A truly merit based system for college admissions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: Holistic is merit.

Absolutely FALSE.

By definition holistic admissions gives weight to many things that have nothing to do with academic merit.

There's plenty of reasons to favor holistic admissions, but meritocracy is not one.

Academic merit as you put it is not the be all and end all. It is a part -- as is the rest. Don't look to Asia or Europe for the answers here. Both have been falling behind us for years.

Didn't say it was the be all end all.

I clearly stated that there are many reasons to favor holistic admissions, but they are not academically meritocratic.

Colleges have many programs that value "merit" that you may not think is "academic" and that a student with a perfect academic profile may not be even remotely qualified to study.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No GPA, just SAT or IQ test

What if a gifted artist, musician, dancer, actor, or the born entrepreneur, empathetic future social worker or psychologist, savant coder, or brilliant mathematician who sucks at humanities happens to have low SAT scores? Not worthy of college?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No GPA, just SAT or IQ test

What if a gifted artist, musician, dancer, actor, or the born entrepreneur, empathetic future social worker or psychologist, savant coder, or brilliant mathematician who sucks at humanities happens to have low SAT scores? Not worthy of college?

Of course not.

The PP wants robots.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Haven't we learned yet that people can be quite successful without top SATs?

Some people can be. In aggregate, high SAT people are more successful and low SAT people are less successful. On average and especially on the margins.

Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, high SAT, high LSAT. Successful presidents.

Joe Biden, low SAT, low LSAT. Unsuccessful president.

[b]


True, although we don't know Biden's SAT but he was only a B student in high school. He did poorly at U of Delaware. This is from AI. We do know he got a 160 on the LSAT which won't get you into a good law school, hence Syracuse, and ranked very low in the class even there.


"Joe Biden earned his Juris Doctor (JD) from Syracuse University College of Law in 1968. There isn't much information about his LSAT score, but here's some information about Biden's law school experience.
Law school experience
Biden's grades in law school were relatively poor.
In his first year, he failed a course for plagiarizing a law review article, but the failing grade was later removed.
He graduated 76th in a class of 85.
Other academic achievements
Biden earned a bachelor's degree from the University of Delaware in 1965.
He double majored in history and political science, and minored in English.
He graduated with a class rank of 506 out of 688."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Haven't we learned yet that people can be quite successful without top SATs?

Some people can be. In aggregate, high SAT people are more successful and low SAT people are less successful. On average and especially on the margins.

Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, high SAT, high LSAT. Successful presidents.

Joe Biden, low SAT, low LSAT. Unsuccessful president.

Actually, probably not true. It's said that Obama had a 30 ACT (not great) and Clinton had a 1032 SAT. https://soflotutors.com/blog-us-president-act-sat/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Haven't we learned yet that people can be quite successful without top SATs?

Some people can be. In aggregate, high SAT people are more successful and low SAT people are less successful. On average and especially on the margins.

Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, high SAT, high LSAT. Successful presidents.

Joe Biden, low SAT, low LSAT. Unsuccessful president.

We don't know their LSAT scotes but I was at Harvard with Obama and can tell you he made law review by write-on + racial preference. He was elected to editor in chief by that law review so the could say they elected the first black editor in chief. Getting on law review by write-on then was considered a second class citizen. That and presumably his less than stellar academic record (he didn't make it on grades like the half that did) explains why he didn't clerk but became a "community organizer". There were articles in the NYT and WSJ about this back then. He was not impressive as a student.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Haven't we learned yet that people can be quite successful without top SATs?

Some people can be. In aggregate, high SAT people are more successful and low SAT people are less successful. On average and especially on the margins.

Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, high SAT, high LSAT. Successful presidents.

Joe Biden, low SAT, low LSAT. Unsuccessful president.

We don't know their LSAT scotes but I was at Harvard with Obama and can tell you he made law review by write-on + racial preference. He was elected to editor in chief by that law review so the could say they elected the first black editor in chief. Getting on law review by write-on then was considered a second class citizen. That and presumably his less than stellar academic record (he didn't make it on grades like the half that did) explains why he didn't clerk but became a "community organizer". There were articles in the NYT and WSJ about this back then. He was not impressive as a student.

Sure you were.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Would need to get rid of grade inflation & ensure that the education available to all comers was of the same quality. But, UK & European schools also follow this model in addition to Asia. They are just willing to accept that far fewer students will attend college. US has tried to broaden access in past 30 years.

No. There are societal implications to their model. There’s a reason why we have more entrepreneurs and inventors in the USA, by 5x more per capita than UK and Europe. And it’s because we tell our kids they Can do something - do difficult things, make it to college - be a doctor even if they went to community college first - vs UK and other countries that tell their kids they Can’t, and the doors close at 16

I don’t think the way they admit students to university (speaking only about the UK as that is what I have experience with as I am from there) is the reason why the US has more entrepreneurs and inventors though. I think the broader education generally may be something to do with it, but I think the university admissions principle - which is essentially to make everyone take the same exams (subject matter, not IQ) and then admit those with the best results - is a good one. For music/art, auditions and portfolios make sense but for everything else, why isn’t it better to set standard exams and let the most successful go to the best universities?

I lived in the UK for many years so I know it well. Why aren’t exams better? Because the exams, which, let’s be honest, they are Gates, are administered at age 16. So, at 16 if a kid does not do well and does not go on to A levels for Math, the doors to accounting, math, sciences, dentistry, doctor, finance, business, engineering, as possible university majors Are Closed. Forever. There is no path back in the UK. Now you tell me, do you know any kid ever who struggled a little bit with math in HS? And then figured it out? Enough to be an accountant? Or major in business? Or even a hard science? The entire educational and societal construct of the UK is oriented towards telling an individual what they can and cannot do, those are the rules, no math A level? It’s art history for you! so now imagine a couple college dropouts who want to invent something like facebook or Microsoft, those companies would never emerge from that society, bc that’s not part of our rules.

they're not closed forever - adults can take A levels or get an equivalent qualification

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Most other countries in the world have this system of admissions, and their universities are not vibrant communities of learning (And, yes, I have taught at foreign unjversities). You don't get the same energy, the same conversations across very different kinds of students, the interdisciplinary ideas, the initiative. In turn, you don't get the same caliber of research and innovation.

On the contrary, the US' world leading research and innovation rests largely on the backs of these students, who come to the US to do their PhDs. A student who squeaks in TO on the basis of athletics, legacy, and manufactured ECs and essays will not be doing Nobel prize level research.

[Anonymous]

As a parent to an academically gifted child (almost perfect SAT) and a child gifted in other ways but still reasonably smart (they'll be going test optional), I believe merit is the right thing for the most part, for the sake of the greater good of society, but boy am I glad our system is forgiving and allows motivated students and opportunity to prove themselves!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Haven't we learned yet that people can be quite successful without top SATs?

Some people can be. In aggregate, high SAT people are more successful and low SAT people are less successful. On average and especially on the margins.

Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, high SAT, high LSAT. Successful presidents.

Joe Biden, low SAT, low LSAT. Unsuccessful president.

Actually, probably not true. It's said that Obama had a 30 ACT (not great) and Clinton had a 1032 SAT. https://soflotutors.com/blog-us-president-act-sat/

We have exactly zero high SAT presidents in our history…NONE. Trump, Biden, Clinton, Obama, and Dubya…all crap test scores.

Pretty sure anyone before that never took the SAT.

Kind of proves the point that standardized test scores aren’t the best indicator of future success.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:what about sports and extra curriculars? Tbh i think it would be great to go back to SAT/ACT scores and class rank and GPAs. idk what you would do about athletes

Same as before. Coaches would make offers and admissions would let the recruits in.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:As a parent to an academically gifted child (almost perfect SAT) and a child gifted in other ways but still reasonably smart (they'll be going test optional), I believe merit is the right thing for the most part, for the sake of the greater good of society, but boy am I glad our system is forgiving and allows motivated students and opportunity to prove themselves!

We’ll said

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I was thinking of what a merit based system would look like: I've come up with a system where you get points based on your SAT or ACT score and your GPA. Those with the highest combination of the scores (can weight the SAT/ACT higher since there is a lot of grade inflation) would get first pick at any of the top schools and then it goes down the list. No more race to the top for extracurriculars- it would just be mainly studying super hard for the SAT. The top colleges would likely comprise of mostly high income , coastal elites but you couldn't argue much with this. Any thoughts? What do you think would be the most merit based system?

A school filled with people who can take a test well and nothing else to offer would be a really crappy school to attend. How can you ensure fielding teams, having theater and music, staffing different clubs and activities? Life is more than a test.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:what about sports and extra curriculars? Tbh i think it would be great to go back to SAT/ACT scores and class rank and GPAs. idk what you would do about athletes

You are making an assumption that athletes have no academic interests or aptitude.

Why do you make such an assumption?