In your opinion, how should the elite colleges decide conduct admissions?

[Anonymous]

All of you should send your awesome ideas to your school of interest governing boards for implementation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No one's educational experience is enhanced by a class of drones. That being said, for highly selective schools I'd want to see the stress on class rigor and being challenged, GPA, SAT/ACT test scores, interesting ECs that really demonstrate some passion and talent, teacher recommendations, and can they write a compelling essay.

I'd get rid of legacy, significant wealth, and nearly all admissions advantages for athletes. If Duke wants a competitive basketball team, fine. I understand that's a special thing. Same with Notre Dame football. But crew and tennis and lacrosse and soccer and Columbia football are pretty ridiculous. The SLACs are usually appalling with this. Nearly half of Williams and Amherst are "athletes."

I'd also put way less emphasis on race even in the post SC era. Context always matters, but have seen way too many mediocre private school students getting spots solely because they check a box. It's never the brilliant kid from SE or the immigrant in Gaithersburg with the 1300 that gets into a T20. I would, however, really like to find the first generation and low income smart kids. That's a special group of students.

I'd also limit the international admits for undergrad. Grad school is a different story. But for undergrad, no student has ever said all that's missing from my college experience is more wealthy students from mainland China and the Persian Gulf.

Basically, less class. More talent.

No, they are STUDENT ATHLETES. They are generally kids whose academic chops are top tier AND they are competitive on a field or court.

Yeah, it’s actually pretty humbling to see what some of these kids have accomplished. These aren’t the old jock stereotypes at all. We have a family friend that got into HYP this year - 4.0 GPA, perfect SAT *and* one of the top in our state (a large one) for their sport (that isn’t a country club sport). A lot of people are in denial that there is a large group of applicants that are both elite academically and then an elite athlete on top of it.

Sounds like a terrific kid. Now let’s give the same application/admissions advantages to amazing artists - the pre-read (🤮), the advice on classes, test scores, summer experiences, etc.

Or do you think sports are the only valuable EC?

My kid was not a recruited athlete because he had an injury sophomore summer until start of Senior year. He had uw 4.0, perfect ACTs and 5s on all APs and is headed to an Ivy. Is walking on team in his sport. Academics got him in--no coach support, no pre-reads and none of his essays/supplementals were centered around his sport. BUT--in his friend group there are so many kids that knock it out of the park in all areas--academics, sports, community service, music/art. The kids that end up at these T10s are exceptional in many areas--not just one. They score just as high in STEM as they do in history/humanities/English.

[Anonymous]

In an ideal world, the top colleges would spend some money and greatly increase their populations. They don't need to be massive, but an undergraduate enrollment of at least 10,000 would greatly improve the process.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No one's educational experience is enhanced by a class of drones. That being said, for highly selective schools I'd want to see the stress on class rigor and being challenged, GPA, SAT/ACT test scores, interesting ECs that really demonstrate some passion and talent, teacher recommendations, and can they write a compelling essay.

I'd get rid of legacy, significant wealth, and nearly all admissions advantages for athletes. If Duke wants a competitive basketball team, fine. I understand that's a special thing. Same with Notre Dame football. But crew and tennis and lacrosse and soccer and Columbia football are pretty ridiculous. The SLACs are usually appalling with this. Nearly half of Williams and Amherst are "athletes."

I'd also put way less emphasis on race even in the post SC era. Context always matters, but have seen way too many mediocre private school students getting spots solely because they check a box. It's never the brilliant kid from SE or the immigrant in Gaithersburg with the 1300 that gets into a T20. I would, however, really like to find the first generation and low income smart kids. That's a special group of students.

I'd also limit the international admits for undergrad. Grad school is a different story. But for undergrad, no student has ever said all that's missing from my college experience is more wealthy students from mainland China and the Persian Gulf.

Basically, less class. More talent.

No, they are STUDENT ATHLETES. They are generally kids whose academic chops are top tier AND they are competitive on a field or court.

Yeah, it’s actually pretty humbling to see what some of these kids have accomplished. These aren’t the old jock stereotypes at all. We have a family friend that got into HYP this year - 4.0 GPA, perfect SAT *and* one of the top in our state (a large one) for their sport (that isn’t a country club sport). A lot of people are in denial that there is a large group of applicants that are both elite academically and then an elite athlete on top of it.

Sounds like a terrific kid. Now let’s give the same application/admissions advantages to amazing artists - the pre-read (🤮), the advice on classes, test scores, summer experiences, etc.

Or do you think sports are the only valuable EC?

My kid was not a recruited athlete because he had an injury sophomore summer until start of Senior year. He had uw 4.0, perfect ACTs and 5s on all APs and is headed to an Ivy. Is walking on team in his sport. Academics got him in--no coach support, no pre-reads and none of his essays/supplementals were centered around his sport. BUT--in his friend group there are so many kids that knock it out of the park in all areas--academics, sports, community service, music/art. The kids that end up at these T10s are exceptional in many areas--not just one. They score just as high in STEM as they do in history/humanities/English.

I’m sure all of that is anecdotally true for your son, but rest assured that a successful athletic background is quite atypical for an applicant able to secure an acceptable from a Top 10 school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The SAT needs to go back to being an IQ test and should be the basis of admission along with gpa. No more extracurriculars! They are turning high schoolers into freaks who can do research but can barely process information.

It never was an IQ test. Debunked. Inform yourself.

The old SAT with the analogies section was basically an IQ test. It correlated as well with IQ tests as IQ tests did with other IQ tests. The changes made in the last 15 or so years have made this less and less true. There’s still a pretty good correlation, but it’s not as high as it used to be.

Analogies are the easiest section to coach. The old test had to change its name from "Aptitude " to "Assessment " because it was proven nor to measure IQ. This was in the 70s I think. Not an IQ test. Wasn't then, isn't now. Stop promoting fake news.

It wasn’t an IQ test officially, but kids who scored highly on the old SAT also scored highly on IQ tests. Doesn’t really matter what you call it if they give the same results.

But, they don't. And, your statement is not universally true, much as you'd like it to be.

Also, IQ tests are not definitive measures of intellect either. What is it with the test-obsessed other than the fact that you can prep for it and potentially outscore those with less advantages. Y'all just want a game you think you can win.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Some people care a lot about the SAT, while others think the extracurriculars are what count. What do you think?

Set some objective criteria for each seat (e.g. X "math seats" requiring a performance of XYZ in AIME, Y "art seats", given to the students with the best artistic performance/talent, etc) and auction the remaining seats to find financial aid for the rest of the class.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The SAT needs to go back to being an IQ test and should be the basis of admission along with gpa. No more extracurriculars! They are turning high schoolers into freaks who can do research but can barely process information.

It never was an IQ test. Debunked. Inform yourself.

The old SAT with the analogies section was basically an IQ test. It correlated as well with IQ tests as IQ tests did with other IQ tests. The changes made in the last 15 or so years have made this less and less true. There’s still a pretty good correlation, but it’s not as high as it used to be.

Analogies are the easiest section to coach. The old test had to change its name from "Aptitude " to "Assessment " because it was proven nor to measure IQ. This was in the 70s I think. Not an IQ test. Wasn't then, isn't now. Stop promoting fake news.

It wasn’t an IQ test officially, but kids who scored highly on the old SAT also scored highly on IQ tests. Doesn’t really matter what you call it if they give the same results.

But, they don't. And, your statement is not universally true, much as you'd like it to be.

Also, IQ tests are not definitive measures of intellect either. What is it with the test-obsessed other than the fact that you can prep for it and potentially outscore those with less advantages. Y'all just want a game you think you can win.

Actually, it's the other way around. You can study for and outsource those with more advantages because at the end of the day it's you vs them, but you can never out-nonprofit or out-essay a kid who has those extracurriculars done for him, because that pits you against professionals with decades of experience. Far better for the super wealthy, and far worse for everyone else.

https://blog.evanchen.cc/2020/01/13/meritocracy-is-the-worst-form-of-admissions-except-for-all-the-other-ones/

[Anonymous]

*outscore

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:DCUM's defense of athletic recruitment reminds us all that it is not about making a fair system for education sake, but about how Lily at Sidwell can backdoor her way into a college.

I’m not an athlete at all, but as a Carolina grad, I absolutely loved having a college experience that embraced basketball games and the rivalry with Duke. It was a blast! Not on board with doing away with athletics. I admire those who attain the collegiate level even if I never could do it (or would want to).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Kid gets a number from common app. No demographic information allowed. Admission based on GPA, test scores, ECs, essay and recommendations. Again no mention of any demographic information allowed in response.

Limit applications to 9 schools 3 reach, 3 target and 3 safety.

What happens if a kid doesn’t get in anywhere or needs to evaluate aid offers?

[Anonymous]

Basically everyone here is wanting a lottery system. There are way too many perfect sat scores and GPAs and the schools could fill their spots up 5x over with them.

[Anonymous]

NP. I don’t really care who they preference and how so long as they are totally transparent about it. That’s the real issue now: they hide the truth.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The SAT needs to go back to being an IQ test and should be the basis of admission along with gpa. No more extracurriculars! They are turning high schoolers into freaks who can do research but can barely process information.

God no. That's the last thing these schools want. Talk about a class of freaks, a bunch of kids with great SATs and perfect GPAs and zero going on outside of that

How horrible. Academia full of...academics, instead of future middle managers. Whatever will we do if we actually supported innovation and intellectuals rather than the next consultant at Deloitte?!

This is where there is a disconnect. The middle managers are the ones with the high scores. The athletes (who have just as high scores at most places) are the CEOs.

Largely due to business nepotism. DC recently showed me internship opportunities that are only available to "Student athletes" for a hedge fund investment analyst and quant trading position. What a ridiculous qualification for a life-changing internship.

Nepotism implies a personal relationship. Some employers like athletes because of traits they associate with sports- perseverance, dealing with failure, teamwork, leadership.

Right. College athletes make better employees. A hedge fund is the last place people will favor someone who can't do the job. There is no such thing as business nepotism. They have something that the others do not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No one's educational experience is enhanced by a class of drones. That being said, for highly selective schools I'd want to see the stress on class rigor and being challenged, GPA, SAT/ACT test scores, interesting ECs that really demonstrate some passion and talent, teacher recommendations, and can they write a compelling essay.

I'd get rid of legacy, significant wealth, and nearly all admissions advantages for athletes. If Duke wants a competitive basketball team, fine. I understand that's a special thing. Same with Notre Dame football. But crew and tennis and lacrosse and soccer and Columbia football are pretty ridiculous. The SLACs are usually appalling with this. Nearly half of Williams and Amherst are "athletes."

I'd also put way less emphasis on race even in the post SC era. Context always matters, but have seen way too many mediocre private school students getting spots solely because they check a box. It's never the brilliant kid from SE or the immigrant in Gaithersburg with the 1300 that gets into a T20. I would, however, really like to find the first generation and low income smart kids. That's a special group of students.

I'd also limit the international admits for undergrad. Grad school is a different story. But for undergrad, no student has ever said all that's missing from my college experience is more wealthy students from mainland China and the Persian Gulf.

Basically, less class. More talent.

No, they are STUDENT ATHLETES. They are generally kids whose academic chops are top tier AND they are competitive on a field or court.

Yeah, it’s actually pretty humbling to see what some of these kids have accomplished. These aren’t the old jock stereotypes at all. We have a family friend that got into HYP this year - 4.0 GPA, perfect SAT *and* one of the top in our state (a large one) for their sport (that isn’t a country club sport). A lot of people are in denial that there is a large group of applicants that are both elite academically and then an elite athlete on top of it.

Sounds like a terrific kid. Now let’s give the same application/admissions advantages to amazing artists - the pre-read (🤮), the advice on classes, test scores, summer experiences, etc.

Or do you think sports are the only valuable EC?

My kid was not a recruited athlete because he had an injury sophomore summer until start of Senior year. He had uw 4.0, perfect ACTs and 5s on all APs and is headed to an Ivy. Is walking on team in his sport. Academics got him in--no coach support, no pre-reads and none of his essays/supplementals were centered around his sport. BUT--in his friend group there are so many kids that knock it out of the park in all areas--academics, sports, community service, music/art. The kids that end up at these T10s are exceptional in many areas--not just one. They score just as high in STEM as they do in history/humanities/English.

I know of 5 kids that are similarly exceptional and did not get admitted. Go figure

[Anonymous]

I’d first get rid of government subsidies and tax breaks for elite private colleges. Then close all the loopholes for athletes and donors. Also get rid of teacher and counselor recommendations. Bring back test scores. Also block all contact to AOs from private school counselors.