Why is it so much harder to get into a top school now?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Test optional. Test optional allows kids with good grades but mediocre or bad test scores to apply to highly selective schools. Top schools want to take some of those kids because it fulfills their DEI and financial goals. At some better schools, test optional now accounts for 40% of applications and 25% of admits. If those applications didn’t exist, there would be more room for the kids that got admitted five years ago.

And this is a good thing, BTW. The test scores are discriminatory.

Getting rid of tests is discriminatory - against Asians in particular.

Just because many Asian parents prioritize standardized test performance doesn't mean getting rid of them is discriminatory. FWIW, I think optional is fine. They can be a factor, but students can also demonstrate intellectual capabilities in other ways.

That statement is racist against Asians. How do you know their success in testing is a function of the stereotype of parental pressure?

I guess there is some special SAT gene that only asian kids possess. Is that it?

I don't know what to tell you. These are basic tests of intellectual ability. Asian kids do really well on them. They get more answers correct. I read that as, Asian kids are on average smarter. Are they born smarter? I don't know, it is possible. But by the time they sit for those exams, they are smarter. It is what it is. Are the tests perfect? No. But they clearly correlate with smartness.

I dont know what to tell you. Maybe they prepare more effectively.

Or maybe by the time they sit for the test at age 16, they are "smarter." They know more, they have been better educated, their minds work faster, they think more clearly. Isn't this why we say education is important? It's like taking two kids, one goes to the gym everyday, works out, the other plays video games, and then you have a physical fitness test, and the first kid outperforms the second kid. What is the appropriate reaction to that? The test is biased? Or the first kid was able to beat the system somehow?

Poor analogy.
The athletic winner is better trained, but the gamer may have the same or better athletic potential, just not the opportunity to train.

Colleges aren't here to admit students based on their theoretical genetic intellectual potential at conception. They are here to admit students based on the intellectual development they have achieved by age 17. Yes, resources and preparation can exaggerate the signal the tests provide. But they nonetheless provide a strong signal. We don't have to discount the test just because Asians do so well on them versus other groups.

I almost thought you were sensible... but good grief!

Let's use the marathon analogy. You want to reward the competitor that started running hours before everyone else even woke up

If we are going to negate 17 years of intellectual development, and just focus on some abstract idea of how smart a kid could have become if properly resourced, why don’t we do the same with sports and music? Why don’t we recruit athletes based on how good they might have been or pianists based on how well they might have played if only they received lessons? It’s absurd. You are evaluating the 16 or 17 year old person, what are they capable of now?, not the DNA sequence

Get off the "DNA sequence" foolishness don't you? Every time you say something sensible (even if I disagree) you throw in this race science BS.

has nothing to do with race science. I will stipulate that there are no variations in intelligence across races. I am simply arguing that SATs are a reliable measure of intellectual ability (not perfect and yes prep can improve one's score). If there are differences from a racial perspective on outcomes, some of this could be related to prep but it is also related to the intellectual development of 16 year old kids across races. Culture, financial resources, family structure-- these all play into how "smart" a kid is by the time he or she is 16. The SAT catches how "smart" a kid is in ways that grades (which vary wildly by school, teacher etc) do not. It is a good tool. Not perfect but good. yes, a kid from a disadvantaged background should be given some leeway for weak SATs to adjust for the prep aspect of it.

I don't know about giving weak SAT scores any kind of leeway. Just no way to tell if they are weak because of poor attitude or poor preparation.

This is why the test is just one part of the evaluation

[Anonymous]

Jesus, this discussion about who is objectively smartest is so off-putting. You guys go ahead and have these universities to yourselves. Keep on running that race to see who is the very best at the end. My family is out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Test optional. Test optional allows kids with good grades but mediocre or bad test scores to apply to highly selective schools. Top schools want to take some of those kids because it fulfills their DEI and financial goals. At some better schools, test optional now accounts for 40% of applications and 25% of admits. If those applications didn’t exist, there would be more room for the kids that got admitted five years ago.

And this is a good thing, BTW. The test scores are discriminatory.

Getting rid of tests is discriminatory - against Asians in particular.

Just because many Asian parents prioritize standardized test performance doesn't mean getting rid of them is discriminatory. FWIW, I think optional is fine. They can be a factor, but students can also demonstrate intellectual capabilities in other ways.

That statement is racist against Asians. How do you know their success in testing is a function of the stereotype of parental pressure?

I guess there is some special SAT gene that only asian kids possess. Is that it?

I don't know what to tell you. These are basic tests of intellectual ability. Asian kids do really well on them. They get more answers correct. I read that as, Asian kids are on average smarter. Are they born smarter? I don't know, it is possible. But by the time they sit for those exams, they are smarter. It is what it is. Are the tests perfect? No. But they clearly correlate with smartness.

I dont know what to tell you. Maybe they prepare more effectively.

Or maybe by the time they sit for the test at age 16, they are "smarter." They know more, they have been better educated, their minds work faster, they think more clearly. Isn't this why we say education is important? It's like taking two kids, one goes to the gym everyday, works out, the other plays video games, and then you have a physical fitness test, and the first kid outperforms the second kid. What is the appropriate reaction to that? The test is biased? Or the first kid was able to beat the system somehow?

Poor analogy.
The athletic winner is better trained, but the gamer may have the same or better athletic potential, just not the opportunity to train.

Colleges aren't here to admit students based on their theoretical genetic intellectual potential at conception. They are here to admit students based on the intellectual development they have achieved by age 17. Yes, resources and preparation can exaggerate the signal the tests provide. But they nonetheless provide a strong signal. We don't have to discount the test just because Asians do so well on them versus other groups.

I almost thought you were sensible... but good grief!

Let's use the marathon analogy. You want to reward the competitor that started running hours before everyone else even woke up

If we are going to negate 17 years of intellectual development, and just focus on some abstract idea of how smart a kid could have become if properly resourced, why don’t we do the same with sports and music? Why don’t we recruit athletes based on how good they might have been or pianists based on how well they might have played if only they received lessons? It’s absurd. You are evaluating the 16 or 17 year old person, what are they capable of now?, not the DNA sequence

Many athletes are in fact recruited based on things like muscle structure and growth plate opportunity. So ya, it is already done.

[Anonymous]

There will be an enrollment cliff soon. It won’t impact the top schools, but I’ve seen schools such as Bucknell, W&M, Brandeis, Ithaca College, Franklin & Marshall, Occidental and Sarah Lawrence exhibit great concern over it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Test optional. Test optional allows kids with good grades but mediocre or bad test scores to apply to highly selective schools. Top schools want to take some of those kids because it fulfills their DEI and financial goals. At some better schools, test optional now accounts for 40% of applications and 25% of admits. If those applications didn’t exist, there would be more room for the kids that got admitted five years ago.

And this is a good thing, BTW. The test scores are discriminatory.

Getting rid of tests is discriminatory - against Asians in particular.

Just because many Asian parents prioritize standardized test performance doesn't mean getting rid of them is discriminatory. FWIW, I think optional is fine. They can be a factor, but students can also demonstrate intellectual capabilities in other ways.

That statement is racist against Asians. How do you know their success in testing is a function of the stereotype of parental pressure?

I guess there is some special SAT gene that only asian kids possess. Is that it?

I don't know what to tell you. These are basic tests of intellectual ability. Asian kids do really well on them. They get more answers correct. I read that as, Asian kids are on average smarter. Are they born smarter? I don't know, it is possible. But by the time they sit for those exams, they are smarter. It is what it is. Are the tests perfect? No. But they clearly correlate with smartness.

I dont know what to tell you. Maybe they prepare more effectively.

Or maybe by the time they sit for the test at age 16, they are "smarter." They know more, they have been better educated, their minds work faster, they think more clearly. Isn't this why we say education is important? It's like taking two kids, one goes to the gym everyday, works out, the other plays video games, and then you have a physical fitness test, and the first kid outperforms the second kid. What is the appropriate reaction to that? The test is biased? Or the first kid was able to beat the system somehow?

Poor analogy.
The athletic winner is better trained, but the gamer may have the same or better athletic potential, just not the opportunity to train.

Colleges aren't here to admit students based on their theoretical genetic intellectual potential at conception. They are here to admit students based on the intellectual development they have achieved by age 17. Yes, resources and preparation can exaggerate the signal the tests provide. But they nonetheless provide a strong signal. We don't have to discount the test just because Asians do so well on them versus other groups.

I almost thought you were sensible... but good grief!

Let's use the marathon analogy. You want to reward the competitor that started running hours before everyone else even woke up

If we are going to negate 17 years of intellectual development, and just focus on some abstract idea of how smart a kid could have become if properly resourced, why don’t we do the same with sports and music? Why don’t we recruit athletes based on how good they might have been or pianists based on how well they might have played if only they received lessons? It’s absurd. You are evaluating the 16 or 17 year old person, what are they capable of now?, not the DNA sequence

Many athletes are in fact recruited based on things like muscle structure and growth plate opportunity. So ya, it is already done.

And plenty of recruited athletes don’t live up to their potential. So the idea that you have any sort of formula is silly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Test optional. Test optional allows kids with good grades but mediocre or bad test scores to apply to highly selective schools. Top schools want to take some of those kids because it fulfills their DEI and financial goals. At some better schools, test optional now accounts for 40% of applications and 25% of admits. If those applications didn’t exist, there would be more room for the kids that got admitted five years ago.

And this is a good thing, BTW. The test scores are discriminatory.

Getting rid of tests is discriminatory - against Asians in particular.

Just because many Asian parents prioritize standardized test performance doesn't mean getting rid of them is discriminatory. FWIW, I think optional is fine. They can be a factor, but students can also demonstrate intellectual capabilities in other ways.

That statement is racist against Asians. How do you know their success in testing is a function of the stereotype of parental pressure?

+1 consider how many first draft picks fizzle and underdogs prevail like Tom Brady. There are many factors that make one successful, e.g. grit, personality.

I guess there is some special SAT gene that only asian kids possess. Is that it?

I don't know what to tell you. These are basic tests of intellectual ability. Asian kids do really well on them. They get more answers correct. I read that as, Asian kids are on average smarter. Are they born smarter? I don't know, it is possible. But by the time they sit for those exams, they are smarter. It is what it is. Are the tests perfect? No. But they clearly correlate with smartness.

I dont know what to tell you. Maybe they prepare more effectively.

Or maybe by the time they sit for the test at age 16, they are "smarter." They know more, they have been better educated, their minds work faster, they think more clearly. Isn't this why we say education is important? It's like taking two kids, one goes to the gym everyday, works out, the other plays video games, and then you have a physical fitness test, and the first kid outperforms the second kid. What is the appropriate reaction to that? The test is biased? Or the first kid was able to beat the system somehow?

Poor analogy.
The athletic winner is better trained, but the gamer may have the same or better athletic potential, just not the opportunity to train.

Colleges aren't here to admit students based on their theoretical genetic intellectual potential at conception. They are here to admit students based on the intellectual development they have achieved by age 17. Yes, resources and preparation can exaggerate the signal the tests provide. But they nonetheless provide a strong signal. We don't have to discount the test just because Asians do so well on them versus other groups.

I almost thought you were sensible... but good grief!

Let's use the marathon analogy. You want to reward the competitor that started running hours before everyone else even woke up

If we are going to negate 17 years of intellectual development, and just focus on some abstract idea of how smart a kid could have become if properly resourced, why don’t we do the same with sports and music? Why don’t we recruit athletes based on how good they might have been or pianists based on how well they might have played if only they received lessons? It’s absurd. You are evaluating the 16 or 17 year old person, what are they capable of now?, not the DNA sequence

Many athletes are in fact recruited based on things like muscle structure and growth plate opportunity. So ya, it is already done.

And plenty of recruited athletes don’t live up to their potential. So the idea that you have any sort of formula is silly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Test optional. Test optional allows kids with good grades but mediocre or bad test scores to apply to highly selective schools. Top schools want to take some of those kids because it fulfills their DEI and financial goals. At some better schools, test optional now accounts for 40% of applications and 25% of admits. If those applications didn’t exist, there would be more room for the kids that got admitted five years ago.

And this is a good thing, BTW. The test scores are discriminatory.

Getting rid of tests is discriminatory - against Asians in particular.

Just because many Asian parents prioritize standardized test performance doesn't mean getting rid of them is discriminatory. FWIW, I think optional is fine. They can be a factor, but students can also demonstrate intellectual capabilities in other ways.

That statement is racist against Asians. How do you know their success in testing is a function of the stereotype of parental pressure?

I guess there is some special SAT gene that only asian kids possess. Is that it?

I don't know what to tell you. These are basic tests of intellectual ability. Asian kids do really well on them. They get more answers correct. I read that as, Asian kids are on average smarter. Are they born smarter? I don't know, it is possible. But by the time they sit for those exams, they are smarter. It is what it is. Are the tests perfect? No. But they clearly correlate with smartness.

I dont know what to tell you. Maybe they prepare more effectively.

Or maybe by the time they sit for the test at age 16, they are "smarter." They know more, they have been better educated, their minds work faster, they think more clearly. Isn't this why we say education is important? It's like taking two kids, one goes to the gym everyday, works out, the other plays video games, and then you have a physical fitness test, and the first kid outperforms the second kid. What is the appropriate reaction to that? The test is biased? Or the first kid was able to beat the system somehow?

Poor analogy.
The athletic winner is better trained, but the gamer may have the same or better athletic potential, just not the opportunity to train.

Colleges aren't here to admit students based on their theoretical genetic intellectual potential at conception. They are here to admit students based on the intellectual development they have achieved by age 17. Yes, resources and preparation can exaggerate the signal the tests provide. But they nonetheless provide a strong signal. We don't have to discount the test just because Asians do so well on them versus other groups.

I almost thought you were sensible... but good grief!

Let's use the marathon analogy. You want to reward the competitor that started running hours before everyone else even woke up

If we are going to negate 17 years of intellectual development, and just focus on some abstract idea of how smart a kid could have become if properly resourced, why don’t we do the same with sports and music? Why don’t we recruit athletes based on how good they might have been or pianists based on how well they might have played if only they received lessons? It’s absurd. You are evaluating the 16 or 17 year old person, what are they capable of now?, not the DNA sequence

Many athletes are in fact recruited based on things like muscle structure and growth plate opportunity. So ya, it is already done.

And plenty of recruited athletes don’t live up to their potential. So the idea that you have any sort of formula is silly.

+1 Many first draft NBA and football stars fizzle and underdogs excel like Tom Brady. Success is dependent on other factors, like grit and character.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Test optional. Test optional allows kids with good grades but mediocre or bad test scores to apply to highly selective schools. Top schools want to take some of those kids because it fulfills their DEI and financial goals. At some better schools, test optional now accounts for 40% of applications and 25% of admits. If those applications didn’t exist, there would be more room for the kids that got admitted five years ago.

And this is a good thing, BTW. The test scores are discriminatory.

Getting rid of tests is discriminatory - against Asians in particular.

Just because many Asian parents prioritize standardized test performance doesn't mean getting rid of them is discriminatory. FWIW, I think optional is fine. They can be a factor, but students can also demonstrate intellectual capabilities in other ways.

That statement is racist against Asians. How do you know their success in testing is a function of the stereotype of parental pressure?

I guess there is some special SAT gene that only asian kids possess. Is that it?

I don't know what to tell you. These are basic tests of intellectual ability. Asian kids do really well on them. They get more answers correct. I read that as, Asian kids are on average smarter. Are they born smarter? I don't know, it is possible. But by the time they sit for those exams, they are smarter. It is what it is. Are the tests perfect? No. But they clearly correlate with smartness.

I dont know what to tell you. Maybe they prepare more effectively.

Or maybe by the time they sit for the test at age 16, they are "smarter." They know more, they have been better educated, their minds work faster, they think more clearly. Isn't this why we say education is important? It's like taking two kids, one goes to the gym everyday, works out, the other plays video games, and then you have a physical fitness test, and the first kid outperforms the second kid. What is the appropriate reaction to that? The test is biased? Or the first kid was able to beat the system somehow?

Poor analogy.
The athletic winner is better trained, but the gamer may have the same or better athletic potential, just not the opportunity to train.

Colleges aren't here to admit students based on their theoretical genetic intellectual potential at conception. They are here to admit students based on the intellectual development they have achieved by age 17. Yes, resources and preparation can exaggerate the signal the tests provide. But they nonetheless provide a strong signal. We don't have to discount the test just because Asians do so well on them versus other groups.

I almost thought you were sensible... but good grief!

Let's use the marathon analogy. You want to reward the competitor that started running hours before everyone else even woke up

If we are going to negate 17 years of intellectual development, and just focus on some abstract idea of how smart a kid could have become if properly resourced, why don’t we do the same with sports and music? Why don’t we recruit athletes based on how good they might have been or pianists based on how well they might have played if only they received lessons? It’s absurd. You are evaluating the 16 or 17 year old person, what are they capable of now?, not the DNA sequence

Get off the "DNA sequence" foolishness don't you? Every time you say something sensible (even if I disagree) you throw in this race science BS.

has nothing to do with race science. I will stipulate that there are no variations in intelligence across races. I am simply arguing that SATs are a reliable measure of intellectual ability (not perfect and yes prep can improve one's score). If there are differences from a racial perspective on outcomes, some of this could be related to prep but it is also related to the intellectual development of 16 year old kids across races. Culture, financial resources, family structure-- these all play into how "smart" a kid is by the time he or she is 16. The SAT catches how "smart" a kid is in ways that grades (which vary wildly by school, teacher etc) do not. It is a good tool. Not perfect but good. yes, a kid from a disadvantaged background should be given some leeway for weak SATs to adjust for the prep aspect of it.

Not in a way that provides meaningful data for a school. A 1500 doesn’t mean you are smarter than a 1450 or dumber than a 1550. Also, schools dont know anything about amount of prep or the number of times it was taken. Your faith in the powers of the SAT are misplaced.

So what are we going to use to evaluate academic ability and intellectual potential? GPA? In my kid’s school two sections of the same class can have wildly different grading standards. We have seen example after example of kids from good private schools getting low grades while kids from so called good publics breeze through with As. Grade inflation is rampant nationwide and will continue to be as grades become the end all be all. If we ignore tests and rely only on grades we will have no standards at all. Nitpick the SAT all you want, but your alternative is worse. At least with the SAT any kid can buckle down, get a book out of the library and try to get a high score to prove their potential. Without relying on some teacher who may play favorites, have an agenda etc

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There will be an enrollment cliff soon. It won’t impact the top schools, but I’ve seen schools such as Bucknell, W&M, Brandeis, Ithaca College, Franklin & Marshall, Occidental and Sarah Lawrence exhibit great concern over it.

Schools will revert to the level of competitive intensity of five or ten years ago. There is a cliff but it’s not going to zero. Meanwhile the affluence and sophistication of the average American family advances every year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:1) more kids applying to colleges in general
2) more international kids applying to US schools
3) grade inflation, which has been going on for years but was exacerbated by CovID
4) test opitonal - removes some sort of baseline understanding of how competititve kids are from "lesser" schools or school districts
5) for white kids, more emphasis on applicants of color and "first gen"

All of these combine to make it harder. It is what it is, and it will take some time for the schools to figure it out, so the key is to find a wide band of schools your kid likes and not focus on the same "T10" 'T25" or whatever. There shouldn't be people who want to apply to both Dartmouth and Columbia, wildly different schools and settings, same with Columbia and Brown, for example. Decide what you like about a school and then identify 10 others that have similar qualities but different variables to gain entry.

There are fewer kids in college today than at any time in the last ten years. 4-year undergrad enrollment peaked in 2010 and has since declined by 2 million. See:https://educationdata.org/college-enrollment-statistics.

Test optional has generated more applications to competitive schools and Admissions Offices haven't added additional staff making this a complicated process with uncertain outcomes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There will be an enrollment cliff soon. It won’t impact the top schools, but I’ve seen schools such as Bucknell, W&M, Brandeis, Ithaca College, Franklin & Marshall, Occidental and Sarah Lawrence exhibit great concern over it.

The enrollment cliff happened in 2010 and hasn't recovered since. see: https://educationdata.org/college-enrollment-statistics

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There will be an enrollment cliff soon. It won’t impact the top schools, but I’ve seen schools such as Bucknell, W&M, Brandeis, Ithaca College, Franklin & Marshall, Occidental and Sarah Lawrence exhibit great concern over it.

The enrollment cliff happened in 2010 and hasn't recovered since. see: https://educationdata.org/college-enrollment-statistics

But what is happening now is the number of graduating seniors is about to fall. Seniors today were born in 2005 at the height of the housing bubble. With the financial crisis, births declined sharply

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Test optional. Test optional allows kids with good grades but mediocre or bad test scores to apply to highly selective schools. Top schools want to take some of those kids because it fulfills their DEI and financial goals. At some better schools, test optional now accounts for 40% of applications and 25% of admits. If those applications didn’t exist, there would be more room for the kids that got admitted five years ago.

And this is a good thing, BTW. The test scores are discriminatory.

Getting rid of tests is discriminatory - against Asians in particular.

Just because many Asian parents prioritize standardized test performance doesn't mean getting rid of them is discriminatory. FWIW, I think optional is fine. They can be a factor, but students can also demonstrate intellectual capabilities in other ways.

That statement is racist against Asians. How do you know their success in testing is a function of the stereotype of parental pressure?

I guess there is some special SAT gene that only asian kids possess. Is that it?

I don't know what to tell you. These are basic tests of intellectual ability. Asian kids do really well on them. They get more answers correct. I read that as, Asian kids are on average smarter. Are they born smarter? I don't know, it is possible. But by the time they sit for those exams, they are smarter. It is what it is. Are the tests perfect? No. But they clearly correlate with smartness.

I dont know what to tell you. Maybe they prepare more effectively.

Or maybe by the time they sit for the test at age 16, they are "smarter." They know more, they have been better educated, their minds work faster, they think more clearly. Isn't this why we say education is important? It's like taking two kids, one goes to the gym everyday, works out, the other plays video games, and then you have a physical fitness test, and the first kid outperforms the second kid. What is the appropriate reaction to that? The test is biased? Or the first kid was able to beat the system somehow?

Poor analogy.
The athletic winner is better trained, but the gamer may have the same or better athletic potential, just not the opportunity to train.

Colleges aren't here to admit students based on their theoretical genetic intellectual potential at conception. They are here to admit students based on the intellectual development they have achieved by age 17. Yes, resources and preparation can exaggerate the signal the tests provide. But they nonetheless provide a strong signal. We don't have to discount the test just because Asians do so well on them versus other groups.

I almost thought you were sensible... but good grief!

Let's use the marathon analogy. You want to reward the competitor that started running hours before everyone else even woke up

If we are going to negate 17 years of intellectual development, and just focus on some abstract idea of how smart a kid could have become if properly resourced, why don’t we do the same with sports and music? Why don’t we recruit athletes based on how good they might have been or pianists based on how well they might have played if only they received lessons? It’s absurd. You are evaluating the 16 or 17 year old person, what are they capable of now?, not the DNA sequence

Many athletes are in fact recruited based on things like muscle structure and growth plate opportunity. So ya, it is already done.

Adding in, my athlete was asked questions about how much they lifted and trained. Coaches didn’t actually want to see max level of either. They wanted a certain level of performance but without overtraining. And it seemed they would take lesser performance if they thought there was more room for growth.

[Anonymous]

There HAS to be some sort of quantitative measure - An amazing GPA is not it (they are overinflated and basically useless). Standardized tests may not be perfect but they are by definition, standardized. ANYONE, if they care enough, can prepare for them (and prepare very well) for free and with resources available at public libraries. Each kid should try their hardest to get the best score they possibly can. A high score shows schools a few things; either the kid is bright and/or the kid cares enough to take the material seriously and buckle down and prep and take the test knowing that it is the only standard measure a school can look at. These kids will have to prep and study for college exams correct? And possibly professional exams as well.... they should show that they care enough to study and try their absolute best and not blow it off or cry "poor test taker", "no opportunities for prep"...

I feel that some of the brightest and best students will (and have) start to infiltrate the 20-50ish ranked schools and those schools will be the secret source of amazing talent in the workforce. The T20 are becoming so infatuated with creating cultures of equality and inclusion. Life is not equal. There are winners and losers. There are alpha dogs and pack followers... It is nature.

All this holistic admissions crap is over the top.. how can you claim the standardized tests are unfair and biased when you know damn well the elite and those with resources are not just gaming the system with essay coaching, private application counselors....

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There will be an enrollment cliff soon. It won’t impact the top schools, but I’ve seen schools such as Bucknell, W&M, Brandeis, Ithaca College, Franklin & Marshall, Occidental and Sarah Lawrence exhibit great concern over it.

The enrollment cliff happened in 2010 and hasn't recovered since. see: https://educationdata.org/college-enrollment-statistics

But what is happening now is the number of graduating seniors is about to fall. Seniors today were born in 2005 at the height of the housing bubble. With the financial crisis, births declined sharply

Not much of a cliff in 2005, see:https://www.statista.com/statistics/195908/number-of-births-in-the-united-states-since-1990/

More rapid decline in the last five years.