States could take over college admissions to preserve race-neutrality

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How do you begin to standardize GPAs?

My one kid goes to a DCPS high school where he is getting a 4.7 (4.0 unweighted) for pretty much breathing.
My other kid goes to NCS where she has done about 5 times the work of her brother for an unweighted 3.6 (and there is no weighting for honors or APs beyond this and limited APs even offered).

This is why the proposal is stupid. And you likewise cannot compare the SAT of a kid from Sidwell to a kid from DCPS who lives in poverty---you have to consider the advantages one kid has had all their life over the other and the lack of advantages and the life issues the one kid has had to overcome (most likelY).

DP. One problem, in my opinion, is college admission offices attempting to quantify these types of subjective determinations, i.e., assigning a number to things that are inherently not quantifiable. I don't have ideas for other ways to make admission decisions, though my suspicion is that these attempts at quantifying are more problematic than admission offices realize, in a GIGO sort of way.

Because schools are not looking for just a class of 1600/4.0/"perfect ECs and volunteering"---they are looking for the "IT" factor and for kids who are going to go out and change the world. The "go out and change the world" factor is a bit subjective because Harvard might be looking for something different than Stanford or Columbia, etc. Fact remains, the people complaining about all of this are still complaining about NOT getting admission to a school with single digit acceptance rates, where 95% of those who apply are "great candidates". Do the math----tons of highly qualified students will get rejected---it's part of the game of applying to highly rejective schools. Those kids will get into schools ranked slightly lower easily---plenty in the 25-50 range they will get into, sometime with excellent merit. So it's not Harvard or I'm attending my local CC (not that there is anything wrong with that path). People need to get over feeling entitled to attend elite universities.

It's about time universities started to look at grades and test scores more since it is a 'school' after all where learning various academic subjects take place and sports, money etc. should not be the primary purpose of these schools. The primary purpose of any colleges/universities should be about academics.

Schools want to create future leaders and most are very clear about it. The kid with perfect grades isn't better positioned than the athlete with good grades who was also student class president and editor of the year book

Good football players and kids with rich dads do not make 'future leaders' they make bad leaders if they even become leaders. Terrible idea that should be eliminated.

Likewise, kids with perfect GPA and SATs are not always "future leaders". Plenty with only 1500 and 3.75 who go on to excel in life. That is what colleges are selecting. You are just upset because you naively thought perfect scores would get your kid an advantage over everyone. In reality once you make the basic cut (ie 1450/1500 and 3.7-3.8UW) schools have data that shows anything higher does not matter---the rest of the application matters more.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How do you begin to standardize GPAs?

My one kid goes to a DCPS high school where he is getting a 4.7 (4.0 unweighted) for pretty much breathing.
My other kid goes to NCS where she has done about 5 times the work of her brother for an unweighted 3.6 (and there is no weighting for honors or APs beyond this and limited APs even offered).

This is why the proposal is stupid. And you likewise cannot compare the SAT of a kid from Sidwell to a kid from DCPS who lives in poverty---you have to consider the advantages one kid has had all their life over the other and the lack of advantages and the life issues the one kid has had to overcome (most likelY).

DP. One problem, in my opinion, is college admission offices attempting to quantify these types of subjective determinations, i.e., assigning a number to things that are inherently not quantifiable. I don't have ideas for other ways to make admission decisions, though my suspicion is that these attempts at quantifying are more problematic than admission offices realize, in a GIGO sort of way.

Because schools are not looking for just a class of 1600/4.0/"perfect ECs and volunteering"---they are looking for the "IT" factor and for kids who are going to go out and change the world. The "go out and change the world" factor is a bit subjective because Harvard might be looking for something different than Stanford or Columbia, etc. Fact remains, the people complaining about all of this are still complaining about NOT getting admission to a school with single digit acceptance rates, where 95% of those who apply are "great candidates". Do the math----tons of highly qualified students will get rejected---it's part of the game of applying to highly rejective schools. Those kids will get into schools ranked slightly lower easily---plenty in the 25-50 range they will get into, sometime with excellent merit. So it's not Harvard or I'm attending my local CC (not that there is anything wrong with that path). People need to get over feeling entitled to attend elite universities.

It's about time universities started to look at grades and test scores more since it is a 'school' after all where learning various academic subjects take place and sports, money etc. should not be the primary purpose of these schools. The primary purpose of any colleges/universities should be about academics.

That is like saying Michelin starred restaurants should be entirely focused on my health and not their cash flow / ability to stay in business.

Colleges and universities are not some fancy restaurant. Restaurant's purpose is to make money and acquire great reputation/image so that they can make even more money - totally NOT the primary purpose of universities.

If it weren't for their reputations these universities would be interchangeable - and none of us would be here getting worked up over where our kids go to college.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How do you begin to standardize GPAs?

My one kid goes to a DCPS high school where he is getting a 4.7 (4.0 unweighted) for pretty much breathing.
My other kid goes to NCS where she has done about 5 times the work of her brother for an unweighted 3.6 (and there is no weighting for honors or APs beyond this and limited APs even offered).

This is why the proposal is stupid. And you likewise cannot compare the SAT of a kid from Sidwell to a kid from DCPS who lives in poverty---you have to consider the advantages one kid has had all their life over the other and the lack of advantages and the life issues the one kid has had to overcome (most likelY).

DP. One problem, in my opinion, is college admission offices attempting to quantify these types of subjective determinations, i.e., assigning a number to things that are inherently not quantifiable. I don't have ideas for other ways to make admission decisions, though my suspicion is that these attempts at quantifying are more problematic than admission offices realize, in a GIGO sort of way.

Because schools are not looking for just a class of 1600/4.0/"perfect ECs and volunteering"---they are looking for the "IT" factor and for kids who are going to go out and change the world. The "go out and change the world" factor is a bit subjective because Harvard might be looking for something different than Stanford or Columbia, etc. Fact remains, the people complaining about all of this are still complaining about NOT getting admission to a school with single digit acceptance rates, where 95% of those who apply are "great candidates". Do the math----tons of highly qualified students will get rejected---it's part of the game of applying to highly rejective schools. Those kids will get into schools ranked slightly lower easily---plenty in the 25-50 range they will get into, sometime with excellent merit. So it's not Harvard or I'm attending my local CC (not that there is anything wrong with that path). People need to get over feeling entitled to attend elite universities.

It's about time universities started to look at grades and test scores more since it is a 'school' after all where learning various academic subjects take place and sports, money etc. should not be the primary purpose of these schools. The primary purpose of any colleges/universities should be about academics.

Well there is your flaw—in thinking someone with a 1600 is “more academic” than someone with a 1520 with more drive grit and determination. They want the total package. Some of the most successful people in life did not have 1600 4.0uw in HS

'Total package' means 'subjectivity & non-transparency' means pandering. Disgusting.

How is that different than anything else in life? Does the "best candidate" always get the promotion? No---usually it goes to someone who is "qualified" but often times connections, how you deal with people (EQ) and how the hiring manager likes you matter. So sure, you need minimum level to make the cut for the final round of interveiws/decisions, but then whether the management and team like you come into play along with other "intangibles". Someone with the right personality and decent smarts might advance much faster than a really smart person without EQ. It's life, get used to it. Most things in life are not cut and dry---do X and guaranteed you will get Y, at least not in careers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How do you begin to standardize GPAs?

My one kid goes to a DCPS high school where he is getting a 4.7 (4.0 unweighted) for pretty much breathing.
My other kid goes to NCS where she has done about 5 times the work of her brother for an unweighted 3.6 (and there is no weighting for honors or APs beyond this and limited APs even offered).

This is why the proposal is stupid. And you likewise cannot compare the SAT of a kid from Sidwell to a kid from DCPS who lives in poverty---you have to consider the advantages one kid has had all their life over the other and the lack of advantages and the life issues the one kid has had to overcome (most likelY).

DP. One problem, in my opinion, is college admission offices attempting to quantify these types of subjective determinations, i.e., assigning a number to things that are inherently not quantifiable. I don't have ideas for other ways to make admission decisions, though my suspicion is that these attempts at quantifying are more problematic than admission offices realize, in a GIGO sort of way.

Because schools are not looking for just a class of 1600/4.0/"perfect ECs and volunteering"---they are looking for the "IT" factor and for kids who are going to go out and change the world. The "go out and change the world" factor is a bit subjective because Harvard might be looking for something different than Stanford or Columbia, etc. Fact remains, the people complaining about all of this are still complaining about NOT getting admission to a school with single digit acceptance rates, where 95% of those who apply are "great candidates". Do the math----tons of highly qualified students will get rejected---it's part of the game of applying to highly rejective schools. Those kids will get into schools ranked slightly lower easily---plenty in the 25-50 range they will get into, sometime with excellent merit. So it's not Harvard or I'm attending my local CC (not that there is anything wrong with that path). People need to get over feeling entitled to attend elite universities.

It's about time universities started to look at grades and test scores more since it is a 'school' after all where learning various academic subjects take place and sports, money etc. should not be the primary purpose of these schools. The primary purpose of any colleges/universities should be about academics.

Well there is your flaw—in thinking someone with a 1600 is “more academic” than someone with a 1520 with more drive grit and determination. They want the total package. Some of the most successful people in life did not have 1600 4.0uw in HS

No one is preventing the kid w/ 1520 and grit from attending colleges and universities. I do not see any problem whatsoever.

Likewise, nobody is preventing the kid with a 1600 and 4.0 from attending colleges and universities. Both should be able to attend excellent universities. However, neither is entitled to attend a T10 university. Both should be able to get into plenty in the 25-60 range if they cannot win the lottery for a Top 25 school.

Look in the mirror---the fact you feel entitled to an elite education might just show a lot about why you were not selected over others. Sorry (not sorry) universities get to decide who they admit and when they reject 95% of the candidates, the real reason your kid did not get accepted is because there were too many qualified candidates and by a small margin, your kid was not "one of the best" based on the school's criteria. You have good company in the other 95% who were rejected.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How do you begin to standardize GPAs?

My one kid goes to a DCPS high school where he is getting a 4.7 (4.0 unweighted) for pretty much breathing.
My other kid goes to NCS where she has done about 5 times the work of her brother for an unweighted 3.6 (and there is no weighting for honors or APs beyond this and limited APs even offered).

This is why the proposal is stupid. And you likewise cannot compare the SAT of a kid from Sidwell to a kid from DCPS who lives in poverty---you have to consider the advantages one kid has had all their life over the other and the lack of advantages and the life issues the one kid has had to overcome (most likelY).

DP. One problem, in my opinion, is college admission offices attempting to quantify these types of subjective determinations, i.e., assigning a number to things that are inherently not quantifiable. I don't have ideas for other ways to make admission decisions, though my suspicion is that these attempts at quantifying are more problematic than admission offices realize, in a GIGO sort of way.

Because schools are not looking for just a class of 1600/4.0/"perfect ECs and volunteering"---they are looking for the "IT" factor and for kids who are going to go out and change the world. The "go out and change the world" factor is a bit subjective because Harvard might be looking for something different than Stanford or Columbia, etc. Fact remains, the people complaining about all of this are still complaining about NOT getting admission to a school with single digit acceptance rates, where 95% of those who apply are "great candidates". Do the math----tons of highly qualified students will get rejected---it's part of the game of applying to highly rejective schools. Those kids will get into schools ranked slightly lower easily---plenty in the 25-50 range they will get into, sometime with excellent merit. So it's not Harvard or I'm attending my local CC (not that there is anything wrong with that path). People need to get over feeling entitled to attend elite universities.

It's about time universities started to look at grades and test scores more since it is a 'school' after all where learning various academic subjects take place and sports, money etc. should not be the primary purpose of these schools. The primary purpose of any colleges/universities should be about academics.

Well there is your flaw—in thinking someone with a 1600 is “more academic” than someone with a 1520 with more drive grit and determination. They want the total package. Some of the most successful people in life did not have 1600 4.0uw in HS

'Total package' means 'subjectivity & non-transparency' means pandering. Disgusting.

How is that different than anything else in life? Does the "best candidate" always get the promotion? No---usually it goes to someone who is "qualified" but often times connections, how you deal with people (EQ) and how the hiring manager likes you matter. So sure, you need minimum level to make the cut for the final round of interveiws/decisions, but then whether the management and team like you come into play along with other "intangibles". Someone with the right personality and decent smarts might advance much faster than a really smart person without EQ. It's life, get used to it. Most things in life are not cut and dry---do X and guaranteed you will get Y, at least not in careers.

We are trying to improve things that can be improved not giving up and saying "whatever happens, happens". There is no point to literally anything in life if we are to adopt your beliefs. Why bother with anything and why try to improve anything? That may be your attitude but not mine.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How do you begin to standardize GPAs?

My one kid goes to a DCPS high school where he is getting a 4.7 (4.0 unweighted) for pretty much breathing.
My other kid goes to NCS where she has done about 5 times the work of her brother for an unweighted 3.6 (and there is no weighting for honors or APs beyond this and limited APs even offered).

This is why the proposal is stupid. And you likewise cannot compare the SAT of a kid from Sidwell to a kid from DCPS who lives in poverty---you have to consider the advantages one kid has had all their life over the other and the lack of advantages and the life issues the one kid has had to overcome (most likelY).

DP. One problem, in my opinion, is college admission offices attempting to quantify these types of subjective determinations, i.e., assigning a number to things that are inherently not quantifiable. I don't have ideas for other ways to make admission decisions, though my suspicion is that these attempts at quantifying are more problematic than admission offices realize, in a GIGO sort of way.

Because schools are not looking for just a class of 1600/4.0/"perfect ECs and volunteering"---they are looking for the "IT" factor and for kids who are going to go out and change the world. The "go out and change the world" factor is a bit subjective because Harvard might be looking for something different than Stanford or Columbia, etc. Fact remains, the people complaining about all of this are still complaining about NOT getting admission to a school with single digit acceptance rates, where 95% of those who apply are "great candidates". Do the math----tons of highly qualified students will get rejected---it's part of the game of applying to highly rejective schools. Those kids will get into schools ranked slightly lower easily---plenty in the 25-50 range they will get into, sometime with excellent merit. So it's not Harvard or I'm attending my local CC (not that there is anything wrong with that path). People need to get over feeling entitled to attend elite universities.

It's about time universities started to look at grades and test scores more since it is a 'school' after all where learning various academic subjects take place and sports, money etc. should not be the primary purpose of these schools. The primary purpose of any colleges/universities should be about academics.

Well there is your flaw—in thinking someone with a 1600 is “more academic” than someone with a 1520 with more drive grit and determination. They want the total package. Some of the most successful people in life did not have 1600 4.0uw in HS

'Total package' means 'subjectivity & non-transparency' means pandering. Disgusting.

How is that different than anything else in life? Does the "best candidate" always get the promotion? No---usually it goes to someone who is "qualified" but often times connections, how you deal with people (EQ) and how the hiring manager likes you matter. So sure, you need minimum level to make the cut for the final round of interveiws/decisions, but then whether the management and team like you come into play along with other "intangibles". Someone with the right personality and decent smarts might advance much faster than a really smart person without EQ. It's life, get used to it. Most things in life are not cut and dry---do X and guaranteed you will get Y, at least not in careers.

We are trying to improve things that can be improved not giving up and saying "whatever happens, happens". There is no point to literally anything in life if we are to adopt your beliefs. Why bother with anything and why try to improve anything? That may be your attitude but not mine.

Because people don't want high stakes make or break college admissions tests

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How do you begin to standardize GPAs?

My one kid goes to a DCPS high school where he is getting a 4.7 (4.0 unweighted) for pretty much breathing.
My other kid goes to NCS where she has done about 5 times the work of her brother for an unweighted 3.6 (and there is no weighting for honors or APs beyond this and limited APs even offered).

This is why the proposal is stupid. And you likewise cannot compare the SAT of a kid from Sidwell to a kid from DCPS who lives in poverty---you have to consider the advantages one kid has had all their life over the other and the lack of advantages and the life issues the one kid has had to overcome (most likelY).

DP. One problem, in my opinion, is college admission offices attempting to quantify these types of subjective determinations, i.e., assigning a number to things that are inherently not quantifiable. I don't have ideas for other ways to make admission decisions, though my suspicion is that these attempts at quantifying are more problematic than admission offices realize, in a GIGO sort of way.

Because schools are not looking for just a class of 1600/4.0/"perfect ECs and volunteering"---they are looking for the "IT" factor and for kids who are going to go out and change the world. The "go out and change the world" factor is a bit subjective because Harvard might be looking for something different than Stanford or Columbia, etc. Fact remains, the people complaining about all of this are still complaining about NOT getting admission to a school with single digit acceptance rates, where 95% of those who apply are "great candidates". Do the math----tons of highly qualified students will get rejected---it's part of the game of applying to highly rejective schools. Those kids will get into schools ranked slightly lower easily---plenty in the 25-50 range they will get into, sometime with excellent merit. So it's not Harvard or I'm attending my local CC (not that there is anything wrong with that path). People need to get over feeling entitled to attend elite universities.

It's about time universities started to look at grades and test scores more since it is a 'school' after all where learning various academic subjects take place and sports, money etc. should not be the primary purpose of these schools. The primary purpose of any colleges/universities should be about academics.

Well there is your flaw—in thinking someone with a 1600 is “more academic” than someone with a 1520 with more drive grit and determination. They want the total package. Some of the most successful people in life did not have 1600 4.0uw in HS

'Total package' means 'subjectivity & non-transparency' means pandering. Disgusting.

How is that different than anything else in life? Does the "best candidate" always get the promotion? No---usually it goes to someone who is "qualified" but often times connections, how you deal with people (EQ) and how the hiring manager likes you matter. So sure, you need minimum level to make the cut for the final round of interveiws/decisions, but then whether the management and team like you come into play along with other "intangibles". Someone with the right personality and decent smarts might advance much faster than a really smart person without EQ. It's life, get used to it. Most things in life are not cut and dry---do X and guaranteed you will get Y, at least not in careers.

We are trying to improve things that can be improved not giving up and saying "whatever happens, happens". There is no point to literally anything in life if we are to adopt your beliefs. Why bother with anything and why try to improve anything? That may be your attitude but not mine.

Because people don't want high stakes make or break college admissions tests

I agree. One of the USA's core character traits is the belief that people can keep failing until they succeed. I know many other countries "identify talent" at particular stop points / ages. But that isn't the way Americans work.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How do you begin to standardize GPAs?

My one kid goes to a DCPS high school where he is getting a 4.7 (4.0 unweighted) for pretty much breathing.
My other kid goes to NCS where she has done about 5 times the work of her brother for an unweighted 3.6 (and there is no weighting for honors or APs beyond this and limited APs even offered).

This is why the proposal is stupid. And you likewise cannot compare the SAT of a kid from Sidwell to a kid from DCPS who lives in poverty---you have to consider the advantages one kid has had all their life over the other and the lack of advantages and the life issues the one kid has had to overcome (most likelY).

DP. One problem, in my opinion, is college admission offices attempting to quantify these types of subjective determinations, i.e., assigning a number to things that are inherently not quantifiable. I don't have ideas for other ways to make admission decisions, though my suspicion is that these attempts at quantifying are more problematic than admission offices realize, in a GIGO sort of way.

Because schools are not looking for just a class of 1600/4.0/"perfect ECs and volunteering"---they are looking for the "IT" factor and for kids who are going to go out and change the world. The "go out and change the world" factor is a bit subjective because Harvard might be looking for something different than Stanford or Columbia, etc. Fact remains, the people complaining about all of this are still complaining about NOT getting admission to a school with single digit acceptance rates, where 95% of those who apply are "great candidates". Do the math----tons of highly qualified students will get rejected---it's part of the game of applying to highly rejective schools. Those kids will get into schools ranked slightly lower easily---plenty in the 25-50 range they will get into, sometime with excellent merit. So it's not Harvard or I'm attending my local CC (not that there is anything wrong with that path). People need to get over feeling entitled to attend elite universities.

It's about time universities started to look at grades and test scores more since it is a 'school' after all where learning various academic subjects take place and sports, money etc. should not be the primary purpose of these schools. The primary purpose of any colleges/universities should be about academics.

Well there is your flaw—in thinking someone with a 1600 is “more academic” than someone with a 1520 with more drive grit and determination. They want the total package. Some of the most successful people in life did not have 1600 4.0uw in HS

No one is preventing the kid w/ 1520 and grit from attending colleges and universities. I do not see any problem whatsoever.

Likewise, nobody is preventing the kid with a 1600 and 4.0 from attending colleges and universities. Both should be able to attend excellent universities. However, neither is entitled to attend a T10 university. Both should be able to get into plenty in the 25-60 range if they cannot win the lottery for a Top 25 school.

Look in the mirror---the fact you feel entitled to an elite education might just show a lot about why you were not selected over others. Sorry (not sorry) universities get to decide who they admit and when they reject 95% of the candidates, the real reason your kid did not get accepted is because there were too many qualified candidates and by a small margin, your kid was not "one of the best" based on the school's criteria. You have good company in the other 95% who were rejected.

x1 million

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:States could require the use of standardized testing and codify admissions criteria, including requiring transparency and annual certifications from school officials.

For example, a state could publish an admission grid, wherein applicants are placed into “bands” based on the combination of their standardized scores and grade point averages. They could then allow for other factors to be given a set amount of weight to adjust the ranking in each band based on extracurricular or individual accomplishments. This could be limited to, for example, a 10 or 15 percent step-up from the baseline score in ranking.

Offers of admission would then be based on the ranking, made on a rolling basis downward to fill available seats.

https://thehill.com/opinion/4098712-nuclear-option-have-states-take-over-college-admissions-to-preserve-race-neutrality/

This sounds fair especially since some colleges talked about going around the ruling.

It’s not fair, it’s ridiculous. Schools are looking for different things. A theatre major at Yale needs something different than a physics major at MIT. Also, schools want people with broad interest and experiences for their campus culture (clubs, organizations, etc.). College is not all about test taking.

Also, I don’t understand how the state would get to pick who a private college makes an offer to.

They won't. It's a terrible idea that will never happen.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:State universities could choose this. But privates? Doubtful. Plus, do you really want the govt further involved in admissions?

Nope

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:States could require the use of standardized testing and codify admissions criteria, including requiring transparency and annual certifications from school officials.

For example, a state could publish an admission grid, wherein applicants are placed into “bands” based on the combination of their standardized scores and grade point averages. They could then allow for other factors to be given a set amount of weight to adjust the ranking in each band based on extracurricular or individual accomplishments. This could be limited to, for example, a 10 or 15 percent step-up from the baseline score in ranking.

Offers of admission would then be based on the ranking, made on a rolling basis downward to fill available seats.

https://thehill.com/opinion/4098712-nuclear-option-have-states-take-over-college-admissions-to-preserve-race-neutrality/

This sounds fair especially since some colleges talked about going around the ruling.

It’s not fair, it’s ridiculous. Schools are looking for different things. A theatre major at Yale needs something different than a physics major at MIT. Also, schools want people with broad interest and experiences for their campus culture (clubs, organizations, etc.). College is not all about test taking.

Also, I don’t understand how the state would get to pick who a private college makes an offer to.

They won't. It's a terrible idea that will never happen.

That's what they said about eliminating affirmative action.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How do you begin to standardize GPAs?

My one kid goes to a DCPS high school where he is getting a 4.7 (4.0 unweighted) for pretty much breathing.
My other kid goes to NCS where she has done about 5 times the work of her brother for an unweighted 3.6 (and there is no weighting for honors or APs beyond this and limited APs even offered).

This is why the proposal is stupid. And you likewise cannot compare the SAT of a kid from Sidwell to a kid from DCPS who lives in poverty---you have to consider the advantages one kid has had all their life over the other and the lack of advantages and the life issues the one kid has had to overcome (most likelY).

DP. One problem, in my opinion, is college admission offices attempting to quantify these types of subjective determinations, i.e., assigning a number to things that are inherently not quantifiable. I don't have ideas for other ways to make admission decisions, though my suspicion is that these attempts at quantifying are more problematic than admission offices realize, in a GIGO sort of way.

Because schools are not looking for just a class of 1600/4.0/"perfect ECs and volunteering"---they are looking for the "IT" factor and for kids who are going to go out and change the world. The "go out and change the world" factor is a bit subjective because Harvard might be looking for something different than Stanford or Columbia, etc. Fact remains, the people complaining about all of this are still complaining about NOT getting admission to a school with single digit acceptance rates, where 95% of those who apply are "great candidates". Do the math----tons of highly qualified students will get rejected---it's part of the game of applying to highly rejective schools. Those kids will get into schools ranked slightly lower easily---plenty in the 25-50 range they will get into, sometime with excellent merit. So it's not Harvard or I'm attending my local CC (not that there is anything wrong with that path). People need to get over feeling entitled to attend elite universities.

It's about time universities started to look at grades and test scores more since it is a 'school' after all where learning various academic subjects take place and sports, money etc. should not be the primary purpose of these schools. The primary purpose of any colleges/universities should be about academics.

Well there is your flaw—in thinking someone with a 1600 is “more academic” than someone with a 1520 with more drive grit and determination. They want the total package. Some of the most successful people in life did not have 1600 4.0uw in HS

No one is preventing the kid w/ 1520 and grit from attending colleges and universities. I do not see any problem whatsoever.

Likewise, nobody is preventing the kid with a 1600 and 4.0 from attending colleges and universities. Both should be able to attend excellent universities. However, neither is entitled to attend a T10 university. Both should be able to get into plenty in the 25-60 range if they cannot win the lottery for a Top 25 school.

Look in the mirror---the fact you feel entitled to an elite education might just show a lot about why you were not selected over others. Sorry (not sorry) universities get to decide who they admit and when they reject 95% of the candidates, the real reason your kid did not get accepted is because there were too many qualified candidates and by a small margin, your kid was not "one of the best" based on the school's criteria. You have good company in the other 95% who were rejected.

x1 million

but no one said they felt entitled to anything. As usual, DCUMers just throw out the phrase without reading or thinking.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yes!!! I have perfect test scores and gpa and like to torture animals in my spare time. This would be the best thing for college admissions.

Harvard School of Dentistry for you!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How do you begin to standardize GPAs?

My one kid goes to a DCPS high school where he is getting a 4.7 (4.0 unweighted) for pretty much breathing.
My other kid goes to NCS where she has done about 5 times the work of her brother for an unweighted 3.6 (and there is no weighting for honors or APs beyond this and limited APs even offered).

This is why the proposal is stupid. And you likewise cannot compare the SAT of a kid from Sidwell to a kid from DCPS who lives in poverty---you have to consider the advantages one kid has had all their life over the other and the lack of advantages and the life issues the one kid has had to overcome (most likelY).

DP. One problem, in my opinion, is college admission offices attempting to quantify these types of subjective determinations, i.e., assigning a number to things that are inherently not quantifiable. I don't have ideas for other ways to make admission decisions, though my suspicion is that these attempts at quantifying are more problematic than admission offices realize, in a GIGO sort of way.

Because schools are not looking for just a class of 1600/4.0/"perfect ECs and volunteering"---they are looking for the "IT" factor and for kids who are going to go out and change the world. The "go out and change the world" factor is a bit subjective because Harvard might be looking for something different than Stanford or Columbia, etc. Fact remains, the people complaining about all of this are still complaining about NOT getting admission to a school with single digit acceptance rates, where 95% of those who apply are "great candidates". Do the math----tons of highly qualified students will get rejected---it's part of the game of applying to highly rejective schools. Those kids will get into schools ranked slightly lower easily---plenty in the 25-50 range they will get into, sometime with excellent merit. So it's not Harvard or I'm attending my local CC (not that there is anything wrong with that path). People need to get over feeling entitled to attend elite universities.

It's about time universities started to look at grades and test scores more since it is a 'school' after all where learning various academic subjects take place and sports, money etc. should not be the primary purpose of these schools. The primary purpose of any colleges/universities should be about academics.

Schools want to create future leaders and most are very clear about it. The kid with perfect grades isn't better positioned than the athlete with good grades who was also student class president and editor of the year book

Good football players and kids with rich dads do not make 'future leaders' they make bad leaders if they even become leaders. Terrible idea that should be eliminated.

Why would Harvard care if a leader is good or bad?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:States could require the use of standardized testing and codify admissions criteria, including requiring transparency and annual certifications from school officials.

For example, a state could publish an admission grid, wherein applicants are placed into “bands” based on the combination of their standardized scores and grade point averages. They could then allow for other factors to be given a set amount of weight to adjust the ranking in each band based on extracurricular or individual accomplishments. This could be limited to, for example, a 10 or 15 percent step-up from the baseline score in ranking.

Offers of admission would then be based on the ranking, made on a rolling basis downward to fill available seats.

https://thehill.com/opinion/4098712-nuclear-option-have-states-take-over-college-admissions-to-preserve-race-neutrality/

States could build and fund colleges that are better than the private college, and drive the private colleges to irrelevance.