A truly merit based system for college admissions.

[Anonymous]

For a truly merit-based system, we would need to start at the beginning and give everyone equal access to a standardized K-12 curriculum that’s uniform across all 50 states, across all schools districts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It will be all Asians OP.

What's wrong with that?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: merit would be taking several subject tests created by the college or nationally simultaneously. Problem is that those who can test prep will so it's not equal across SES.

yes, this. this already exists - SAT and GRE subject tests. you could even give MCAT and GMAT.

[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.

Bill clinton had low sat scores.

The average SAT score of successful entrepreneurs is between 1180-1260 according to Forbes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:For a truly merit-based system, we would need to start at the beginning and give everyone equal access to a standardized K-12 curriculum that’s uniform across all 50 states, across all schools districts.

+1. And not one gets enrichment or test prep unless it's available to all.

I get that OP's perfect child was rejected from a school where she thought they were entitled to attend on merit, but geez, what an obnoxious post.

[Anonymous]

GPAs? LOL. GPA are literally the worst method of comparing student to student. Not two schools spread GPA across the class the same, no two teacher grade the same. It's almost completely subjective and full of corruption as it is already.

[Anonymous]

I don’t understand the faith so many of you have in SAT scores as a measure of ability. Yes, there is a correlation between SAT scores and first year college grades, BUT I’d be willing to bet a lot money that is because colleges, especially in first year, survey-type courses, emulate the conditions of the SAT (e.g., in-class, time-pressure tests, even MCQs, as opposed to papers or take-home exams). That was my experience at a T20 university. I was really surprised how many intro level courses had MCQ format for tests. I haven’t been able to find a study (in either direction) on the ACT/SAT, but a study on the LSAT and law school grades found there is strong correlation between LSAT and in-class exams and a weak or even negative correlation between the LSAT scores and grades on classes with a paper-based or take-home final. I’d be willing to bet it is similar for college, which is probably why so many LACs (who tend to favor discussion and papers to MCQs) eschewed test scores long ago.

Let’s face it, the time constraints are, for the vast majority of classes and professions, artificial and have no bearing on one’s ability to actually master the material. They create distinctions that are arbitrary and benefit the ones who are hot-boxed and excel under timed conditions, even if they aren’t otherwise “better”. There is no reason it has to be this way. For careers where it does matter, there are other, more appropriate screens, not at the college entrance gates.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: merit would be taking several subject tests created by the college or nationally simultaneously. Problem is that those who can test prep will so it's not equal across SES.

yes, this. this already exists - SAT and GRE subject tests. you could even give MCAT and GMAT.

SAT subject tests no longer exist. College Board took them off the market four years ago due to declining interest.

There are AP exams, of course, though there are equity issues with those.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For a truly merit-based system, we would need to start at the beginning and give everyone equal access to a standardized K-12 curriculum that’s uniform across all 50 states, across all schools districts.

+1. And not one gets enrichment or test prep unless it's available to all.

I get that OP's perfect child was rejected from a school where she thought they were entitled to attend on merit, but geez, what an obnoxious post.

Yeah, I’m pretty sure half of these “SAT should be everything” posts and comments are this right here.

[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.

Now do Republicans.

[Anonymous]

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?

[Anonymous]

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

This. That European/Asian educational model is not perfect and creates its own societal and economic issues.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:For a truly merit-based system, we would need to start at the beginning and give everyone equal access to a standardized K-12 curriculum that’s uniform across all 50 states, across all schools districts.

And even 50-60 years ago, there is no way people would agree to have a centrally mandated national curriculum.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It will be all Asians OP.

What's wrong with that?

Vomit
And I’m south Asian

[Anonymous]

I agree somewhat in that ec are largely a joke - so often fabricated or highly directed by parents or an excuse for schools to let in kids of donors and vips (superior ecs!).