A truly merit based system for college admissions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Would need to get rid of grade inflation & ensure that the education available to all comers was of the same quality. But, UK & European schools also follow this model in addition to Asia. They are just willing to accept that far fewer students will attend college. US has tried to broaden access in past 30 years.

No. There are societal implications to their model. There’s a reason why we have more entrepreneurs and inventors in the USA, by 5x more per capita than UK and Europe. And it’s because we tell our kids they Can do something - do difficult things, make it to college - be a doctor even if they went to community college first - vs UK and other countries that tell their kids they Can’t, and the doors close at 16

I don’t think the way they admit students to university (speaking only about the UK as that is what I have experience with as I am from there) is the reason why the US has more entrepreneurs and inventors though. I think the broader education generally may be something to do with it, but I think the university admissions principle - which is essentially to make everyone take the same exams (subject matter, not IQ) and then admit those with the best results - is a good one. For music/art, auditions and portfolios make sense but for everything else, why isn’t it better to set standard exams and let the most successful go to the best universities?

I lived in the UK for many years so I know it well. Why aren’t exams better? Because the exams, which, let’s be honest, they are Gates, are administered at age 16. So, at 16 if a kid does not do well and does not go on to A levels for Math, the doors to accounting, math, sciences, dentistry, doctor, finance, business, engineering, as possible university majors Are Closed. Forever. There is no path back in the UK. Now you tell me, do you know any kid ever who struggled a little bit with math in HS? And then figured it out? Enough to be an accountant? Or major in business? Or even a hard science? The entire educational and societal construct of the UK is oriented towards telling an individual what they can and cannot do, those are the rules, no math A level? It’s art history for you! so now imagine a couple college dropouts who want to invent something like facebook or Microsoft, those companies would never emerge from that society, bc that’s not part of our rules.

You didn’t answer “why aren’t exams better?” You answered, “why is the British system bad?” I agree with you that the system of exams at 16 and then 18 with super specialisation in the last two years of high school (and abandonment of core subject for many people) isn’t good. But the concept of standardized subject-specific exams - administered at whatever age makes sense for college admissions (here I suppose it would be the end of 11th grade?) - why isn’t that a good system?

I agree we need Something Else besides a the current dumbed down SAT ACT and inflated GPA. Our current system crowns too many stars. All the kids get trophies. We all know that a 3.9 at an elite private HS is a different product than a 3.9 at a low rigor public (or whatever comparison you want to insert here) And with Multiple retakes of the SAT, both kids look the same with 1500 scores. Bring back the SAT we took. The one that deducted points for wrong answers. Allow only one retake. And yes maybe add in required subject tests.

[Anonymous]

OPs suggestions just betray her on biases. I always cracks me up how people decide that "true merit" is whatever they value or have prepped for.

Current system seems to work pretty well -- evaluating a combo of testing, grades, writing, rigor, other achievements. Holistic is merit.

The way to improv is to disconnect the select privates pipelines or at least loosen them, but I think colleges are already doing this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I was thinking of what a merit based system would look like: I've come up with a system where you get points based on your SAT or ACT score and your GPA. Those with the highest combination of the scores (can weight the SAT/ACT higher since there is a lot of grade inflation) would get first pick at any of the top schools and then it goes down the list. No more race to the top for extracurriculars- it would just be mainly studying super hard for the SAT. The top colleges would likely comprise of mostly high income , coastal elites but you couldn't argue much with this. Any thoughts? What do you think would be the most merit based system?

Sounds truely horrible. Hi suicide rate coming at you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What happens when you have more top scoring kids than seats? How to the Asian/UK models handle it?

Asian schools have too many but they do not care. Those kids just miss the good life. Same with Euro --- that exam at 16 decides if you merit the top schools. And things are more closed over there than here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What happens when you have more top scoring kids than seats? How to the Asian/UK models handle it?

In the UK, Oxford and Cambridge administer exams and interviews for candidates who apply and meet the basic threshold (which is top grades in exams). They aren’t interested in “holistic” admissions, they are interested in having the people who are the best at whatever subject they are seeking to study. For all of the next level down universities, there is enough space for every student who scores highly to get a place at one of them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:what about sports and extra curriculars? Tbh i think it would be great to go back to SAT/ACT scores and class rank and GPAs. idk what you would do about athletes

Nothing. Athletics wouldn’t be considered.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Haven't we learned yet that people can be quite successful without top SATs?

Some people can be. In aggregate, high SAT people are more successful and low SAT people are less successful. On average and especially on the margins.

Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, high SAT, high LSAT. Successful presidents.

Joe Biden, low SAT, low LSAT. Unsuccessful president.

Now do Republicans.

JD Vance - Yale law, DeSantis Harvard law
Both passed bar exam first try
Hillary and Kamala both failed bar exam first try
Kamala was also child of faculty at Stanford and Berkeley and inexplicably didn’t get into either

Who in the above isn’t successful? Doesn’t this completely blow up the whole point of this thread?

Hillary was a US senator and Kamala was attorney general of CA and VP.

Clearly, far more successful than you by any measure…including wealth since Hillary has made tens of millions of $$$s as well.

Why did you bring in wealth? Wealth wise I am considerably more successful than three of the four above but I would consider 3 of the four to be more successful than myself. The fourth is just a bit of an idiot who got lucky.

Sure you are. Another DCUM loser just spewing shit.

All 4 of the above are more successful than you. Let's do the smell test...if someone mentioned your name to literally any random person on the street would they have any clue who you are?

Once more, by listing people that have become US Senators, VPs and state governors, and then attributing any of that to pure luck...you realize how foolish you sound?

One is a lucky idiot, we know who that is. You brought wealth into things and by that measure I am more successful than three of them by a pretty good margin. So sit down and stfu buster.

[Anonymous]

Performance in extracurriculars like music, art, sports, dance, etc. IS meritorious. OP has completely lost the plot on university education.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Haven't we learned yet that people can be quite successful without top SATs?

Some people can be. In aggregate, high SAT people are more successful and low SAT people are less successful. On average and especially on the margins.

Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, high SAT, high LSAT. Successful presidents.

Joe Biden, low SAT, low LSAT. Unsuccessful president.

I'm not sure what you use to measure success but your ageism certainly seems to weigh too heavily. Do we know Biden's scores? Can be worse than Trump's and he's the worst we've ever had.

Musk might have had high scores (though I don't think he is necessarily intelligent), and he's a total disaster in every aspect.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Haven't we learned yet that people can be quite successful without top SATs?

Some people can be. In aggregate, high SAT people are more successful and low SAT people are less successful. On average and especially on the margins.

Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, high SAT, high LSAT. Successful presidents.

Joe Biden, low SAT, low LSAT. Unsuccessful president.

Now do Republicans.

JD Vance - Yale law, DeSantis Harvard law
Both passed bar exam first try
Hillary and Kamala both failed bar exam first try
Kamala was also child of faculty at Stanford and Berkeley and inexplicably didn’t get into either

Who in the above isn’t successful? Doesn’t this completely blow up the whole point of this thread?

Hillary was a US senator and Kamala was attorney general of CA and VP.

Clearly, far more successful than you by any measure…including wealth since Hillary has made tens of millions of $$$s as well.

Why did you bring in wealth? Wealth wise I am considerably more successful than three of the four above but I would consider 3 of the four to be more successful than myself. The fourth is just a bit of an idiot who got lucky.

Sure you are. Another DCUM loser just spewing shit.

All 4 of the above are more successful than you. Let's do the smell test...if someone mentioned your name to literally any random person on the street would they have any clue who you are?

Once more, by listing people that have become US Senators, VPs and state governors, and then attributing any of that to pure luck...you realize how foolish you sound?

One is a lucky idiot, we know who that is. You brought wealth into things and by that measure I am more successful than three of them by a pretty good margin. So sit down and stfu buster.

Again, you aren’t anywhere as successful as any of them and just full of shit.

I think your mom is telling you to go back in the basement now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:what about sports and extra curriculars? Tbh i think it would be great to go back to SAT/ACT scores and class rank and GPAs. idk what you would do about athletes

Nothing. Athletics wouldn’t be considered.

Finally got there. Another poster who hates that elite schools value athletics as part of their culture/history. Guess what, your kid wasn’t left out because of the athletes. They were left out because 60,000 people applied for 2000 spots. Those athletes didn’t affect anything in the larger scheme.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Haven't we learned yet that people can be quite successful without top SATs?

Some people can be. In aggregate, high SAT people are more successful and low SAT people are less successful. On average and especially on the margins.

Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, high SAT, high LSAT. Successful presidents.

Joe Biden, low SAT, low LSAT. Unsuccessful president.

Now do Republicans.

JD Vance - Yale law, DeSantis Harvard law
Both passed bar exam first try
Hillary and Kamala both failed bar exam first try
Kamala was also child of faculty at Stanford and Berkeley and inexplicably didn’t get into either

Who in the above isn’t successful? Doesn’t this completely blow up the whole point of this thread?

Hillary was a US senator and Kamala was attorney general of CA and VP.

Clearly, far more successful than you by any measure…including wealth since Hillary has made tens of millions of $$$s as well.

Why did you bring in wealth? Wealth wise I am considerably more successful than three of the four above but I would consider 3 of the four to be more successful than myself. The fourth is just a bit of an idiot who got lucky.

Sure you are. Another DCUM loser just spewing shit.

All 4 of the above are more successful than you. Let's do the smell test...if someone mentioned your name to literally any random person on the street would they have any clue who you are?

Once more, by listing people that have become US Senators, VPs and state governors, and then attributing any of that to pure luck...you realize how foolish you sound?

One is a lucky idiot, we know who that is. You brought wealth into things and by that measure I am more successful than three of them by a pretty good margin. So sit down and stfu buster.

Again, you aren’t anywhere as successful as any of them and just full of shit.

I think your mom is telling you to go back in the basement now.

Someone is upset that people are more successful than their heroes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Haven't we learned yet that people can be quite successful without top SATs?

Some people can be. In aggregate, high SAT people are more successful and low SAT people are less successful. On average and especially on the margins.

Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, high SAT, high LSAT. Successful presidents.

Joe Biden, low SAT, low LSAT. Unsuccessful president.

Now do Republicans.

JD Vance - Yale law, DeSantis Harvard law
Both passed bar exam first try
Hillary and Kamala both failed bar exam first try
Kamala was also child of faculty at Stanford and Berkeley and inexplicably didn’t get into either

Who in the above isn’t successful? Doesn’t this completely blow up the whole point of this thread?

Hillary was a US senator and Kamala was attorney general of CA and VP.

Clearly, far more successful than you by any measure…including wealth since Hillary has made tens of millions of $$$s as well.

Why did you bring in wealth? Wealth wise I am considerably more successful than three of the four above but I would consider 3 of the four to be more successful than myself. The fourth is just a bit of an idiot who got lucky.

Sure you are. Another DCUM loser just spewing shit.

All 4 of the above are more successful than you. Let's do the smell test...if someone mentioned your name to literally any random person on the street would they have any clue who you are?

Once more, by listing people that have become US Senators, VPs and state governors, and then attributing any of that to pure luck...you realize how foolish you sound?

One is a lucky idiot, we know who that is. You brought wealth into things and by that measure I am more successful than three of them by a pretty good margin. So sit down and stfu buster.

Again, you aren’t anywhere as successful as any of them and just full of shit.

I think your mom is telling you to go back in the basement now.

Someone is upset that people are more successful than their heroes.

Sure, those are my 4 heroes even though they are pretty much opposites of each other.

Again…return to the basement…your time above ground is over for today.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: Holistic is merit.

Absolutely FALSE.

By definition holistic admissions gives weight to many things that have nothing to do with academic merit.

There's plenty of reasons to favor holistic admissions, but meritocracy is not one.

[Anonymous]

People often reference the test based system in many countries in Asia. If the resulting societies are so great why are so many Asians migrating to the US or sending their children to be educated here? The best universities seem to realize that test scores are a key part of a good student profile but not the only factor. In the end, these schools know the importance of people skills as related to successful and generous alumni. Also, most CEOs played sports in college. A lot of people fail to realize what traits make up successful leaders and not just smart cogs in the wheel.