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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

+1 I think it would be great if higher education would get back in the business of just academics. May be college would be more affordable. Nothing says you can't grow as a person and get along with others by improving the mind and sharing discourse over intelligent discussion. By the way tutoring and test prep only go so far. The really smart people do very little of either. Beside exercising and honing the mind does not equal boring drones. When the body and face goes, an interesting mind is left (we hope).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

I'm fine allowing them to do it. But then I want these schools cut off from public research dollars and federal student financing and grants. If they want to sell admission seats that's great. But then they should not simultaneously hold their hand out and ask Uncle Sam for research dollars (which they they use to file private patents), federal grant and student loan financing, access to government guaranteed bonds for capital projects, not paying taxes, etc. These private institutions appear to be mighty dependent on Uncle Sam for healthiness of their endowments. This isn't capitalist marketing and free association; it's cronyism.

[Anonymous]

If every university was required to have a web site that listed major donors with any related students attending or applications pending, the disenfectant of transparency might be distasteful enough to make people think twice. Maybe not, but maybe. Also if any tax deductions can be claimed with these major gifts, require that any taxpayer with a dependent who attends or has an application pending at that school not be allowed to take the deduction that year.

And take sports completely out. Pay athletes to play for a club affiliated with the school.

[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.

Prince Charles did go to Cambridge and many believe it was not on merit.

The Oxbridge system is an escalator system. You have to get into the right preschool to go to the right prep and boarding schools (e.g. Eton and Harrow) to have a much higher chance of going to Oxbridge. These are private all the way, so extremely expensive. 60% at Oxford went to what would be called private schools in the U.S. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/oxford-university-cambridge-state-school-socially-inclusive-ethnicity-sunday-times-guide-david-lammy-a8551036.html

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

I'm fine allowing them to do it. But then I want these schools cut off from public research dollars and federal student financing and grants. If they want to sell admission seats that's great. But then they should not simultaneously hold their hand out and ask Uncle Sam for research dollars (which they they use to file private patents), federal grant and student loan financing, access to government guaranteed bonds for capital projects, not paying taxes, etc. These private institutions appear to be mighty dependent on Uncle Sam for healthiness of their endowments. This isn't capitalist marketing and free association; it's cronyism.

The dirty secret (but largely open dirty secret) is that at research universities, undergraduate tuition is used to subsidize research. Government only funds about 70% of research costs, the institution must pay the rest. So students and families are going into debt in significant part to fund research.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If every university was required to have a web site that listed major donors with any related students attending or applications pending, the disenfectant of transparency might be distasteful enough to make people think twice. Maybe not, but maybe. Also if any tax deductions can be claimed with these major gifts, require that any taxpayer with a dependent who attends or has an application pending at that school not be allowed to take the deduction that year.

And take sports completely out. Pay athletes to play for a club affiliated with the school.

-1

Paying athletes only corrupts the system more. Athletes get free tuition, and tons of gear. They are not supposed to get tons of free gear, but they do. I don't think they pay for clothes or high end sneakers during the entire time there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If every university was required to have a web site that listed major donors with any related students attending or applications pending, the disenfectant of transparency might be distasteful enough to make people think twice. Maybe not, but maybe. Also if any tax deductions can be claimed with these major gifts, require that any taxpayer with a dependent who attends or has an application pending at that school not be allowed to take the deduction that year.

And take sports completely out. Pay athletes to play for a club affiliated with the school.

-1

Paying athletes only corrupts the system more. Athletes get free tuition, and tons of gear. They are not supposed to get tons of free gear, but they do. I don't think they pay for clothes or high end sneakers during the entire time there.

Well I can’t stand college sports so get rid of it altogether then. I was throwing a bone to the face painters and tail gaters who like to get worked up over sports. It has never been fair that the admission standard is set lower for athletes just as it has never been fair that grandpa can buy a library and grease the skids.

[Anonymous]

College admissions should work in away that plays to my kid’s strengths and any advantages our family can offer. If we don’t have it, it shouldn’t count.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Lottery--seriously. A certain percentage of the incoming class is offered admission by lottery.

—Parent whose kid has zero chance

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
I was casually told at a dinner party that it costs 25K to get your kids college admission essays written by professional writers and it seems all too common in Potomac. Oh well. That is not us!

Someone told you at a dinner party? That sounds so fancy and exclusive. I must be true then!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You keep cpostung this. Before the DAT was recentered in the mid 90s, plenty of 1500+ kids were rejected from HYPSM. If you’d kid is that talented at (say) math, he should be qualifying for the USAMO camp or similar in other Olympiads. The colleges know this, which is why they like the test normed as it is today.

[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.

Every European college does this.

[Anonymous]

Yeah...
I auditioned my way into college and I’m not sorry for that. I was admitted to a school of music. I wasn’t a fanstastic student and sure, kids with better grades didn’t get in and I did. So what?
They could have auditioned too. No one was stopping them

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

No generation is more entitled than the baby boomer generation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Every European college does this.

seriously
just follow the test of the world, it’s really not that complicated