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

[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).

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.

I'd like to suggest it. I mean it has nothing to do with education. Go watch the NBA or something.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some people care a lot about the SAT, while others think the extracurriculars are what count. What do you think?

40 point scale

ACT or SAT - required, max. two attempts (two total, not two ACT and two SAT), no superscoring, max. 10 points.

ACT:
36: 10 points
34 - 35: 8 points
31 - 33: 6 points
26 - 30: 4 points
20 - 25: 2 points
18 - 20: 1 point
Below 20: 0 points

SAT:
1580 - 1600: 10 points
1500 - 1570: 8 points
1400 - 1490: 6 points
1200 - 1390: 4 points
1000 - 1190: 2 points
900 - 990: 1 point
Below 900: 0 points

GPA - unweighted, max. 10 points.

GPA:
3.90 - 4.00: 10 points
3.70 - 3.89: 8 points
3.55 - 3.69: 6 points
3.40 - 3.54: 4 points
3.25 - 3.39: 2 points
3.00 - 3.24: 1 point
Below 3.00: 0 points

Rigor: AP classes, IB classes, DE classes.
(I know nothing of IB and DE enrollment classes, so an equivalency would need to be created).

11+ AP tests with min. 4: 10 points
8 - 10 with min. 3: 7 points
5 - 7 with min. 3: 5 points
3 - 4 with min. 3: 2 points
1 - 2 with min. 3: 1 point

Essays: 0 - 10 points (subjective)

Varsity sport(s), min. 2 years: 4 points
Paid job, min. 2 years: 3 points
Club officer, min. 2 years: 2 points
Volunteer hours, min. 25: 1 point

Tally it up.

45 - 50: Top 10
40 - 45: 11 - 25
35 - 40: 26 - 50
30 - 35: 51 - 100
25 - 30: 100 - 200
20 - 25: 200 - 350
15 - 20: Community College

10 Points going to any kind of athletics is obscene.

Meant 4 pts.

Why? It would be less than 4% overall. 4 points out of 50. Seems reasonable.

[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.

If you said the first to expand I would buy that. D3 sports will get bigger as college sports change, not smaller.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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).

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.

I'd like to suggest it. I mean it has nothing to do with education. Go watch the NBA or something.

Yeah fine also do away with art and music, go to an art gallery or a concert or something.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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).

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.

I'd like to suggest it. I mean it has nothing to do with education. Go watch the NBA or something.

Yeah fine also do away with art and music, go to an art gallery or a concert or something.

Art and music are academic subjects, so this analogy fails.

[Anonymous]

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.

Why do you say that??

Do you think high IQ kids are all same???

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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).

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.

I'd like to suggest it. I mean it has nothing to do with education. Go watch the NBA or something.

For the most part, I think students, administration and alumni LIKE athletics. There are a handful without. You could always attend Julliard or Cooper Union.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

+1

I wish corporate recruitment and promotion could be this well defined.

Corporates pay tax and pay my salary.
Colleges take my money and tax payers money.

I expect much better from colleges.

[Anonymous]

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

Your kid got in backdoor?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

+1

I wish corporate recruitment and promotion could be this well defined.

Corporates pay tax and pay my salary.
Colleges take my money and tax payers money.

I expect much better from colleges.

How do colleges take taxpayers money? And don’t say through research grants because that shows you have no idea what research grants are and how they work and what you have to do to get them..

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:All of you should send your awesome ideas to your school of interest governing boards for implementation.

No, instead we taxpayers are suing the schools (recent Supreme Court decision).
Also letting the law makers know and vote.
(Laws banning legacy)

Power to the people. We'll keep progressing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

+1

I wish corporate recruitment and promotion could be this well defined.

Corporates pay tax and pay my salary.
Colleges take my money and tax payers money.

I expect much better from colleges.

This may be the dumbest thing ever said on DCUM. The contributions of higher education to the US economy are exceptionally positive. Around 4 million people in the US are employed in higher education. Over the last twenty years, universities have contributed over 380,000 new patents. US higher education attracts a substantial number of foreign students who pay around $36 billion into the US economy on an annual basis. College graduates are twice as likely to own their business as noncollege graduates.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

+1

I wish corporate recruitment and promotion could be this well defined.

Corporates pay tax and pay my salary.
Colleges take my money and tax payers money.

I expect much better from colleges.

How do colleges take taxpayers money? And don’t say through research grants because that shows you have no idea what research grants are and how they work and what you have to do to get them..

If a college has a student gets Pell grant, that's federal tax money.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

+1

I wish corporate recruitment and promotion could be this well defined.

Corporates pay tax and pay my salary.
Colleges take my money and tax payers money.

I expect much better from colleges.

How do colleges take taxpayers money? And don’t say through research grants because that shows you have no idea what research grants are and how they work and what you have to do to get them..

If a college has a student gets Pell grant, that's federal tax money.

If a student receives a pell grant and chooses the college to spend it at you think that creates sons sense of obligation for the college?

by that logic, every supermarket in the United States takes taxpayer money. do you think you get to tell them how to operate also ? and yes, it’s exactly the same thing

You would prefer it if the college then chose not to accept students who needed Pell grants?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

+1

I wish corporate recruitment and promotion could be this well defined.

Corporates pay tax and pay my salary.
Colleges take my money and tax payers money.

I expect much better from colleges.

This may be the dumbest thing ever said on DCUM. The contributions of higher education to the US economy are exceptionally positive. Around 4 million people in the US are employed in higher education. Over the last twenty years, universities have contributed over 380,000 new patents. US higher education attracts a substantial number of foreign students who pay around $36 billion into the US economy on an annual basis. College graduates are twice as likely to own their business as noncollege graduates.

Lol just like for any other countries.
They don't charge shit ton of money like US colleges
I expect much better from US colleges.