So if it can all be faked, how should college admissions work?

[Anonymous]

There are too many applicants, not enough slots. Let's go from there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

It's only a rat race because you decided it is.

You haven't answered the question if private employers should be required to assign jobs by test scores.

no I didn’t decide that - my kids will go to college abroad. Not in a million years would i allow them through this insanity. nevertheless the system is extremely destructive for American society. It doesn’t really matter whose fault is that - just what can be done about it. These so called elite instructions of learning - in reality hedge funds and country clubs with a smidgen of scholarship - needs to be drastically reformed and quickly.

employers should not be required to hire by test scores, except for maybe government. There are jobs that need to be done. Universities merely issue certificates and the way the system is set now these certificates are misleading.

Now I know you are a troll.

"I didn't decide it was a rat race" even though I am calling it that

"employers should not be required to hire by test scores, but universities should, because universities are how people "make connections" to join the rich on wall street" Dude then just cut out the middleman and make wall street give out those jobs based on scores. But no, that would be stupid.

you are dumb. what was your SAT again?

wall street is mostly connections with a few smart kids funneled through elite colleges.

Lol. You can insult me all you want, it means nothing. I'll stick to the discussion of the points.

Assuming what you say about wall street is true (and it isn't) then answer my question, why not just cut out the middleman and give out those jobs based on scores?

(Since you won't answer, I will. It's because it would be a disastrous failure for any company that did that.)

what jobs? you mean the ten percent? yes you could actually do that. in fact allowing employers to use IQ tests would significantly reduce college competition and the waste that goes with it. even better would be to hire based on performance exams - real tests of skill relent for a job. but it’s simpler and cheaper for employers to rely on the college certificates as proxies for many jobs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:1. Increase the security around proctors and test sites for SAT and ACT. I think over the years people have been complaining about it getting too strict or creating too many "barriers" but I think this scandal should shut that down.

2. Increase the scrutiny around getting extended time waivers on testing. If I were a parent of a child that actually needed this accommodation, I would be LIVID that people have been using this, and thereby making it that much more difficult for my child to be given appropriate accommodations. If a person is going to be granted this, they have to have an already demonstrated record of a 504, IEP, etc. that can't suddenly develop this need in their Junior year, unless it can be clearly documented why the new need. (I think in another thread someone mentioned a child receiving a concussion, and I could see that being a reason for a new need for accommodation. Even with those accommodations, see my first point--the sites where these test are done and the proctors doing them must be held to a highly secure standard.

3. For the coaching/recruit side of this. It must be a required part of the work of coaches that they:
a. Are responsible for demonstrating they have confirmed the validity of the student athlete they are designating as a recruit. This is super easy to do. Verifiable scores/rankings, etc. can be obtained from independent sources.
b. They must submit reports each year documenting the participation of students that they identified as recruits in previous years. We all know that sometimes there are instances that a student might be recruited but ultimately not play, but there needs to be transparency about it. If student didn't participate for legitimate reasons, there's no reason to hide that information.

4. I think this one might be harder, but...
I would like to see legislation that puts some kind of prohibition against colleges or universities accepting donations from anyone with a child ages 12-20. Like I said, probably really hard to make illegal, so instead perhaps it's about reporting, transparency, spotlight, shaming.
-Make donation information easy to access and reported annually in a consistent format across all institutions (similar to the Common Data Set.)
-Require reporting that shows the names of currently enrolled students who's families have made donations to the schools.
Hopefully, this will discourage schools from accepting these "pay-for-play" students because it will be damaging to their reputation.

Anyway, that's a start....

3B is already done supposedly by the NCAA. The issue is gaming for admissions and then never being on a team.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:1. Increase the security around proctors and test sites for SAT and ACT. I think over the years people have been complaining about it getting too strict or creating too many "barriers" but I think this scandal should shut that down.

2. Increase the scrutiny around getting extended time waivers on testing. If I were a parent of a child that actually needed this accommodation, I would be LIVID that people have been using this, and thereby making it that much more difficult for my child to be given appropriate accommodations. If a person is going to be granted this, they have to have an already demonstrated record of a 504, IEP, etc. that can't suddenly develop this need in their Junior year, unless it can be clearly documented why the new need. (I think in another thread someone mentioned a child receiving a concussion, and I could see that being a reason for a new need for accommodation. Even with those accommodations, see my first point--the sites where these test are done and the proctors doing them must be held to a highly secure standard.

3. For the coaching/recruit side of this. It must be a required part of the work of coaches that they:
a. Are responsible for demonstrating they have confirmed the validity of the student athlete they are designating as a recruit. This is super easy to do. Verifiable scores/rankings, etc. can be obtained from independent sources.
b. They must submit reports each year documenting the participation of students that they identified as recruits in previous years. We all know that sometimes there are instances that a student might be recruited but ultimately not play, but there needs to be transparency about it. If student didn't participate for legitimate reasons, there's no reason to hide that information.

4. I think this one might be harder, but...
I would like to see legislation that puts some kind of prohibition against colleges or universities accepting donations from anyone with a child ages 12-20. Like I said, probably really hard to make illegal, so instead perhaps it's about reporting, transparency, spotlight, shaming.
-Make donation information easy to access and reported annually in a consistent format across all institutions (similar to the Common Data Set.)
-Require reporting that shows the names of currently enrolled students who's families have made donations to the schools.
Hopefully, this will discourage schools from accepting these "pay-for-play" students because it will be damaging to their reputation.

Anyway, that's a start....

On #3, this is incredibly unpopular in the U.S., but why allow recruiting for sports at all? Why isn't the athletic competition between schools a competition of the students admitted to study there academically? Lots of them will be great athletes anyway, so lucky you if you pick the kid and they happen to be a great athlete. Yale is going to get kids who can row crew whether they specifically recruit them for it or not. This dovetails with the reality that "big team" college sports, like SEC teams, are really semi-pros who should be paid, because it really isn't about "this school's academic kids are the best at this sport." Don't call it a school sporting competition when really it is about who has the best athletic recruiter. It's not longer about "school" when it's really about recruiting. Part of the reason it continues is because athletics creates donors and because it is a way to get kids to college who may not otherwise have had the academic chops or motivation to get there. But maybe there is a better way to do that than to exploit their athletic abilities.

On #4, where are non-research institutions going to get the money to stay open? Private colleges are largely donor funded. They have to have donors. The only reason Kid A gets financial aid to attend swanky private college instead of locally subsidized community or state college is because Kid B's alumni parents wrote a big check to enable the school to continue to function. That's what a private school is. At its smallest level is is a private group of people who pooled their resources to start a school and who began a legacy of gathering donations from people who support the school and want their kids to go there to keep it going. You want your kid to perform in a fancy theatre in college on scholarship, but you think the Daddy Warbucks who donated the money to build the theatre should not be allowed to have a seat in the freshman class for his little Annie?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For starters fix the SAT. They took a sharp instrument and made it *duller* rather than *sharper* so colleges can't differentiate top students. The kids with the highest verbal ability are indistinguishable from other kids who prep because they dumbed down the verbal portion. That would be a start.

How does it compare to the SAT in the 90's? I took it and got a 1260 but didn't do prep, study, etc.

Some kids score higher than that taking it in 7th grade with no prep, but by the time they are seniors, lots of kids will get the same perfect score through extensive prep and tutoring.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm not sure we have a big problem here. Universities try to get people to apply and they accept the group of students that they want. Their decision can be based on grades, accomplishments, diversity and, of course, cold hard cash.

I think the complaint in this case was that William Rick Singer was cheating the system by taking money that should go to the schools and not really sending them the students they thought they were getting.

He was cutting in on their business!

Universities are non-profit organizations, and pay no taxes. They are "charities". I wouldn't want to see them become for profit organizations, since this would involve shareholders who would certainly not support the entity's mission (only their own hope for earnings on their investment). But universities are huge money making businesses with a legal structure that removes that money making process from having to pay taxes, even though they use lots of public resources. Since the public is not allowed to share in all the money that's made in this huge industry, can't we at least trust that they are honest and providing the education services they profess to provide? It's all such a huge scam and the public does pay the price. So, yes, we do have a big problem here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

It's only a rat race because you decided it is.

You haven't answered the question if private employers should be required to assign jobs by test scores.

no I didn’t decide that - my kids will go to college abroad. Not in a million years would i allow them through this insanity. nevertheless the system is extremely destructive for American society. It doesn’t really matter whose fault is that - just what can be done about it. These so called elite instructions of learning - in reality hedge funds and country clubs with a smidgen of scholarship - needs to be drastically reformed and quickly.

employers should not be required to hire by test scores, except for maybe government. There are jobs that need to be done. Universities merely issue certificates and the way the system is set now these certificates are misleading.

Now I know you are a troll.

"I didn't decide it was a rat race" even though I am calling it that

"employers should not be required to hire by test scores, but universities should, because universities are how people "make connections" to join the rich on wall street" Dude then just cut out the middleman and make wall street give out those jobs based on scores. But no, that would be stupid.

you are dumb. what was your SAT again?

wall street is mostly connections with a few smart kids funneled through elite colleges.

Lol. You can insult me all you want, it means nothing. I'll stick to the discussion of the points.

Assuming what you say about wall street is true (and it isn't) then answer my question, why not just cut out the middleman and give out those jobs based on scores?

(Since you won't answer, I will. It's because it would be a disastrous failure for any company that did that.)

what jobs? you mean the ten percent? yes you could actually do that. in fact allowing employers to use IQ tests would significantly reduce college competition and the waste that goes with it. even better would be to hire based on performance exams - real tests of skill relent for a job. but it’s simpler and cheaper for employers to rely on the college certificates as proxies for many jobs.

You've got to troll better. You'd have to be "dain bramaged" to believe that, and I doubt you are.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If I could wave a magic wand ...

1) Eliminate activities as a consideration. Do not even have it as an option on the Common or Coalition App -- no preferences for athletes, ballet stars, musical prodigies, marching band members, debaters etc.

Schools can offer these activities to anyone in the freshman class who tries out for them, like high school.

2) Blind admission files, with the exception of perhaps geography and gender (same as with an academic journal; no one knows who the author is).

No names on apps, no interviews with applicants. The record must stand on its own. Recommendations and calls only accepted from teachers or employers.

Interesting. I have political concerns about the entire process and the facts to back up my concerns.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is no "perfect" system, but there is one that is closest:

The one we have now. Where colleges get to choose whoever they want for whatever reason they want.

No one is ever kept out of college for any reason other than economics. There are more than enough good educations out there.

This false issue is only spouted by people who want to attend elite colleges but want to ignore the facts that make those colleges elite in the first place.

And we are not talking about the fraud that occurred, that is a separate issue and should be prosecuted.

what we have now is idiotic. colleges are kid of the country club and the IQ. these two things need to be separate. either the colleges convert to country clubs and drop all pretense of intellectualism or they drop that crap and admit the best prepared (through real entrance exams not the crap we have). this is mix is not working - it’s tremendous waste of resources for everyone.

It's not perfect but not idiotic. If there were a perfect system it would be used. Your concept of what is valuable to an institution may not be what theirs is. Difference is it is their institution. You don't have to like that but you also don't have to play. 95%+ of colleges let most kids in.

Do you think jobs should be given out that way also, strictly by an exam?

That's idiotic, IMHO.

Do you think corporations should recruit job applicants based on how much they will contribute to the summer softball league? How about hiring the Big Client's grandson as an intern?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Do you think corporations should recruit job applicants based on how much they will contribute to the summer softball league? How about hiring the Big Client's grandson as an intern?

I think corporations should recruit based on any damned reason they want, since they will have to bear the results.

(And for the record I know several successful business people whose golf skills help them close many deals. I am not one of them FYI.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If I could wave a magic wand ...

1) Eliminate activities as a consideration. Do not even have it as an option on the Common or Coalition App -- no preferences for athletes, ballet stars, musical prodigies, marching band members, debaters etc.

Schools can offer these activities to anyone in the freshman class who tries out for them, like high school.

2) Blind admission files, with the exception of perhaps geography and gender (same as with an academic journal; no one knows who the author is).

No names on apps, no interviews with applicants. The record must stand on its own. Recommendations and calls only accepted from teachers or employers.

Horrible idea. You would end up with a bunch of boring drones who sit in a room and code all day and night. There are schools for that. High test scores and GPA are only 1 factor. You can send your kid to private tutoring, weekend schools, etc. but the real challenge in life is growing as a person and learning how to get along with others. You're making the same argument that Asians are making against Harvard's admission policies...only now, you can't just be mad at the poor minorities getting in.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If I could wave a magic wand ...

1) Eliminate activities as a consideration. Do not even have it as an option on the Common or Coalition App -- no preferences for athletes, ballet stars, musical prodigies, marching band members, debaters etc.

Schools can offer these activities to anyone in the freshman class who tries out for them, like high school.

2) Blind admission files, with the exception of perhaps geography and gender (same as with an academic journal; no one knows who the author is).

No names on apps, no interviews with applicants. The record must stand on its own. Recommendations and calls only accepted from teachers or employers.

Horrible idea. You would end up with a bunch of boring drones who sit in a room and code all day and night. There are schools for that. High test scores and GPA are only 1 factor. You can send your kid to private tutoring, weekend schools, etc. but the real challenge in life is growing as a person and learning how to get along with others. You're making the same argument that Asians are making against Harvard's admission policies...only now, you can't just be mad at the poor minorities getting in.

it’s actually the culture of “interesting” kids with oh so special extracurricular that has created a generation of vicious entitled conformists that we now must face at the workplace. “drones” would be a great improvement over these idiots.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oxbridge / caltech model is the best.

German model is good as well.

Caltech is vulnerable to faked test scores.

Oxbridge has no legacy preferences. There's a reason Prince William went to St. Andrews. He would have never gotten in.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If I could wave a magic wand ...

1) Eliminate activities as a consideration. Do not even have it as an option on the Common or Coalition App -- no preferences for athletes, ballet stars, musical prodigies, marching band members, debaters etc.

Schools can offer these activities to anyone in the freshman class who tries out for them, like high school.

2) Blind admission files, with the exception of perhaps geography and gender (same as with an academic journal; no one knows who the author is).

No names on apps, no interviews with applicants. The record must stand on its own. Recommendations and calls only accepted from teachers or employers.

+1.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oxbridge / caltech model is the best.

German model is good as well.

Caltech is vulnerable to faked test scores.

Oxbridge has no legacy preferences. There's a reason Prince William went to St. Andrews. He would have never gotten in.

i am an immigrant from a fairly corrupt eastern european country. the rich and connected go to worthless private schools that everyone makes fun of. no way they would accepted to the elite (and free) state schools.