NACAC Journal article: THE 8 THINGS I WISH EVERYONE KNEW ABOUT COLLEGE ADMISSION By Jon Boeckenstedt

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone decipher for me what his point is. I get that standardized testing favors the privileged, and privilege can show through on all components of the application, but what exactly is the author proposing be done about it? He says that someone you expect to be a superstar may flunk out, and the person you don’t expect will do well ends up doing well. I think that’s the far more the exception than the rule. At the end of the day, someone who’s endured the rigor and expectations for college prep is going to be more likely to make it through four years at a rigorous university. And someone who is industrious may be college bound, but I think it would be a difficult row to hoe at HYP etc. (this would be true for my DC included). Is the author taking the position that colleges should let in students who might not have the expected stats, i.e., are not academically prepared) to better give them a fair shake? How do you raise those entering freshmen up, without bringing the university’s high standards down? Besides perhaps simply justifying his own university’s admissions philosophy, what bigger picture, tenable argument is this article actually trying to make?

Seems he is leaning toward academic socialism.

"academic socialism"?

That's not a thing. That's two words you jammed together thinking it was clever, when it is in fact the definition of word salad.

And yes I know that a google search turns up results of 1 or 2 other imbeciles doing the same thing. Doesn't make it a real thing.

"Socialism" is a political and economic concept.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:An apt read for this forum.

https://www.nacacnet.org/8-things


THE 8 THINGS I WISH EVERYONE KNEW ABOUT COLLEGE ADMISSION
By Jon Boeckenstedt


Jon Boeckenstedt is vice provost for enrollment management at Oregon State University.

What a pointless article!

Thank God you copied it all.

[Anonymous]

I disagree with him on many points, but that doesn't mean I don't respect his many hardworking years in the business.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone decipher for me what his point is. I get that standardized testing favors the privileged, and privilege can show through on all components of the application, but what exactly is the author proposing be done about it? He says that someone you expect to be a superstar may flunk out, and the person you don’t expect will do well ends up doing well. I think that’s the far more the exception than the rule. At the end of the day, someone who’s endured the rigor and expectations for college prep is going to be more likely to make it through four years at a rigorous university. And someone who is industrious may be college bound, but I think it would be a difficult row to hoe at HYP etc. (this would be true for my DC included). Is the author taking the position that colleges should let in students who might not have the expected stats, i.e., are not academically prepared) to better give them a fair shake? How do you raise those entering freshmen up, without bringing the university’s high standards down? Besides perhaps simply justifying his own university’s admissions philosophy, what bigger picture, tenable argument is this article actually trying to make?

Seems he is leaning toward academic socialism.

"academic socialism"?

That's not a thing. That's two words you jammed together thinking it was clever, when it is in fact the definition of word salad.

And yes I know that a google search turns up results of 1 or 2 other imbeciles doing the same thing. Doesn't make it a real thing.

"Socialism" is a political and economic concept.

I regret that my word salad offended your sensibilities and distracted you from providing a response on the merits. My apologies again.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone decipher for me what his point is. I get that standardized testing favors the privileged, and privilege can show through on all components of the application, but what exactly is the author proposing be done about it? He says that someone you expect to be a superstar may flunk out, and the person you don’t expect will do well ends up doing well. I think that’s the far more the exception than the rule. At the end of the day, someone who’s endured the rigor and expectations for college prep is going to be more likely to make it through four years at a rigorous university. And someone who is industrious may be college bound, but I think it would be a difficult row to hoe at HYP etc. (this would be true for my DC included). Is the author taking the position that colleges should let in students who might not have the expected stats, i.e., are not academically prepared) to better give them a fair shake? How do you raise those entering freshmen up, without bringing the university’s high standards down? Besides perhaps simply justifying his own university’s admissions philosophy, what bigger picture, tenable argument is this article actually trying to make?

Seems he is leaning toward academic socialism.

"academic socialism"?

That's not a thing. That's two words you jammed together thinking it was clever, when it is in fact the definition of word salad.

And yes I know that a google search turns up results of 1 or 2 other imbeciles doing the same thing. Doesn't make it a real thing.

"Socialism" is a political and economic concept.

Are you always this pedantic and literal? I knew immediately what the PP was referring to.
DP

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone decipher for me what his point is. I get that standardized testing favors the privileged, and privilege can show through on all components of the application, but what exactly is the author proposing be done about it? He says that someone you expect to be a superstar may flunk out, and the person you don’t expect will do well ends up doing well. I think that’s the far more the exception than the rule. At the end of the day, someone who’s endured the rigor and expectations for college prep is going to be more likely to make it through four years at a rigorous university. And someone who is industrious may be college bound, but I think it would be a difficult row to hoe at HYP etc. (this would be true for my DC included). Is the author taking the position that colleges should let in students who might not have the expected stats, i.e., are not academically prepared) to better give them a fair shake? How do you raise those entering freshmen up, without bringing the university’s high standards down? Besides perhaps simply justifying his own university’s admissions philosophy, what bigger picture, tenable argument is this article actually trying to make?

Seems he is leaning toward academic socialism.

"academic socialism"?

That's not a thing. That's two words you jammed together thinking it was clever, when it is in fact the definition of word salad.

And yes I know that a google search turns up results of 1 or 2 other imbeciles doing the same thing. Doesn't make it a real thing.

"Socialism" is a political and economic concept.

Are you always this pedantic and literal? I knew immediately what the PP was referring to.
DP

Yes, so did I, even though I approve of many socialist ideas

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The OP likely works in college admissions. FYI, the article's author is well known in college admissions and a respected data cruncher.

Except he hasn’t worked in admissions in decades.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For the love, please don't quote the whole article.

+1000

I do what I please bit**es! I'm anonymous!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone decipher for me what his point is. I get that standardized testing favors the privileged, and privilege can show through on all components of the application, but what exactly is the author proposing be done about it? He says that someone you expect to be a superstar may flunk out, and the person you don’t expect will do well ends up doing well. I think that’s the far more the exception than the rule. At the end of the day, someone who’s endured the rigor and expectations for college prep is going to be more likely to make it through four years at a rigorous university. And someone who is industrious may be college bound, but I think it would be a difficult row to hoe at HYP etc. (this would be true for my DC included). Is the author taking the position that colleges should let in students who might not have the expected stats, i.e., are not academically prepared) to better give them a fair shake? How do you raise those entering freshmen up, without bringing the university’s high standards down? Besides perhaps simply justifying his own university’s admissions philosophy, what bigger picture, tenable argument is this article actually trying to make?

Seems he is leaning toward academic socialism.

"academic socialism"?

That's not a thing. That's two words you jammed together thinking it was clever, when it is in fact the definition of word salad.

And yes I know that a google search turns up results of 1 or 2 other imbeciles doing the same thing. Doesn't make it a real thing.

"Socialism" is a political and economic concept.

You must be a tenured academic who benefits from academic socialism..

[Anonymous]

The responses to this post are disappointing. Instead of trying to understand the author’s overall point and to consider how the college admission process reflects our country’s broader social tensions and ideals, the fixation appears to be on the impact on one’s own kid. Of course, that’s not explicitly said, but the perjorative use of “academic socialism” makes the concern clear.

I think the author is trying to highlight that what many like to call “merit” is significantly, but not completely, a self-reinforcing system of achievement that is underwritten by parental wealth and education. That is, families headed by relatively wealthy and educated parents are more likely to “produce” kids who have completed rigorous academics and attained high grades and test scores than their opposites. In turn, selective colleges ignore student achievement and parental ability to pay at their reputational and financial peril. Thus, the natural order of things is for college admissions to sustain the privileged achievement of primary and secondary school.

Yet, is this good for society? The author clearly thinks not. Where else, if not college, will this chain of inbred opportunity be broken? The workplace? Not if companies offer the best opportunities to graduates of the most selective schools. The author suggests that within a college’s reputational and financial constraints, it can serve a social good by providing opportunity to those who have had less while young.

As for myself, I applaud the aim of colleges to help applicants on the margin (And let’s be honest, it’s on the margin. Despite some affirmative action, selective schools are not admitting high school dropouts). A well functioning and interesting society doesn’t hoard opportunity, it shares it. When we leave this world, hopefully we’ve made it better for everyone, not just our clan.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone decipher for me what his point is. I get that standardized testing favors the privileged, and privilege can show through on all components of the application, but what exactly is the author proposing be done about it? He says that someone you expect to be a superstar may flunk out, and the person you don’t expect will do well ends up doing well. I think that’s the far more the exception than the rule. At the end of the day, someone who’s endured the rigor and expectations for college prep is going to be more likely to make it through four years at a rigorous university. And someone who is industrious may be college bound, but I think it would be a difficult row to hoe at HYP etc. (this would be true for my DC included). Is the author taking the position that colleges should let in students who might not have the expected stats, i.e., are not academically prepared) to better give them a fair shake? How do you raise those entering freshmen up, without bringing the university’s high standards down? Besides perhaps simply justifying his own university’s admissions philosophy, what bigger picture, tenable argument is this article actually trying to make?

Seems he is leaning toward academic socialism.

"academic socialism"?

That's not a thing. That's two words you jammed together thinking it was clever, when it is in fact the definition of word salad.

And yes I know that a google search turns up results of 1 or 2 other imbeciles doing the same thing. Doesn't make it a real thing.

"Socialism" is a political and economic concept.

Are you always this pedantic and literal? I knew immediately what the PP was referring to.
DP

Oh I knew what he meant.

I just think it is incredibly stupid and shows pervasive bias. As well as being totally irrelevant and unhelpful.

[Anonymous]

OP, I see your point, but most selective colleges already employ some form of “affirmative action” - they will set aside an amount of seats for poor/underprivileged students. There are college programs specifically targeted to underprivileged and/or minorities (Questbridge, for one). So I’m not sure what more you think they should be doing?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone decipher for me what his point is. I get that standardized testing favors the privileged, and privilege can show through on all components of the application, but what exactly is the author proposing be done about it? He says that someone you expect to be a superstar may flunk out, and the person you don’t expect will do well ends up doing well. I think that’s the far more the exception than the rule. At the end of the day, someone who’s endured the rigor and expectations for college prep is going to be more likely to make it through four years at a rigorous university. And someone who is industrious may be college bound, but I think it would be a difficult row to hoe at HYP etc. (this would be true for my DC included). Is the author taking the position that colleges should let in students who might not have the expected stats, i.e., are not academically prepared) to better give them a fair shake? How do you raise those entering freshmen up, without bringing the university’s high standards down? Besides perhaps simply justifying his own university’s admissions philosophy, what bigger picture, tenable argument is this article actually trying to make?

Seems he is leaning toward academic socialism.

"academic socialism"?

That's not a thing. That's two words you jammed together thinking it was clever, when it is in fact the definition of word salad.

And yes I know that a google search turns up results of 1 or 2 other imbeciles doing the same thing. Doesn't make it a real thing.

"Socialism" is a political and economic concept.

Are you always this pedantic and literal? I knew immediately what the PP was referring to.
DP

Oh I knew what he meant.

I just think it is incredibly stupid and shows pervasive bias. As well as being totally irrelevant and unhelpful.

Meh. I thought it was a clever and concise way of summing up the entire article.
DP

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone decipher for me what his point is. I get that standardized testing favors the privileged, and privilege can show through on all components of the application, but what exactly is the author proposing be done about it? He says that someone you expect to be a superstar may flunk out, and the person you don’t expect will do well ends up doing well. I think that’s the far more the exception than the rule. At the end of the day, someone who’s endured the rigor and expectations for college prep is going to be more likely to make it through four years at a rigorous university. And someone who is industrious may be college bound, but I think it would be a difficult row to hoe at HYP etc. (this would be true for my DC included). Is the author taking the position that colleges should let in students who might not have the expected stats, i.e., are not academically prepared) to better give them a fair shake? How do you raise those entering freshmen up, without bringing the university’s high standards down? Besides perhaps simply justifying his own university’s admissions philosophy, what bigger picture, tenable argument is this article actually trying to make?

Seems he is leaning toward academic socialism.

What on Earth are you trying to say?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The responses to this post are disappointing. Instead of trying to understand the author’s overall point and to consider how the college admission process reflects our country’s broader social tensions and ideals, the fixation appears to be on the impact on one’s own kid. Of course, that’s not explicitly said, but the perjorative use of “academic socialism” makes the concern clear.

I think the author is trying to highlight that what many like to call “merit” is significantly, but not completely, a self-reinforcing system of achievement that is underwritten by parental wealth and education. That is, families headed by relatively wealthy and educated parents are more likely to “produce” kids who have completed rigorous academics and attained high grades and test scores than their opposites. In turn, selective colleges ignore student achievement and parental ability to pay at their reputational and financial peril. Thus, the natural order of things is for college admissions to sustain the privileged achievement of primary and secondary school.

Yet, is this good for society? The author clearly thinks not. Where else, if not college, will this chain of inbred opportunity be broken? The workplace? Not if companies offer the best opportunities to graduates of the most selective schools. The author suggests that within a college’s reputational and financial constraints, it can serve a social good by providing opportunity to those who have had less while young.

As for myself, I applaud the aim of colleges to help applicants on the margin (And let’s be honest, it’s on the margin. Despite some affirmative action, selective schools are not admitting high school dropouts). A well functioning and interesting society doesn’t hoard opportunity, it shares it. When we leave this world, hopefully we’ve made it better for everyone, not just our clan.

+100
I also liked his point about how do you define the best. You really can’t. A jerk with stellar grades but a dour personality? Is that really best for the college? Probably not. And the term merit is pretty meaningless