Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:How do you begin to standardize GPAs?
My one kid goes to a DCPS high school where he is getting a 4.7 (4.0 unweighted) for pretty much breathing.
My other kid goes to NCS where she has done about 5 times the work of her brother for an unweighted 3.6 (and there is no weighting for honors or APs beyond this and limited APs even offered).
This is why the proposal is stupid. And you likewise cannot compare the SAT of a kid from Sidwell to a kid from DCPS who lives in poverty---you have to consider the advantages one kid has had all their life over the other and the lack of advantages and the life issues the one kid has had to overcome (most likelY).
DP. One problem, in my opinion, is college admission offices attempting to quantify these types of subjective determinations, i.e., assigning a number to things that are inherently not quantifiable. I don't have ideas for other ways to make admission decisions, though my suspicion is that these attempts at quantifying are more problematic than admission offices realize, in a GIGO sort of way.
Because schools are not looking for just a class of 1600/4.0/"perfect ECs and volunteering"---they are looking for the "IT" factor and for kids who are going to go out and change the world. The "go out and change the world" factor is a bit subjective because Harvard might be looking for something different than Stanford or Columbia, etc. Fact remains, the people complaining about all of this are still complaining about NOT getting admission to a school with single digit acceptance rates, where 95% of those who apply are "great candidates". Do the math----tons of highly qualified students will get rejected---it's part of the game of applying to highly rejective schools. Those kids will get into schools ranked slightly lower easily---plenty in the 25-50 range they will get into, sometime with excellent merit. So it's not Harvard or I'm attending my local CC (not that there is anything wrong with that path). People need to get over feeling entitled to attend elite universities.
It's about time universities started to look at grades and test scores more since it is a 'school' after all where learning various academic subjects take place and sports, money etc. should not be the primary purpose of these schools. The primary purpose of any colleges/universities should be about academics.
Well there is your flaw—in thinking someone with a 1600 is “more academic” than someone with a 1520 with more drive grit and determination. They want the total package. Some of the most successful people in life did not have 1600 4.0uw in HS
'Total package' means 'subjectivity & non-transparency' means pandering. Disgusting.
How is that different than anything else in life? Does the "best candidate" always get the promotion? No---usually it goes to someone who is "qualified" but often times connections, how you deal with people (EQ) and how the hiring manager likes you matter. So sure, you need minimum level to make the cut for the final round of interveiws/decisions, but then whether the management and team like you come into play along with other "intangibles". Someone with the right personality and decent smarts might advance much faster than a really smart person without EQ. It's life, get used to it. Most things in life are not cut and dry---do X and guaranteed you will get Y, at least not in careers.
We are trying to improve things that can be improved not giving up and saying "whatever happens, happens". There is no point to literally anything in life if we are to adopt your beliefs. Why bother with anything and why try to improve anything? That may be your attitude but not mine.
I'm not sure you are "improving" things. We are not machines, we are humans with personalities. EQ, life experience and intangibles matter in life. There is no reason why they cannot matter in college if that is how the college wants to shape its class. Colleges want future leaders, future donors and people who will make a difference in the world. EQ is a huge part of being those things. To get those types of people, they need smarts +, not just smarts. I have a very high IQ kid with very little EQ and an above average kid with very high EQ. There is no doubt in my mind which one will likely be more financially successful and make a difference. Hint, it's not the brilliant one (who is a very interesting person so will be successful in other ways). If you went on scores alone, you'd take my kid with the higher EQ, but that kid has a difficult time working with others, off the charts anxiety and spends a lot of time on very intellectual, very niche pursuits. Awesome kid and truly intellectually curious, but not a future leader.
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}