College Admissions Doesn't Need to Be So Competitive: Super High Stat Kids are not "a dime a dozen."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I work in higher ed, have lived in Asia, and visit universities and high schools in China, Japan, and Vietnam annually. My opinion is that holistic admissions are imperfect, but they are a hell of a lot better than purely grade- and test-centric admissions, which corrupt not only the colleges that rely on them but also the high schools that teach to them.

the EC centered holistic admissions are more likely to confer advantages on the wealthy

The wealthy have an advantage in nearly everything, including testing and grades. We may never have a complete meritocracy, but most AOs are trained to recognize such disparities. So the kid who does a month of volunteering in Palau on his parent's dime may not have an advantage over the kid who spends 20 hours a week at a parttime job or looking after younger siblings.

We are told that admissions controls for school quality by comparing the student transcript to their school profile and don't expect students to do more than is offered by the school. Why don't they do the same with ECs? No recognition for ECs not offered by the school or that cost more than a de minimus amount?

That E stands for “Extra” as in outside of

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Insane system we have in the US.

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.

+1

Once you exit the T25-30, your high stats kid can get into most schools ranked 30+. Those are excellent schools, many will give your kid good/great merit as well to attract them (they know you are shooting for T25s--80%+ of their admitted class was )

[Anonymous]

Why are large numbers of kids tracked into such advanced math classes in high school? It is rarely useful career wise anymore, even in STEM fields. Plus, they have plenty of time in college to take relevant math classes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Agreed. T20 universities and T10 lacs admit too many hooked applicants. If they are admitting over 20% QuestBridge, they should increase their class proportionally.

Nobody is admitt 20% QB. It is under 2% at most schools so just stop now.

It's commonplace now for top colleges admitting over 20% QuestBridge.

[url]https://www.questbridge.org/partners/college-partners/swarthmore-college
[/url]

24% affiliated with QuestBridge (Class of 2028)

That is a mistake on the Questbridge site. Swat took 15 QB kids in the class of 28 and 15 in the class of 27.

Could you please provide a source for this?

Do a bit of work. There is dat for almost every partner school available.

I did , and I provided the link stating 24% Swat admits are QuestBridge.

If you are serious, burden is on you to counter evidence.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I work in higher ed, have lived in Asia, and visit universities and high schools in China, Japan, and Vietnam annually. My opinion is that holistic admissions are imperfect, but they are a hell of a lot better than purely grade- and test-centric admissions, which corrupt not only the colleges that rely on them but also the high schools that teach to them.

the EC centered holistic admissions are more likely to confer advantages on the wealthy

The wealthy have an advantage in nearly everything, including testing and grades. We may never have a complete meritocracy, but most AOs are trained to recognize such disparities. So the kid who does a month of volunteering in Palau on his parent's dime may not have an advantage over the kid who spends 20 hours a week at a parttime job or looking after younger siblings.

We are told that admissions controls for school quality by comparing the student transcript to their school profile and don't expect students to do more than is offered by the school. Why don't they do the same with ECs? No recognition for ECs not offered by the school or that cost more than a de minimus amount?

That E stands for “Extra” as in outside of

don't be daft. Many ECs are school sanctioned clubs

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They need/want to round out clubs, theater, sports, etc and their admissions are geared accordingly to ensure their campuses are filled with enriching students of varying backgrounds and contributions to their communities.

Give a break. Those contributions to communities stop as soon as they get the acceptance. Do you think the people working on wall st or silicon vally have time for ECs? hah

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?

More importantly, who would you rather work with on a team that requires input and teamwork from everyone? When building a team, you need a group of different people, so you see all sides of the problem, before you are physically constructing the bridge/building. You need the "always skeptic/sees the problems" type of person as well as the creative, think outside the box person. One without the other presents problems. Just like in a job environment, colleges are trying to create a diverse, well rounded group of freshman so the experience is the best/most useful. Surrounding yourself with others who are exactly a carbon copy of you isn't the best for growth in life.
And who wants to be on a team with 20 Sheldon's? Nothing would get done. Yet having 2-3 on a team is great

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why are large numbers of kids tracked into such advanced math classes in high school? It is rarely useful career wise anymore, even in STEM fields. Plus, they have plenty of time in college to take relevant math classes.

It's amazing that 40 years after stand and deliver, we look down on taking calculus in high school .

Maybe when you look at how painfully slow us math education is in K-5, there's no reason not to speed things up

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Agreed. T20 universities and T10 lacs admit too many hooked applicants. If they are admitting over 20% QuestBridge, they should increase their class proportionally.

Nobody is admitt 20% QB. It is under 2% at most schools so just stop now.

It's commonplace now for top colleges admitting over 20% QuestBridge.

[url]https://www.questbridge.org/partners/college-partners/swarthmore-college
[/url]

24% affiliated with QuestBridge (Class of 2028)

That is a mistake on the Questbridge site. Swat took 15 QB kids in the class of 28 and 15 in the class of 27.

Could you please provide a source for this?

Do a bit of work. There is dat for almost every partner school available.

I did , and I provided the link stating 24% Swat admits are QuestBridge.

If you are serious, burden is on you to counter evidence.

What is unserious is buying into the idea that Swat would offer admissions to a couple of hundred QB kids along with the required full rides. I’m telling you that you are incorrect but I’m not going to do your work for you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why are large numbers of kids tracked into such advanced math classes in high school? It is rarely useful career wise anymore, even in STEM fields. Plus, they have plenty of time in college to take relevant math classes.

Parental bragging rights

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They need/want to round out clubs, theater, sports, etc and their admissions are geared accordingly to ensure their campuses are filled with enriching students of varying backgrounds and contributions to their communities.

Give a break. Those contributions to communities stop as soon as they get the acceptance. Do you think the people working on wall st or silicon vally have time for ECs? hah

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?

More importantly, who would you rather work with on a team that requires input and teamwork from everyone? When building a team, you need a group of different people, so you see all sides of the problem, before you are physically constructing the bridge/building. You need the "always skeptic/sees the problems" type of person as well as the creative, think outside the box person. One without the other presents problems. Just like in a job environment, colleges are trying to create a diverse, well rounded group of freshman so the experience is the best/most useful. Surrounding yourself with others who are exactly a carbon copy of you isn't the best for growth in life.
And who wants to be on a team with 20 Sheldon's? Nothing would get done. Yet having 2-3 on a team is great

lol that's not how engineering works, not even close

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I work in higher ed, have lived in Asia, and visit universities and high schools in China, Japan, and Vietnam annually. My opinion is that holistic admissions are imperfect, but they are a hell of a lot better than purely grade- and test-centric admissions, which corrupt not only the colleges that rely on them but also the high schools that teach to them.

the EC centered holistic admissions are more likely to confer advantages on the wealthy

The wealthy have an advantage in nearly everything, including testing and grades. We may never have a complete meritocracy, but most AOs are trained to recognize such disparities. So the kid who does a month of volunteering in Palau on his parent's dime may not have an advantage over the kid who spends 20 hours a week at a parttime job or looking after younger siblings.

We are told that admissions controls for school quality by comparing the student transcript to their school profile and don't expect students to do more than is offered by the school. Why don't they do the same with ECs? No recognition for ECs not offered by the school or that cost more than a de minimus amount?

That E stands for “Extra” as in outside of

don't be daft. Many ECs are school sanctioned clubs

And many aren’t.Annd the posters suggests no credit for ECs. It offers by the school. That is just dim.

[Anonymous]

Am I missing something? Why wouldn't it be great to take really good Questbridge kids? I'd think schools like Swarthmore, Amherst, Williams, MIT, Chicago, Stanford and the Ivies would be getting great matches (with strong QB finalists compared to some other QB partner schools). The 75% numbers are solid for QB finalists. 33 and 1460 as the 75th% test scores (if reported). And 87% from the top 10% of their HS classes. It seems like a win-win with a built-in support system for kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I work in higher ed, have lived in Asia, and visit universities and high schools in China, Japan, and Vietnam annually. My opinion is that holistic admissions are imperfect, but they are a hell of a lot better than purely grade- and test-centric admissions, which corrupt not only the colleges that rely on them but also the high schools that teach to them.

the EC centered holistic admissions are more likely to confer advantages on the wealthy

The wealthy have an advantage in nearly everything, including testing and grades. We may never have a complete meritocracy, but most AOs are trained to recognize such disparities. So the kid who does a month of volunteering in Palau on his parent's dime may not have an advantage over the kid who spends 20 hours a week at a parttime job or looking after younger siblings.

We are told that admissions controls for school quality by comparing the student transcript to their school profile and don't expect students to do more than is offered by the school. Why don't they do the same with ECs? No recognition for ECs not offered by the school or that cost more than a de minimus amount?

That E stands for “Extra” as in outside of

don't be daft. Many ECs are school sanctioned clubs

And many aren’t.Annd the posters suggests no credit for ECs. It offers by the school. That is just dim.

it is a good question to ask. If schools only expect students to take the most rigorous classes offered by their school, why don't they apply that to ECs?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I work in higher ed, have lived in Asia, and visit universities and high schools in China, Japan, and Vietnam annually. My opinion is that holistic admissions are imperfect, but they are a hell of a lot better than purely grade- and test-centric admissions, which corrupt not only the colleges that rely on them but also the high schools that teach to them.

the EC centered holistic admissions are more likely to confer advantages on the wealthy

The wealthy have an advantage in nearly everything, including testing and grades. We may never have a complete meritocracy, but most AOs are trained to recognize such disparities. So the kid who does a month of volunteering in Palau on his parent's dime may not have an advantage over the kid who spends 20 hours a week at a parttime job or looking after younger siblings.

We are told that admissions controls for school quality by comparing the student transcript to their school profile and don't expect students to do more than is offered by the school. Why don't they do the same with ECs? No recognition for ECs not offered by the school or that cost more than a de minimus amount?

That E stands for “Extra” as in outside of

+1

why would you only want ECs that are "done at the school"? So only the top kids can play Baseball or basketball --at our HS those kids are all from 1-2 "travel/elite" teams the rest of the year and they have connections to make the HS varsity team.

Or same with Dance or Gymnastics? My kid does gymnastics at competitive level, and decided to skip HS and all that entails and focus on their own training and outside school team. So they shoudlnt' be recognized for all their work? Don't kid yourself, the kids on the HS team 95%+ do outside competitive gymnastics as well. Nobody "who is poor/doesn't have the $$ for outside training" is making the HS team

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Agreed. T20 universities and T10 lacs admit too many hooked applicants. If they are admitting over 20% QuestBridge, they should increase their class proportionally.

Nobody is admitt 20% QB. It is under 2% at most schools so just stop now.

It's commonplace now for top colleges admitting over 20% QuestBridge.

[url]https://www.questbridge.org/partners/college-partners/swarthmore-college
[/url]

24% affiliated with QuestBridge (Class of 2028)

That is a mistake on the Questbridge site. Swat took 15 QB kids in the class of 28 and 15 in the class of 27.

Could you please provide a source for this?

Do a bit of work. There is dat for almost every partner school available.

I did , and I provided the link stating 24% Swat admits are QuestBridge.

If you are serious, burden is on you to counter evidence.

What is unserious is buying into the idea that Swat would offer admissions to a couple of hundred QB kids along with the required full rides. I’m telling you that you are incorrect but I’m not going to do your work for you.

With that kind of endowment there is no doubt Swat could do that.