<p>In another thread I was reading I saw a lot of people exclaiming "Admissions are so subjective!" and eventually I realized they meant it as a bad thing. It got me thinking.</p>
<p>These are the pros and cons to each, as I see them:</p>
<p>"Objective" admissions:
They're a lot more predictable, yes, and there's none of this frustrating "Student A gets in with 3.8 and 2100 but Student B does not with 4.0 and 2300" business, but to me it seems like if the whole thing were reduced to a numbers game it would be downright boring. There'd be no sense in even applying to a "reach" because the conclusion would be practically foregone. Colleges might as well just post their yearly cutoffs and students with high enough stats can just enroll at will.</p>
<p>"Subjective" admissions:
They can sometimes seem deficient in both rhyme and reason, but somehow it doesn't bother me as much as it seems to bother other people. I might be biased because I think my essay-smithing outstrips my GPA in terms of impressiveness, but what it boils down to is I like being able to sell myself to colleges, and not just be a collection of numbers. That being said, if you're "selling yourself" it can be a lot more hurtful if you're rejected, because then instead of being able to pin the problem on a weak spot on your transcript you're forced to assume there's something undesirable about you as a person, which always sucks.</p>
<p>So I suppose there are arguments that can be made for either "mindset." It's probably less of a dichotomy and more of a continuum, too, but continuums (Continua? What would it be?) are less fun to write about.</p>
<p>Any thoughts? These are just my late-night musings.</p>
<p>It's really a non-issue as both systems are solidly in place. Consumers (HS applicants) can choose whichever store they want to shop. Target or Kohl's : take your pick.</p>
<p>The grousings come from the fact that in general the so-called "top tier" schools use the subjective criteria. LOL</p>
<p>The complainers are MAD that the "more prestigious" schools don't use the system they might prefer -- failing to acknowledge that the Objective admissions systems is fully available to them. If you have a 4.3W GPA and 2200SAT, see how many state schools will reject you. None. They'll fully accept you b/c of your demonstrated academic success and potential. Nothing wrong with that.</p>
<p>It just happens that many colleges look for this plus OTHER factors and therefore adhere to the Subjective admissions system. Funny thing is that they view this as the key to a better collegiate education or at least to better serve their educational goals which is their right. And you know what? Society agrees with them. Thus their perceived "higher rankings" and "prestige" level.</p>
<p>I would definitely prefer an objective process with mandatory interview like they do for Oxbridge. You can get someone else to write an essay for you and you can lie about EC's. I have seen too many kids doing this and get into top places.</p>
<p>So why not just apply to schools that apply a so-called objective process? Why do people desperately want to go to colleges whose admissions process they decry?</p>
<p>There's an often-cited statistic that Harvard rejects 80% of qualified applicants. Under an objective admissions process, all of those applicants would get in. The size of Harvard's entering class would quintuple. The same thing goes on at all elite schools; maybe not 80%, but a significant percentage of qualified applicants don't get in. Even though the decisions may seem arbitrary, the fact is that top-tier schools don't have space to accept every qualified student. Class sizes would soar, they'd need to rush to find more faculty and build more facilities, things would be much more anonymous, and ultimately the students who enrolled wanting "Harvard" (or "MIT", or "Berkeley", or "Swarthmore"...) would find that it wasn't the experience they thought it would be. So, from a purely logistical perspective, elite schools need to reject some objectively qualified students, because they couldn't accept all of them without a dramatic expansion.</p>
<p>A bit of both, actually. Colleges ought to have some cut-off test scores and class ranks (say 2200/32 and top 10% for the top colleges). Then, they can get picky once they know that they have only the cream of the crop applying.</p>
<p>I really prefer subjective, holistic admissions processes. Of course, schools that have more subjective ways of making their decision obviously still look at scores/GPA/ranking/etc., but in the context of everything else. If schools only went by the numbers - aside from the inflated amount of accepted students already mentioned - they probably would not end up with as interesting a group of kids as they could have. Some geniuses probably slightly underachieve in HS, but still do amazing things, whereas some people might have high SATs only because they studied nonstop for a year, leaving them with no personality or outside life. It's all about the whole picture.</p>
<p>Thats why I mentioned the mandatory interview. Academically a lot of kids are good enough to get into Oxford or Cambridge. However they weed out many applicants through the interviews.</p>
<p>I prefer subjective. A reasonable cutoff point for grades and SAT/ACT scores isn't a bad idea, but I think that once applicants meet those requirements, the subjective factors should be looked at carefully in addition to the objective. I'd take a kid with a few B's, a few points missing from his SAT score and a great essay and honest devotion to his ECs over a 4.0/2400 applicant who did nothing but study and had a pedestrian essay and recs, but that's just me.</p>
<p>^How often does this seriously happen, though? I wouldn't take away an entire applicant base's chance to show a brand-new side of themselves and demonstrate their writing abilities just because one or two kids paid off somebody else to write theirs.</p>
<p>And how do you know that if they're the type of person to have someone else write their essays, they're not the type of person to cheat on tests to get good grades?</p>
<p>(This is in reply to tanveer149, by the way. Sorry, blankmind, didn't see your post before I submitted mine...)</p>
<p>For those of you who say you prefer "objective" what do you mean by that? As I stated earlier the vast majority of US colleges use "objective" criteria to admit students. If you mean you prefer that the "top tier" colleges modify their admissions standards to "objective" then you're WAY off base. </p>
<p>These schools long ago adopted "subjective" criteria and guess what? They rose to the top of the cream barrel. If now you want them to abandon "subjective" in order to adopt "objective" then you're asking them to alter their academic and societal missions, thereby altering their perceived "prestige" factor. </p>
<p>It would be equivalent to a HS athletic conference where some schools have stringent qualifications for their teams (exacting practice schedules, depth charts, cut-offs, JV teams) and some schools have less stringent standards and weed out less players (everyone makes the team, etc.). Every year the "harder" schools perform better and the more "inclusive" teams perform worse.</p>
<p>Your family decides to move into the district, into the neighborhood of one of the "harder" schools that competes for the district championship every year. Your dad then marches into the coach's office and demands that everyone makes the team and they end the hard practice schedule like the other schools in the conference.</p>
<p>Yeah right. Don't let the door hit you on the way out.</p>
<p>Blank: my bad about UCLA. I live in MI and I suppose lots of top performers don't have an auto admit to U-M Ann Arbor either. I guess UVA and some others fit this role -- but you still get my point about the VAST majority of US colleges admitting SOLELY on stats. The UCLA, UM and UVA are oddballs that resemble the selectives.</p>
<p>
[quote]
A bit of both, actually. Colleges ought to have some cut-off test scores and class ranks (say 2200/32 and top 10% for the top colleges). Then, they can get picky once they know that they have only the cream of the crop applying.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That's not true; no top college has cutoffs for SAT scores. People with even 2000s make the cut, although it's rare.</p>
<p>A subjective college process gives hope and second-chances to average students who, for the most part, have just strolled their way through high school. Why should they be allowed to attend a better University than those who have unremittingly worked in hopes of being admitted to a top college?</p>