Would Colleges Be Better Off If...

Applying to College
61

<p>"I've seen too many really intelligent people get shafted at top schools and quite a few less intelligent people get into the same schools, so it makes me wonder what the hell colleges are really looking for."</p>

<p>No matter how much of a trolling exercise this is, I still think this question is worth asking -- what schools are looking for. Some private schools do a great job of making this clear, and others are really mysterious. They're entitled to do what they like as private schools of course, but I am certainly in favor of some clarity. </p>

<p>Nevertheless, I am in full agreement with: "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"</p>

<p>I mean, I know the huge difference between hard-working, decent-SAT students who hone their skills with perseverance and the 2400 SAT, lazy student. I know both. Plus, the SAT is a terrible test of the faculties required in higher level college work...it may better predict who does well under pressure + competitive situations where you gotta keep signs from switching, and take that integral without canceling one too many terms. </p>

<p>As always, my hope is that some day, admissions become more straight-laced, but NOT to rely on flawed measures. Rather, if our high school AP curricula were good, unwatered-down stuff, and a few more of the very pure intellectual sorts were admitted to top universities [in favor of the extreme shift towards looking at different kinds of students], I'd be happy. Not a complete change of policy, just a betterment of one aspect of the system + a shift in the quotas of types of students accepted. </p>

<p>Pure intellectuals are ones who are super dedicated to their studies and can do ultra well within a very rigorous curriculum, where material is taught in its full glory (e.g. calculus done the real way, etc).</p>

62

<p>


</p>

<p>There are multiple facets of intelligence, so your latter contention is wrong. Secondly, your assertion that the writing portion did not assess your ability to write well or to use proper grammar is untrue or at least inaccurate. I can assure you when I was taking the SAT that I was using my innate writing ability to answer questions, rather than a calculated memorization of basic or arcane grammar rules. I got a 800 on the section, so I may be biased, but I feel that it was only my improved writing ability which got me the 800. I will agree the essay is superficial at best, and spurious and misleading at worst, but the sentence correction and revision section has some measure of merit.</p>

63

<p>"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."</p>

<p>This is why many schools are not using it for admission, especially where students will never experience that kind of timed writing test in college. Good papers require editing and rewriting, and these schools want to see the best, not the speediest, that applicants can produce.</p>

<p>Perhaps journalism schools like the test: Get that done by the deadline!</p>

64

<p>Completely agree with amciw. While the actual essay-writing portion of the section is hardly worth looking at, the multiple choice tests your knowledge of basic-intermediate grammar rules, which you will need to know in college. I, like amciw, completely relied on my writing ability regarding that section of the test, and did not even bother with memorizing obscure rules.</p>

<p>That being said, I don't believe the SAT is any accurate indicator of intelligence. I don't consider myself particularly intelligent, but I tested better than those at my school who are waaay more intelligent than me.</p>

65

<p>The main value of the SAT and ACT is that they're the only standardized measures used. Colleges really do understand their limitations; the tests are just one part of a holistic view of an applicant.</p>

66

<p>

mathboy, nice to see you again. :) Your desire for clarity in the admissions process is reasonable and understandable (and, I'm sure, shared by many -- geek_family included). I'm not sure this will happen at those top schools, though, because I think this is similar to our hiring processes. The first time I led a search committee at my uni, I submitted to Human Resources a carefully crafted spreadsheet with the hiring criteria clearly defined and weighted. Big mistake. As my liaison explained to me, this "fair and objective" approach was an invitation to litigation.</p>

<p>If my committee members assigned Candidate X a 5 in communication skills, and Candidate Y a 7 in the same, what were their criteria for choosing those numbers? And who's to say those were the right criteria, and why should communication skills be weighted differently from graphic design skills?</p>

<p>The more I pinned things down, the worse I'd be making it -- because my process would be subject to discovery and contest. And that could create an opening for some judge to impose his own set of "fair and objective" hiring criteria on the university.</p>

<p>Now, as emotional as some folks get on CC over admission decisions, and considering how much private information is handled by college admissions offices, imagine how that could play out in admissions instead of in hiring. Imagine them potentially having to defend every single rejection in court against claims of "lost economic potential" and "pain and suffering" because Muffy's parents spent $18k on preparation, ECs, and counseling, and she still didn't get into the college of her dreams.</p>

<p>Valid or not, this kind of scenario runs through the minds of attorneys, and none of them wants his client or employer to be the test case. So either they're purely numbers-based (e.g., public state uni's) or they're vague enough to give themselves plenty of discretion without legal questioning.</p>

<p>I can't guarantee this reasoning is the reason for all "mysterious" admissions criteria, but I'll bet it has a lot to do with it in a lot of places.</p>

67

<p>point is colleges cant just base human beings on numbers.</p>

<p>thats not what they r looking for Partier.</p>

68

<p>I think many of you have interesting arguments.
I understand why colleges do what they do BUT I think it is wrong for them to do this.
Maybe it is simply my views on human beings in general, many of you assume that there are people out there who are inherently good. I tend to think that there is no such thing as a good human being. Everyone is selfish and is looking out for his or her own self-interest in one form or another.
Don't even get me started on 'altruism'!
We will never agree because our views on human beings are fundamentally different.
I don't think the guy with the 1600 is more virtuous than the guy with the 1390.
I just don't think that the guy with the 1390 has more virtues simply because he has all of this community service and does all this other fancy-schmancy stuff in his spare time.</p>

69

<p>174IQPartier, you show the classic signs of being:</p>

<p>a.) Insecure about how smart you are.
b.) Above-average intelligence, so you think you have the entire world figured out.</p>

<p>Here are the flaws in your college-related thinking:</p>

<ol>
<li>The assumption that colleges should be solely focused on maximizing the intelligence of their undergraduate class. This is just ludicrous. Obviously intelligence should be a huge prerequisite, but there comes a point when being a great musician or a great leader becomes more beneficial to the community of the college than having a negligible amount more intelligence.</li>
<li>The assumption that colleges exist to prepare people for PhDs. That's nonsense. Colleges exist to educate people. What people do with that education is their choice. Sure, it is the physics department's responsibility to prepare their BSc's for PhD programs, but that is NOT the "purpose" of colleges. I'm not sure what makes you think you can redefine a several centuries old institution to fit your purposes, but you can't.</li>
<li>The assumption that SATs are a valid measure of intelligence to begin with. This is just laughable.</li>
</ol>

<p>Also, your view on the nature of human beings are both wrong, and indicative of the rationalism-obsessed views of people like Ayn Rand that are widely regarded among learned people as not just ridiculous but totally nuts. We know that people don't actually act that way. I'm not going to go into a lengthy explanation of why it's wrong, but if no such thing as altruism exists, you'd be hard-pressed to explain the charitable giving that some people make.</p>

<p>And your concept of "virtue" seems to be a little off. If community service isn't a virtuous activity, I'm not sure what is.</p>

<p>You're not the smartest person in the world. Get over it. You're an above-average-intelligence high school student. Stop trying to argue that the world should be set up specifically for that person, because it's pretty clear to anybody who takes a level-headed look at what's going on that that's not how it should be at all.</p>

70

<p>

Ding ding ding ding ding! khaki hits the nail right on the head! That's what these arguments on CC just about always boil down to. If you did really well on your SAT, then naturally SATs should be the main (or, in Partier's view, perhaps the only) consideration. If you couldn't score well on the SAT to save your life but have a great GPA, then naturally it's your high school transcript that colleges should look at.</p>

<p>Maybe applicants should quit arguing to reform the Tier 1s and start looking in earnest for colleges that suit and value their best qualities.</p>

71

<p>Geek_Son here.
Troll.
Go out and play some b-ball. Seriously, stop trying to pass yourself off as some bright kid who is outraged at the world because it doesn't conform to his standards. Apparently, your trolling test worked though.</p>

72

<p>khaki, you write like a high school senior who has the entire world figured out, pointing out the "flaws" in others' thinking! How about a little humility? :)</p>

73

<p>


</p>

<p>You make some good points which I agree with.
I am not the smartest person in the world. I know this. Otherwise my IQ would be 200-something rather than 174. :p
Marylin von Savant makes me look like an idiot!!</p>

<p>First, I will give my rebuttals to your assumptions.</p>

<h1>1: Are there really so few highly intelligent people who have strong musical or leadership skills out there? Why can't these excellent musicians and leaders bless the communities of 'lower' colleges? Why do they have to go to Harvard or Yale? I don't understand. Why should the communities of lower colleges get shafted in this respect? Why shouldn't they get these wonderful citizens? If they are so talented in terms of leadership or music, they won't need the top colleges to get employed and/or be successful.. otherwise, they aren't as skillful as was originally thought, which means they shouldn't have been in the top colleges in the first place!!</h1>

<h1>2: I was talking about the departments specifically and they are the most important factor of the college since they are the ones educating the students. Many people commute to colleges and all they do is take classes. Not everyone goes to college for the 'community'. I know most of the top colleges don't allow people to commute and attempt to create a community. However, my point is that this isn't the mantra of the typical university. Colleges do exist to educate people. However, the math professor doesn't teach his students about the real world, he teaches his students about mathematics. I will admit that Business classes do prepare people for the real world but even there, you learn about much of the theory behind business and application of those theories.</h1>

<h1>3: There's nothing I can say that will make you agree with me that SAT's are a valid indicator of intelligence. You either think so or you don't.</h1>

<p>Also there are many highly educated people (e.g: Alan Greenspan, Ron Paul) who are strong believers in the philosophy of Ayn Rand. Just because you think Ayn Rand is nuts doesn't mean that everyone else who is so intelligent does. </p>

<p>Altruism is important. I am proud that we have this trait. I'm not saying it is a bad trait. I am saying that it is selfish in nature. Most people who choose to be altruistic do so because they want to feel good about themselves. People do benefit from altruism. We wouldn't do it if there weren't any rewards.</p>

<p>Finally, while an adcom can't prove this, in terms of comunity service, a lot of people do it simply to get into college and only care about themselves.</p>

74

<p>I think you are missing the point. I saw on 20/20 the other day that some guy with a 205 IQ is a bouncer at a bar in NY. Colleges do not care if you have a 174 IQ, no one cares if you have a 174 IQ; what people do care about is what you produce with your 174 IQ. I would bet that there are a ton of nobel laureates with IQs <150. What is more impressive to you, being a nobel laureate, or having a 174 IQ. More importantly, who would a college rather have as an alumnus, a bouncer at a bar with a 205 IQ, or a nobel laureate with a 140 IQ?</p>

75

<p>A 140 IQ is still very impressive and is part of what I would consider the elite.
Could a person with a 100-120 IQ have done the same thing??
I know who that bouncer is who you are talking about, Chris Langan?
He is a very accomplished man by the way.
It's just that academia wasn't the right path for him.
Take a look for yourself.
Christopher</a> Langan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia</p>

<p>IQ tests are also somewhat variable. However, there is a certain cutoff, like there is for the SATs. (The cutoffs are probably about 130 IQ and 1400 SAT, if you want to talk about intelligent.. some people who scored a little below these levels are allowed in the 'elite' as well.)
I don't think I'm superior to someone who got a 1590 on the SAT or someone with a 150 IQ, based on that alone, at least..</p>

76

<p>"#1: Are there really so few highly intelligent people who have strong musical or leadership skills out there? Why can't these excellent musicians and leaders bless the communities of 'lower' colleges? Why do they have to go to Harvard or Yale? I don't understand. Why should the communities of lower colleges get shafted in this respect? Why shouldn't they get these wonderful citizens? If they are so talented in terms of leadership or music, they won't need the top colleges to get employed and/or be successful.. otherwise, they aren't as skillful as was originally thought, which means they shouldn't have been in the top colleges in the first place!!"</p>

<p>You know, reading through that the first time actually gave me the impression that the top colleges were taking those who can't fend for themselves. Rereading it makes the entire statement sound contradictory.</p>

<p>P.S. I'm curious about the IQ tests. I've never taken an official one but aren't there some general knowledge/trivia questions in it? Meaning, wouldn't someone who was 'unaware' so to speak, yet intelligent, have a lower IQ? I may be mistaken so correct me if I'm wrong, but if that's the case, isn't that kind of unfair?</p>

77

<p>It certainly seems like that is why they are taking these 'talented applicants'.
If they could truly fend for themselves, they could go to colleges which they are more academically compatible with and still succeed in life.</p>

78

<p>Well, that's not my personal view, although with that statement I think I understand a little more how it is that you think.</p>

79

<p>There's no surefire way to determine what makes a good applicant and what kind of person should be accepted. SAT scores (math/CR, at least) are subjective, but are only 4 hours out of 4 years. GPA is determined over at least 3 years, but there are so many variables (teachers, overall difficulty of school, classes taken) that it becomes difficult to measure. And then extracurriculars show dedication and the "intangibles," but who knows if the efforts are sincere? Are you volunteering at a hospital ever week for four hours because you like helping, or because you know how much that'll help you get into med school? So, overall, debating the importance of each - and which one should be favored - is useless. Someone who has an excellent GPA/rank is going to want emphasis on GPA, while the captain of two varsity sports and the debate team wants focus on extracurriculars.</p>

80

<p>
[quote]
You make some good points which I agree with.
I am not the smartest person in the world. I know this. Otherwise my IQ would be 200-something rather than 174.
Marylin von Savant makes me look like an idiot!!

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I'm willing to bet our IQ tests are flawed enough that "IQ" isn't even a valid representation of intelligence either. I've never taken one, so I don't know, but I'm HIGHLY suspicious that we have created a test that can reliably quantify intelligence.</p>

<p>
[quote]
First, I will give my rebuttals to your assumptions.</p>

<h1>1: Are there really so few highly intelligent people who have strong musical or leadership skills out there? Why can't these excellent musicians and leaders bless the communities of 'lower' colleges? Why do they have to go to Harvard or Yale? I don't understand. Why should the communities of lower colleges get shafted in this respect? Why shouldn't they get these wonderful citizens? If they are so talented in terms of leadership or music, they won't need the top colleges to get employed and/or be successful.. otherwise, they aren't as skillful as was originally thought, which means they shouldn't have been in the top colleges in the first place!!

[/quote]
</h1>

<p>Huh? You seem to be arguing that</p>

<p>a.) The most inherently talented people "deserve" to go to the best colleges.
b.) These musicians are more inherently talented than people who are marginally smarter.
c.) These musicians should therefore not go to the best colleges to prove that they in fact don't need to.</p>

<p>You don't really believe that the LEAST talented people should go to the best colleges so that skill is balanced out by education, do you? That sounds rather communistic to me...</p>

<p>
[quote]

2: I was talking about the departments specifically and they are the most important factor of the college since they are the ones educating the students. Many people commute to colleges and all they do is take classes. Not everyone goes to college for the 'community'. I know most of the top colleges don't allow people to commute and attempt to create a community. However, my point is that this isn't the mantra of the typical university. Colleges do exist to educate people. However, the math professor doesn't teach his students about the real world, he teaches his students about mathematics. I will admit that Business classes do prepare people for the real world but even there, you learn about much of the theory behind business and application of those theories.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>We're not talking about "typical universities," we're talking about a very small set of extremely selected colleges, almost all of which require their undergraduates to live on campus.</p>

<p>
[quote]

3: There's nothing I can say that will make you agree with me that SAT's are a valid indicator of intelligence. You either think so or you don't.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>You can't honestly believe that SAT's are a valid indicator of intelligence. Tell me you don't really believe that.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Also there are many highly educated people (e.g: Alan Greenspan, Ron Paul) who are strong believers in the philosophy of Ayn Rand. Just because you think Ayn Rand is nuts doesn't mean that everyone else who is so intelligent does.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>"Highly-educated" and "intelligent" are not synonyms.</p>

<p>Ayn Rand is about as much of a joke among people who are serious about philosophy as Ron Paul is among people who are serious about politics. People who have a real background in philosophy do not take her seriously.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Altruism is important. I am proud that we have this trait. I'm not saying it is a bad trait. I am saying that it is selfish in nature. Most people who choose to be altruistic do so because they want to feel good about themselves. People do benefit from altruism. We wouldn't do it if there weren't any rewards.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Yes, of course people do things because they think they're the right thing to do. That doesn't make people "selfish" unless your definition of "selfish" is essentially meaningless.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Finally, while an adcom can't prove this, in terms of comunity service, a lot of people do it simply to get into college and only care about themselves.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Of course, but that doesn't mean that that's true for EVERYBODY. Moreover, I think there is something gained by society if college applicants are essentially forced into community service by admissions committees. On the other hand, I haven't actually done any community service for that purpose, so I can't really speak to that.</p>