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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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).

For D1 programs, I understand, because it takes up so few seats. Where it makes no sense is D3 programs where they lose millions and game attendance is poor. I'd honestly negotiate it for basketball (Davidson) or football, but Golf/Crew/Lacrosse/Squash should not have recruitment

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Am I the only one who is fine with the way it is?

Me too!

Once you accept that the t25 are low admission rates you find e,McAllen’s targets and safeties and your kid will do well. In my kids case, the one ranked in the 30s/40s were actually better fits for them. They are at one and extremely happy

I’m ok with it too.

One kid into Ivy - no sport.

2nd kid not getting athletic hits at the schools we thought; so will go through regular process. It will be fine bc stellar grades and scores and national accolades and in-school ECs.

Award winning athletes tend to also be involved bright leaders on the HS campus.

[Anonymous]

Was your non-athlete a bright campus leader in HS?

[Anonymous]

Lottery. Pick names out of a bag.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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).

Also not in favor of doing away with athletics. Did anyone suggest that?

Agree with doing away with treating athletes as a special class of applicant.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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).

Also not in favor of doing away with athletics. Did anyone suggest that?

Agree with doing away with treating athletes as a special class of applicant.

The suggestion was that the only defenders of athletic recruitment are parents of athletes. I am a fan because I believe the caliber of athletics contributed to my experience as a student. You don’t get the same level of skill without recruitment.

[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.

Frey and Detterman (2003) analyzed the correlation of SAT scores with intelligence test scores.[20] They found SAT scores to be highly correlated with general mental ability, or g (r=.82 in their sample).

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15147489/ : “These studies indicate that the SAT is mainly a test of g” where g is “general intelligence”

The validity of IQ is easily the most robust finding from social science research. Massive numbers of studies and data.

You may not like these facts, but they’re pretty well established.

[Anonymous]

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.

Sounds like a boring crowd of admits, all with the same profile then.

+1

How about we just let the universities decide what they want to do. Simple easy solution.

They get a lot of taxpayer money and they charge Americans a lot of money and every American has a legitimate concern for how higher education is conducted. Therefore they should absolutely not be allowed to do whatever they want.

And, it is already true that they alone are allowed to decide what to do.

Yes, it is already true, because that is the logical way as they know what they need best.

And if you mean research grant money when you say "they get a lot of taxpayer money" that is total BS and not how grant money works.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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).

Also not in favor of doing away with athletics. Did anyone suggest that?

Agree with doing away with treating athletes as a special class of applicant.

The suggestion was that the only defenders of athletic recruitment are parents of athletes. I am a fan because I believe the caliber of athletics contributed to my experience as a student. You don’t get the same level of skill without recruitment.

So no one suggested doing away with athletics.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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).

For D1 programs, I understand, because it takes up so few seats. Where it makes no sense is D3 programs where they lose millions and game attendance is poor. I'd honestly negotiate it for basketball (Davidson) or football, but Golf/Crew/Lacrosse/Squash should not have recruitment

I don't know why it's so hard for haters to understand is that the reason for athletic recruitment is not entirely about money, and to the extent it is about money, it is not all about ticket sales. Winning teams increase alumni donations regardless of whether actual attendance at the games is poor, and it is alumni who protest when colleges try to get rid of "niche" sports or move them to club status.

But ultimately you might as well shut up about what elite colleges "should do" about Golf/Crew/Lacrosse/Squash because they are never going to listen to you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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).

For D1 programs, I understand, because it takes up so few seats. Where it makes no sense is D3 programs where they lose millions and game attendance is poor. I'd honestly negotiate it for basketball (Davidson) or football, but Golf/Crew/Lacrosse/Squash should not have recruitment

I don't know why it's so hard for haters to understand is that the reason for athletic recruitment is not entirely about money, and to the extent it is about money, it is not all about ticket sales. Winning teams increase alumni donations regardless of whether actual attendance at the games is poor, and it is alumni who protest when colleges try to get rid of "niche" sports or move them to club status.

But ultimately you might as well shut up about what elite colleges "should do" about Golf/Crew/Lacrosse/Squash because they are never going to listen to you.

True, I won't have to worry. As their money thins and they struggle to attract people, the d3 sports will be first to go.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You want "talent" but you kept ranting about athletes. You do know that athletic performance requires talent, right? So much so that as a general rule only about 7% of high school athletes have the talent to compete at any level in college.

And Amherst and Williams athletes are, in fact, genuine athletes not "athletes" in skeptical quotes as you put it.

I'm sorry your kid got cut from the 8th grade club team but why haven't you gotten over it by now?

Hate this disingenuous crap. Stop trying to degrade the person and just make your point. For most non-athletes, the athlete draw is an unfair process that shouldn't mean they can just walk into an elite institution. Especially at LACs, golf should not allow you to waltz into a campus. No one is going to the softball games, so why are we subsidizing them? Sure, these are genuine athletes, but lacrosse and crew should give the same EC boost as drawing or writing, not recruit you to the institution.

You are missing the point. They aren't just waltzing in and their academic achievement is on par with any other applicant. The idea that you think these kids aren't both high achieving students and high achieving athletes is misguided.

Well the rest of us have to observe that they clearly aren't academically bright and just hush up about it, so the prep kid parents don't get mad. These students aren't academically on par, and that lie needs to stop being spread. They are massively mediocre, posh moochers that couldn't get into a D1 program.

Based on my kid's current experience being recruited for D1 and selective SLACS, I can tell you that your broad-brushed observations are wrong. Especially with the SLAC's. On initial phone calls, after the pleasantries are done it goes right to how are your grades, what classes are you taking, can you send your official transcripts, what is your school profile, please send official class list for the next year, etc. If the process started real early, they will ask for transcripts at the end of every semester and cut those who aren't hitting what it will take to get in. Pre-read time is right around the corner, if they don't make it through that the coaches will find someone else. This is real, not an observation.

This. We know kids who have been offered by Ivies and NESAC schools, but the coaches are very clear that the transcripts need to be there for the kid to get admitted. One of DD's best friends had an Ivy offer that turned into a joke in the friend group because the girl was a proud C student how cared about basketball and nothing else. She took a D1 full ride

Meanwhile 4.0 non-athletes get rejected almost constantly. There is definitely a difference in treatment between the two groups, and the stories you and PP told prove it. The vast majority of 4.0 non-athletes get rejected from Ivies, but the same is not true for D3-level athletes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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).

For D1 programs, I understand, because it takes up so few seats. Where it makes no sense is D3 programs where they lose millions and game attendance is poor. I'd honestly negotiate it for basketball (Davidson) or football, but Golf/Crew/Lacrosse/Squash should not have recruitment

I don't know why it's so hard for haters to understand is that the reason for athletic recruitment is not entirely about money, and to the extent it is about money, it is not all about ticket sales. Winning teams increase alumni donations regardless of whether actual attendance at the games is poor, and it is alumni who protest when colleges try to get rid of "niche" sports or move them to club status.

But ultimately you might as well shut up about what elite colleges "should do" about Golf/Crew/Lacrosse/Squash because they are never going to listen to you.

True, I won't have to worry. As their money thins and they struggle to attract people, the d3 sports will be first to go.

lol the D3 schools that DCUM cares about (NESCAC, Centennial Conference, etc.) are never going to run out of money or struggle to attract people, they will always have sports, and DCUM will always be mad about it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Frey and Detterman (2003) analyzed the correlation of SAT scores with intelligence test scores.[20] They found SAT scores to be highly correlated with general mental ability, or g (r=.82 in their sample).

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15147489/ : “These studies indicate that the SAT is mainly a test of g” where g is “general intelligence”

The validity of IQ is easily the most robust finding from social science research. Massive numbers of studies and data.

You may not like these facts, but they’re pretty well established.

If this we're widely accepted, SAT would not have had to change its name.
Also, this study compares to Raven which is also highly coachable. I taught test prep for years and saw first had that there was not a universal correlation. Of, course, I'm nit completely dismissing it -- as I said, it's one data pont. But, prep (as well as LDs, anxiety, etc) has to be taken into consideration.

[Anonymous]

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.

or buying their way on to research papers, parents doing their research papers or setting up 501c3s etc