Would Colleges Be Better Off If...

Applying to College
81

<p>Thanks geek_mom -- I enjoy your posts plenty as well =] </p>

<p>Let me try to be as objective as I can here. In general, I agree with a lot of complaints brought up against Partier, but still the <em>spirit</em> of his points carries some weight. </p>

<p>"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."</p>

<p>Now, yes they COULD, but Harvard and Yale seem to want a very specific kind of undergraduate class - diverse as a class, though not necessarily full of well-rounded students. This is something we have to simply live with. Hey, I know what kind of a student I am...I didn't even TRY applying to these schools. Am I more <em>academic</em> than many Harvard + Yale students? Likely. Can one find many who're more academic than Harvard + Yale students? Just take a look at a school like Harvey Mudd. Or other small, focused programs.</p>

<p>There are places as it stands that such "pure intellectual" student types can go. For instance, I think just because Berkeley and similar schools do admissions based heavily on numbers, it's possible to get in there with just very good academics. Other obvious choices exist. </p>

<p>The one <em>constructive</em> reason I can give for Harvard admitting a larger percentage of pure intellectuals is that in certain departments, it's just utterly terrific, has a faculty of the most insane caliber, and I think sometimes in the way it does admissions, a large number of students who could make use of that faculty better than other students admitted don't have as much of a chance. Or perhaps, it's just unclear who will be admitted at all! If we really want to argue that these schools should change the extent to which they admit certain types of students, we need a clear reason why! </p>

<p>I mean, if you're an intelligent student who believes you should get into an "overall top ranked school" then you might be missing the point -- the "overall top ranked" schools are not even necessarily meant for you. There are schools which likely more freely admit people like you...and you can utilize their resources and eventually find your way into a good graduate school. If your life is based on academics entirely, the grad school you go to is what counts anyway. </p>

<p>I still maintain, though, that given how likely it is that students really discover their academic passions in college + realize the wealth of opportunities a large top ranked program has for them, it wouldn't be bad for colleges to take some more purely intellectual types on faith, because they actually have tons to offer these types! But that's their choice, I guess.</p>

82

<p>As a note though, the SAT certainly is not a measure of who's a pure intellectual. I can speak very clearly from the standpoint of math and physics that it just doesn't test the right things. </p>

<p>So even if we were to admit more pure intellectuals, we'd have to devise a better way of singling them out. I've always been in favor of more rigorous high school curricula, but that is obviously my pipe dream =] who's gonna change it all for me, especially after I'm no longer a high school student!</p>

83

<p>How would you value having different points of view in the classroom? If a bunch of city and suburban kids are sitting around discussing economics and grain subsidies, don't you think it would be worth it to hear from an Iowa or Kansas student who grew up discussing it at home? Even if his/her SAT scores were 50 points lower? Wouldn't a discussion of Medicare reform be enriched by someone who has volunteered in a nursing home for 3 years? Refugees offering a point of view in an International Relations class?</p>

84

<p>174IQPartier wrote: "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."</p>

<p>Herein lies the crux of the matter. 174: let me pose this hypothetical to you:</p>

<p>You happen to read about a small college, whose name you've never heard of, rec'd a HUGE endowment to fund men who will commit to studying Nursing. These applicants will get preferential admissions, generous grants/scholarships and college academic assistance to perform well. Let's assume that this doesn't interest you so you just bypass it. The next TWENTY schools you happen to research coincidentally happen to be recipients of the same benefactor -- they all have similar male Nursing programs. You think: "Whoa! Somebody is dedicated to seeing more men be nurses." But you just leave it at that and move on -- eventually applying to your chosen colleges.</p>

<p>Q for you: Is it WRONG for these 21 colleges to offer such a boost for such a specialized field and even GENDER? Certainly they aren't necessarily the MOST intelligent applicants (based on SAT/GPA). The program even excludes half the human race! Does this get your blood boiling? Want to decry the EVIL of this hypothetical program?</p>

<p>Well how is that different than the holistic admissions practiced by a very, very few colleges in America? The rub is this, isn't it? These very schools which practice such a nauseating system HAPPEN TO BE THE TOP RANKED and TOP PRESTIGE colleges in America. What irony. What unfairness. The universe is awry!</p>

<p>And what do YOU do about it? You channel your anger and disgust by</p>

<p>applying to H, Y, P, D and Duke. </p>

<p>If the holistic admissions were so detestable, I would have thought that you'd only applied to the top nearby publics which practice metrics-only admissions (which you'd most certainly have been admitted). A tad bit hypocritical?</p>

<p>If there was a gun to your head forcing you to submit your apps to these detestable schools, please call 911. If in fact you had the option to apply to schools which would evaluate you and others based on scores alone but chose to apply to "detestable" ones also, then your actions don't match your stance, I'd say.</p>

85

<p>As much as I don't agree with Partier's views on the SAT + recognize schools can do as they please...I think the above post is more emotional than a productive one should be. </p>

<p>There are in fact benefits to applying to HYPS without a question, and perhaps the OP means to criticize the admissions process, not the schools. I think that's reasonable thing to do. I don't love the admissions process entirely at all, even if I acknowledge those are great schools. </p>

<p>Hence, I think the following:</p>

<p>"If the holistic admissions were so detestable, I would have thought that you'd only applied to the top nearby publics which practice metrics-only admissions (which you'd most certainly have been admitted). A tad bit hypocritical?"</p>

<p>is not the ideal criticism of Partier's points. </p>

<p>Note -- I technically didn't apply to Harvard, Yale, but I think there's some merit in understanding why they do things the way they do, and what is ideal and not ideal about it.</p>

86

<p>"Ideal" to me is measured by: what do the students who are admitted contribute to the community, and <em>ARE THEY GENUINELY USING THE RESOURCES of X TOP SCHOOL EXTREMELY WELL, ENOUGH TO WARRANT REJECTION OF OTHER STUDENTS</em>. </p>

<p>I do think at times, it is questionable why certain students are admitted in place of others. It is snobbish and horrible to tell people "Hey, you got into so and so top engineering school because you're a girl" or "You got into Stanford because of your race." Nevertheless, I am a firm believer in being skeptical of how colleges make their selections.
There is very little clarity in how some schools do what they do [thanks to geek_mom for a post about why earlier], and there is value in understanding why this is so.</p>

87

<p>IMHO, this issue is being over-analyzed here, but it sure is fun to talk about. ;)</p>

<p>The simple truth is that selective private colleges admit those they want the most, and it is futile to try to figure out exactly how a given college makes these decisions, except to say that it's holistic. Publics tend to use more objective formulas.</p>

<p>Be happy we have so many styles and choices. There is something for everyone! :)</p>

88

<p>You really need to read the book "Blink" by Malcolm Gladwell. There is an entire section on how intelligence is really only helpful to a point, and past that point so many other traits determine success etc, not sheer intelligence alone. Harvard, Yale, etc are not institutions designed simply to bring together a group of geniuses, they are put in place to create successful people. Intelligence can not be equated completely with success.</p>

89

<p>"IMHO, this issue is being over-analyzed here, but it sure is fun to talk about."</p>

<p>Yup =]</p>