing I discussed on another thread earlier tries to take all these into account. </p>

<p>My view is that colleges are making a conscious <em>choice</em> what kinds of students to accept. Notice that it's no accident that the average student going to a school like Harvey Mudd or Caltech is quite into math + science. Much more so than the average student at Stanford or Harvard. This is based on choice. </p>

<p>It is beyond clear that the SAT cannot measure success in the sophisticated college majors. SAT performance and mathematical ability in college cannot reasonably be linked, given the nature of math involves nibbling at large, thought-provoking theories, while the SAT involves closing off answers to questions and being careful. At best, there may be a correlation between success on the SAT and certain college success, because good students will try to game the SAT, and good students will also work hard in college presumably, on average. But this is a vague correlation.</p>

<p>The main issue is that private schools often are very reluctant to take too many students who're "purely intellectual." Not just high scorers, but students who really show some seriousness to their academics beyond just doing well in high school. For instance, the kind who'd succeed at the very intellectual small schools (e.g. HMC, many selective liberal arts colleges, Caltech, etc..). One can either argue they should take more of these, or leave the schools alone. I wish they took more, because the private schools also happen to have a wealth of academic resources many others don't.</p>

<p>The problem is, getting a good SAT + GPA may not be super easy, but may also not reflect very much about how good of a <em>COLLEGE</em> student you'll be. I know that there was very poor correlation between who was highly academically ranked in my high school and who really started to do great things in the respective major in college. [Compared to, say, lesser ranked students.] GPA is a game. I played it, and achieved a first rank in high school, and should know exactly how little that says about my academics in college. </p>

<p>My honest feeling is that if colleges do not want to more freely admit purely intellectual types [in favor of more diverse classes], then we can't say much; if they do, there needs to be a new and improved AP curriculum which really does things without watering things down.</p>

43

<p>"The problem is, getting a good SAT + GPA may not be super easy, but may also not reflect very much about how good of a <em>COLLEGE</em> student you'll be."</p>

<p>And the reason for this is, I believe a lot of the AP curriculum is watered down, and quite a few high schools with programs gearing towards the AP can help most students achieve 5's on the test, and MOST of the 5-ers will have no chance at handling real college math. The AP math curriculum is certainly watered down.</p>

<p>The IB system has a bit more math exposure, but is really restrictive, and I don't like that. Plus, all the other requirements for the IB Diploma sound dreadful.</p>

<p>All around, I think success in the standard curricula doesn't correlate as well with success in college as it should. And if it were less watered down, I think we'd have fewer issues.</p>

44

<p>College is not meant to 'prepare you for the real world'.
College, in its purest form, is meant to prepare you for getting a P.H.D.
It's just most people choose not to do that.
I think most people here don't understand what colleges are truly here for.
Do you think some math professor really cares if his students go on to finance or medicine? The outcome only matters to him if he has to be an advisor for a math graduate student!</p>

<p>I agree about a lot of the APs being easy as crap.
You can't party all the time and expect to do really well in a lot of these classes.
My friend, who got a 5 on Calc BC, took Multivariable, partied like a rock star, didn't attend class, and he told me he didn't get an A in the class.</p>

45

<p>bro college is definitely supposed to prepare you for the real world. Professors don't care if you come to class or not. If you don't come you will most likely fail. In real life if you don't come to work you will be fired. College is about independence and experimenting. Notice how in high school your parents basically basically own you, well in college you have a lot more freedom. You say that colleges are meant to prepare you for a P.H.D. First many students go to work right after their BA, second a P.H.D is to give you a career, which is part of real life.</p>

<p>Enough with your obsession with partying. Everyone I know does not go babbling about how much they love partying, they just keep it low key and just go to the partys. It seems your one of those guys whose been to a couple of parties and thinks he is the ****.</p>

46

<p>"College is not meant to 'prepare you for the real world'.
College, in its purest form, is meant to prepare you for getting a P.H.D.
It's just most people choose not to do that."</p>

<p>LOL: I must have missed the coronation ceremony for you when you took the seat of power. My deepest apologies, Overlord 174IQ</p>

47

<p>lol...at least gpa and class rank factor in creativity?</p>

<p>I agree with gpa...but class rank? Come on, that's got to be the dumbest admissions factor possible. I go to a top school where we rank by decile, and i can tell you that half the people in the first decile have a higher gpa because they took easier classes (easier math, science classes). When you compare those people with other brilliant minds not in the top decile, it doesn't ever seem fair. I agree maybe if you're ranked first or second in your class, that's wonderful, but everything else is just too difficult to judge. </p>

<p>Plus, the only reason you hate the SAT writing is because you're biased since you scored a 580. I don't blame you, it's natural to feel bias, but i can guarantee even if you try to argue that SAT writing sucks, there will be people (not only on this board) that will argue the other side and will win.</p>

48

<p>Geek_Son here.
IQ, congratulations on your high test scores. If you want to make your college resume a little more attractive, may I suggest spending less time trolling on CC and more time playing basketball or volunteering at a local hospital?
I would recommend to people not to give in to the trolls.... Spend more time on threads that will help you in your college search. Cheers. :D</p>

49

<p>I don't see how the ability to use correct grammar and solve a few equations makes a person truly intelligent...</p>

50

<p>And obviously, OP, the CR and Math sections of the SAT are the absolute, infallible predictors of intelligence, and anyone who gets less than a 1500 on the SAT is not qualified to be considered "intelligent". With a view of the world like that, I'm sure top universities will be chomping at the bit to get their hands on you.</p>

<p>And by the way, sweetheart, this is coming from someone who got a 1550 on your two absolute intelligence indicators. :P I know calling you "sweetheart" was derogatory and unnecessary, but I feel that you earned it.</p>

51

<p>Hm, well let me put it this way - I don't think it's as interesting of a question whether a 1500+ on the SAT guarantees ability. It's more interesting to ask what would happen if schools took these scorers instead of using their current systems.</p>

<p>What would happen?</p>

<p>I dislike the SAT in many ways, honestly, but I also dislike the unpredictability of today's system.</p>

52

<p>GPA is an amazingly misleading thing and in no way does it mean much for intelligence past a certain point. It's more of an indication of who cares about GPA as opposed to intelligence.</p>

53

<p>I don't favor overuse of GPA, but note that it reflects another thing, which is the tendency to put in consistent effort. Which is utterly crucial to do well in college. </p>

<p>I don't see the point to measuring intelligence independent of application anyway, in terms of college admissions, because we're trying to figure out who'll succeed + do great things in college, not necessarily who fits some abstract definition of "intelligent".</p>

54

<p>There was a kid a few years ago who SEEMED like he might be really intelligent, but because he insisted he was so intelligent and too intelligent to bother to do the work required and oh, by the way,the teachers were all so less intelligent than him as well. So the gpa matters little? Let's hope so when you've alienated every teacher and every other student. Where you score great on the SAT but barely have a 3.0 GPA. If this proves anything it proves there is more to intelligence than book smart. And did I mention the teachers couldn't stand the kid in a very wide spread way?</p>

55

<p>This is probably one of the worst suggestions I've ever heard. The math SAT is basically "how many times can you do the same math problem in four hours without losing a negative sign" and the critical reading one asks "who will be the luckiest and guess our interpretation of the most sentences?" It's really preposterous how these things work, at least up at the higher ends of the scores. And, no, I'm not bitter... I 800ed the critical reading, 730ed, the math, and 800ed the math SAT 2...</p>

56

<p>Colleges are higher institutions of learning!!
The most intelligent should be given the best options and rewarded.
Otherwise, can people stop saying, "Oh you go to Yale. You must be really really smart!!"? Since a school like Yale failed at accepting the brightest due to its own holistic admissions policies. They should be saying, "Oh you go to Yale. You must be really accomplished or What hook got you into Yale?"..
Those with such wonderful 'personality' but mediocre intelligence can succeed in the real world after attending a lesser college- if they are so goddamn confident about themselves. Their 'interpersonal skills' should help them, right? ;)</p>

57

<p>Why is everyone so deeply invested in linking various virtues with intelligence? It's ridiculous. Intelligent, diligent, kind, funny - a person can possess any or none of these qualities.</p>

<p>A well-designed IQ test is the best measure of pure intelligence, pretty much by definition. The SAT is an IQ test in drag, and coaching screws everything up. Ideally we would all be randomly kidnapped and given a completely unpredictable battery of questions, but the critical reading section will have to do.</p>

<p>A 4.0 in difficult classes does not show intelligence (beyond the baseline required to understand calculus). It does show the ability to judge exactly how much effort is needed for a given test or assignment and the soft skills required to get what you want from your teachers. Colleges want a class that will accomplish great things. Great politicians and lawyers don't need to be intelligent beyond a certain point. They do need to be able to manipulate people and apply themselves at the right time and place. </p>

<p>Harvard could decide to fill its freshman class entirely with people who scored above 2360. Yes, they would be a bit smarter on average than the people in there now. No, they would not grow Harvard's endowment.</p>

58

<p>How is the SAT going to predict who is going to be great at Russian literature, Classics, or theoretical math? Colleges want all of their departments to be filled with interested students.</p>

59

<p>Their school, their goals, their rules. If they don't want you -- frankly, based on this display of shallowness, immaturity, and arrogance, I think I can understand why. But the bottom line is, they're private institutions with brands to maintain. And whom they brand is their choice, based on a specific vision and hundreds of years of experience.</p>

<p>Incidentally, the original purpose of both Duke and Dartmouth -- like that of many, many American colleges -- was to spread the Gospel. Not, as you asserted, to "prepare you for a P.H.D. [sic]"
Dartmouth: The</a> Dartmouth College Charter
Duke: Charter</a>, bylaws, aims, and mission statement</p>

<p>But I digress. You seemed to suggest that a college would be "better off" accepting and reforming "the kid with a 1600 who just drinks alcohol all day" than accepting and teaching "the guy with a 1390 who does a lot of community service and is class president." You called this notion "accepting the most intelligent people and helping them hone their skills."</p>

<p>Now, I'm all for honing skills, but here's the thing: As a faculty member and as a supervisor, I'm just plain not interested in being some arrogant bright kid's social worker. Bright kids are a dime a dozen, and there are plenty of self-styled "geniuses" who can't or won't hold down a job (and believe it or not, kiddo, academia is a job too). Give me an honest, hard-working kid of "merely average intelligence" over a "highly intelligent" lush (or some lazy kid who managed to score high on a test) any day. The former can be taught and will perform well in any endeavor. The latter may have potential, but lacks the character to realize it. Given your position as to the purpose of universities, surely you would agree that an "institution of higher learning" should put its resources into building intellects, rather than on correcting character flaws.</p>

<p>(I agree with geek_son that this thread is probably just a trolling exercise, but the air of entitlement expressed by the OP is galling and, sadly, not without precedent here.)</p>

60

<p>Oh yes nooob, im sooooo incredibly bitter about my SAT writing score, and how I got accepted ED to my top choice college next year.</p>

<p>sad face :(</p>

<p>My point was not that Im a bitter looser at SAT writing, my point was the the SAT writing test did not objectively gauge my ability to write well or my grammar, it gauged my ability to take the SAT writing test. The fact that I scored in the 60th percentile on one test, and in the 99th percentile on another should at least bring into question that validity of these tests as an objective measure of intelligence. </p>

<p>Also about the creativity, my point was that SAT taking has no creativity factored into it whatsoever. Class rank/GPA at least have the possibility of being influenced by creativity, regardless of whether or not they are.</p>