College Admissions Doesn't Need to Be So Competitive: Super High Stat Kids are not "a dime a dozen."
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
+1 |
Anonymous
So once in a generation it’s real, the other 99.9999% of the time it’s imagination. Either way, it’s the reason schools engage in this elaborate holistic scheme instead of either admitting by stats (which would exclude most of the rich kids) or auctioning off the seats (which would exclude most of the smart kids). |
Anonymous
This is a kid who is going to be successful in life. |
Anonymous
a lot of the smart kids would see their parents and maybe grandparents emptying their 401ks to buy that golden ticket. |
Anonymous
If you don't think those connections have much real value, why do you care about getting into Harvard? |
Anonymous
This auction idea has been floated for years. It's more intellectually honest than the handwaving about extra points for donor admits/legacy kids. https://www.insidehighered.com/admissions/article/2019/04/01/linkedin-post-sets-debate-idea-auctioning-college-admission-spots |
Anonymous
Don't bother, MAGA person got caught in a lie |
Anonymous
|
I always thought people lie about their test scores and gpa.
My kid got in to T10s/20s and is at an Ivy and I had told him be prepared not to get into UVA because of all the horror stories. My kid was a 5 on all AP exams, 36 in 3 sections ACT- first try and uw 4.0. I do believe GPAs are high everywhere with grade inflated schools/ but they often don’t reflect rigor and schools recalculate based on unweighted. |
Anonymous
No, the system is fine. There are just insane people who genuinely believe only a fee schools are "worth it." If you eliminate the prestige whores, and the entire notion of prestige, which is grossly misplaced anyway, the system is actually fantastic. We do not force rank kids or schools by numbers, and we can't because we don't have a universal high school system. |
Anonymous
You could look at this a couple ways. 1) Western (US/UK) culture values the idea of the "good at lots of things" "Renaissance man" idea. Also the ideal that people should combine athleticism and academics (as required by prestige fellowships, and implied by "playing fields of Eton" kind of comments, etc.) The US also seems to place a high value on extroversion and keeping busy at all times. That's where the ECs trend came from. 2) People who value constructive societies/communities (like admissions officers) like to see evidence of concern for others beyond self. Even faked. The hope is these people will keep progress moving and build a better world. Wall Street people and Valley people often believe their work does this (whether we agree or not). This is an attempt by academia to lessen the amount of "brilliant jerks" they produce. And US business definitely prefers popular bro type people. I'm a woman. This is my second year of filing a March Madness bracket to be a joiner. I don't give a rat's a$$ about basketball. But it's not okay to admit that...more important to fit in and be a good sport. 3) People who value intellectual diversity understand that your views, life goals, personal growth are positively impacted by being around people who are different from you in a mutually supportive learning environment. People who have had this privilege rarely spend time wishing their school had admitted more people based on math SATs. And it's really the math that is the issue. There's still a gender skew there. In fact, it's amazing to me to realize that it would be possible to design an SAT that would have an equal amount of female high scorers at the very top. And that those SAT-Verbal analogies that got removed long ago actually were an area where women outperformed men. If they didn't double the verbal in the selection index, the number of women NMFs would fall a lot. So why do they do that doubling? Simple fudge to keep male math nerds from getting ALL of higher education's admissions goodies. Because higher math is only important in some fields. The ECs list measures a lot of things...extroversion, quirk factor, can you curate and present yourself, energy level, would you pass the "have a beer with" test, are you hireable, are you rich, etc. Basic primate status competition. Yes, it's annoying and hard for a lot of people...but it relates well to other types of status competitions that also determine people's career success. I can tell you that I've lost jobs to women that are sweeter than me. And it's definitely signaled by "EC's" on their resume. Like working with troubled kids and raising guide dogs. I don't have the time or the energy for that. But my standardized test scores are near perfect. Who would you have a beer with? |
Anonymous
I'm not sure if we're on the same page. My point was that most college AOs do account for differences in ECs. Or maybe I misunderstood your post? |
Anonymous
What does this mean? You have to have collegeboard send your test scores to colleges and your school sends official transcripts |
Anonymous
Poor kids have a hard time getting into the competitive pipeline that leads to the qualifications needed for entry. The gatekeeping starts way earlier. That's why you don't see it at age 17-18. |
Anonymous
No. Upper middle class kid stole idea from rich kids and ran with it. Found like minds along the way to get it off the ground. |
Anonymous
Do a bit of work. There is dat for almost every partner school available. |