In your opinion, how should the elite colleges decide conduct admissions?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The SAT needs to go back to being an IQ test and should be the basis of admission along with gpa. No more extracurriculars! They are turning high schoolers into freaks who can do research but can barely process information.

It never was an IQ test. Debunked. Inform yourself.

The old SAT with the analogies section was basically an IQ test. It correlated as well with IQ tests as IQ tests did with other IQ tests. The changes made in the last 15 or so years have made this less and less true. There’s still a pretty good correlation, but it’s not as high as it used to be.

Analogies are the easiest section to coach. The old test had to change its name from "Aptitude " to "Assessment " because it was proven nor to measure IQ. This was in the 70s I think. Not an IQ test. Wasn't then, isn't now. Stop promoting fake news.

It wasn’t an IQ test officially, but kids who scored highly on the old SAT also scored highly on IQ tests. Doesn’t really matter what you call it if they give the same results.

But, they don't. And, your statement is not universally true, much as you'd like it to be.

Also, IQ tests are not definitive measures of intellect either. What is it with the test-obsessed other than the fact that you can prep for it and potentially outscore those with less advantages. Y'all just want a game you think you can win.

Frey and Detterman (2003) analyzed the correlation of SAT scores with intelligence test scores.[20] They found SAT scores to be highly correlated with general mental ability, or g (r=.82 in their sample).

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15147489/ : “These studies indicate that the SAT is mainly a test of g” where g is “general intelligence”

The validity of IQ is easily the most robust finding from social science research. Massive numbers of studies and data.

You may not like these facts, but they’re pretty well established.

If this we're widely accepted, SAT would not have had to change its name.
Also, this study compares to Raven which is also highly coachable. I taught test prep for years and saw first had that there was not a universal correlation. Of, course, I'm nit completely dismissing it -- as I said, it's one data pont. But, prep (as well as LDs, anxiety, etc) has to be taken into consideration.

I'd agree with that. I think it's a very important data point, but grades and academic rigor are as well. FWIW, SAT scores have been correlated with many different IQ tests. They changed the name more for appearance reasons than anything else. There's a very strong anti-testing portion of academia, and they have a lot of sway. Suggesting that low scoring kids had less aptitude goes very strongly against the blank slate mind-set. I'd also agree that a kid who had great grades, super high rigor and 5's on a lot of AP exams and a low SAT/ACT score would indicate that the scores weren't accurate (for whatever reason). I just haven't run into any of these kids personally.

[Anonymous]

Minimum standardized test scores that are very high, like 1520 for the most competitive schools

After that, I am fine with this insane, "holistic" free-for-all

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Elite colleges should admit based on academic merit, exactly the same as in the rest of the world.

No more sports or legacy or skin color bs.

The athletes and legacies have the merit (for the most part). All these students have the merit, but most of the ones getting have something else too -- awards, unique talent/EC, athletic skill, connections or legacy. The last 2 are the ones that seem a shame, but those people probably pay for my kid's financial aid....

It's likely that some rich old dude, whose kids graduated decades ago, with millions to spare is paying your kids financial aid, not the legacy who are just paying 90k for the year. One of the worst hype complexes we give legacy students is that their meager 90k and occasional 50k gift to the university is subsidizing financial aid. Most legacies contribute very little overall to the college.

Call me a pragmatist but if someone donates a billion to a school which allows a significant number of highly qualified but financially strapped kids to attend, then I won't really complain about their kid having a better shot at it than my kid. I certainly cannot afford to pay for any kids to attend college other than my own.

Also legacy kids at top colleges tend to also have higher GPAs and test scores so even if they get in at a higher rate it is not necessarily due to bias. My alma mater, which is a T10, has gotten rid of legacy preference, but I'm still willing to bet that legacy kids are admitted at a higher rate than non-legacy. I have no idea if my kid could get in now vs 20 years ago, but if she doesn't get in I'm also willing to bet that she does not need a degree from an elite school to be successful.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Minimum standardized test scores that are very high, like 1520 for the most competitive schools

After that, I am fine with this insane, "holistic" free-for-all

I pretty much agree. While I think the holistic free for all, is a hot mess, any other alternative I have seen (such as purely numerical metric based admissions) sounds even worse.

[Anonymous]

+2 no common app

Back in the middle ages, aka 1990s, we had to hand pick which colleges and fill out each app individually. Handwriting! It was a headache. Hence, you focused on “most likely, 1safety, 1reach.”

Less likelihood that a kid with a 1200 SAT and B average submits to Yale…

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:+2 no common app

Back in the middle ages, aka 1990s, we had to hand pick which colleges and fill out each app individually. Handwriting! It was a headache. Hence, you focused on “most likely, 1safety, 1reach.”

Less likelihood that a kid with a 1200 SAT and B average submits to Yale…

True!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Elite colleges should admit based on academic merit, exactly the same as in the rest of the world.

No more sports or legacy or skin color bs.

The athletes and legacies have the merit (for the most part). All these students have the merit, but most of the ones getting have something else too -- awards, unique talent/EC, athletic skill, connections or legacy. The last 2 are the ones that seem a shame, but those people probably pay for my kid's financial aid....

It's likely that some rich old dude, whose kids graduated decades ago, with millions to spare is paying your kids financial aid, not the legacy who are just paying 90k for the year. One of the worst hype complexes we give legacy students is that their meager 90k and occasional 50k gift to the university is subsidizing financial aid. Most legacies contribute very little overall to the college.

Call me a pragmatist but if someone donates a billion to a school which allows a significant number of highly qualified but financially strapped kids to attend, then I won't really complain about their kid having a better shot at it than my kid. I certainly cannot afford to pay for any kids to attend college other than my own.

Also legacy kids at top colleges tend to also have higher GPAs and test scores so even if they get in at a higher rate it is not necessarily due to bias. My alma mater, which is a T10, has gotten rid of legacy preference, but I'm still willing to bet that legacy kids are admitted at a higher rate than non-legacy. I have no idea if my kid could get in now vs 20 years ago, but if she doesn't get in I'm also willing to bet that she does not need a degree from an elite school to be successful.

Then why not officially eliminate legacy preference?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Elite colleges should admit based on academic merit, exactly the same as in the rest of the world.

No more sports or legacy or skin color bs.

The athletes and legacies have the merit (for the most part). All these students have the merit, but most of the ones getting have something else too -- awards, unique talent/EC, athletic skill, connections or legacy. The last 2 are the ones that seem a shame, but those people probably pay for my kid's financial aid....

It's likely that some rich old dude, whose kids graduated decades ago, with millions to spare is paying your kids financial aid, not the legacy who are just paying 90k for the year. One of the worst hype complexes we give legacy students is that their meager 90k and occasional 50k gift to the university is subsidizing financial aid. Most legacies contribute very little overall to the college.

Call me a pragmatist but if someone donates a billion to a school which allows a significant number of highly qualified but financially strapped kids to attend, then I won't really complain about their kid having a better shot at it than my kid. I certainly cannot afford to pay for any kids to attend college other than my own.

Also legacy kids at top colleges tend to also have higher GPAs and test scores so even if they get in at a higher rate it is not necessarily due to bias. My alma mater, which is a T10, has gotten rid of legacy preference, but I'm still willing to bet that legacy kids are admitted at a higher rate than non-legacy. I have no idea if my kid could get in now vs 20 years ago, but if she doesn't get in I'm also willing to bet that she does not need a degree from an elite school to be successful.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/study-harvard-finds-43-percent-white-students-are-legacy-athletes-n1060361
"The study also found that roughly 75 percent of the white students admitted from those four categories, labeled 'ALDCs' in the study, “would have been rejected if they had been treated as white non-ALDCs,” the study said."

You lost your bet.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The SAT needs to go back to being an IQ test and should be the basis of admission along with gpa. No more extracurriculars! They are turning high schoolers into freaks who can do research but can barely process information.

It never was an IQ test. Debunked. Inform yourself.

The old SAT with the analogies section was basically an IQ test. It correlated as well with IQ tests as IQ tests did with other IQ tests. The changes made in the last 15 or so years have made this less and less true. There’s still a pretty good correlation, but it’s not as high as it used to be.

Analogies are the easiest section to coach. The old test had to change its name from "Aptitude " to "Assessment " because it was proven nor to measure IQ. This was in the 70s I think. Not an IQ test. Wasn't then, isn't now. Stop promoting fake news.

It wasn’t an IQ test officially, but kids who scored highly on the old SAT also scored highly on IQ tests. Doesn’t really matter what you call it if they give the same results.

But, they don't. And, your statement is not universally true, much as you'd like it to be.

Also, IQ tests are not definitive measures of intellect either. What is it with the test-obsessed other than the fact that you can prep for it and potentially outscore those with less advantages. Y'all just want a game you think you can win.

Frey and Detterman (2003) analyzed the correlation of SAT scores with intelligence test scores.[20] They found SAT scores to be highly correlated with general mental ability, or g (r=.82 in their sample).

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15147489/ : “These studies indicate that the SAT is mainly a test of g” where g is “general intelligence”

The validity of IQ is easily the most robust finding from social science research. Massive numbers of studies and data.

You may not like these facts, but they’re pretty well established.

If this we're widely accepted, SAT would not have had to change its name.
Also, this study compares to Raven which is also highly coachable. I taught test prep for years and saw first had that there was not a universal correlation. Of, course, I'm nit completely dismissing it -- as I said, it's one data pont. But, prep (as well as LDs, anxiety, etc) has to be taken into consideration.

I'd agree with that. I think it's a very important data point, but grades and academic rigor are as well. FWIW, SAT scores have been correlated with many different IQ tests. They changed the name more for appearance reasons than anything else. There's a very strong anti-testing portion of academia, and they have a lot of sway. Suggesting that low scoring kids had less aptitude goes very strongly against the blank slate mind-set. I'd also agree that a kid who had great grades, super high rigor and 5's on a lot of AP exams and a low SAT/ACT score would indicate that the scores weren't accurate (for whatever reason). I just haven't run into any of these kids personally.

I'm in academia and I think there are still many who acknowledge that test results can be valuable (when considered as part of a whole picture). The test-friendly types generally come from the hard sciences as well as the more rigorous/analytic subsets of the social sciences. But yes the anti-test subset of the social sciences is very vocal and they hold a lot of sway, although I really do not think they represent the majority of academics.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Elite colleges should admit based on academic merit, exactly the same as in the rest of the world.

No more sports or legacy or skin color bs.

The athletes and legacies have the merit (for the most part). All these students have the merit, but most of the ones getting have something else too -- awards, unique talent/EC, athletic skill, connections or legacy. The last 2 are the ones that seem a shame, but those people probably pay for my kid's financial aid....

It's likely that some rich old dude, whose kids graduated decades ago, with millions to spare is paying your kids financial aid, not the legacy who are just paying 90k for the year. One of the worst hype complexes we give legacy students is that their meager 90k and occasional 50k gift to the university is subsidizing financial aid. Most legacies contribute very little overall to the college.

Call me a pragmatist but if someone donates a billion to a school which allows a significant number of highly qualified but financially strapped kids to attend, then I won't really complain about their kid having a better shot at it than my kid. I certainly cannot afford to pay for any kids to attend college other than my own.

Also legacy kids at top colleges tend to also have higher GPAs and test scores so even if they get in at a higher rate it is not necessarily due to bias. My alma mater, which is a T10, has gotten rid of legacy preference, but I'm still willing to bet that legacy kids are admitted at a higher rate than non-legacy. I have no idea if my kid could get in now vs 20 years ago, but if she doesn't get in I'm also willing to bet that she does not need a degree from an elite school to be successful.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/study-harvard-finds-43-percent-white-students-are-legacy-athletes-n1060361
"The study also found that roughly 75 percent of the white students admitted from those four categories, labeled 'ALDCs' in the study, “would have been rejected if they had been treated as white non-ALDCs,” the study said."

You lost your bet.

Yeah, from what I’ve seen in the data, a large percentage of the legacy kids wouldn’t have gotten in without that hook. Interestingly, scrapping legacy doesn’t actually reduce the number of white kids that get in at these schools; it act goes up slightly. They just get replaced by kids who actually deserve the spot.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Elite colleges should admit based on academic merit, exactly the same as in the rest of the world.

No more sports or legacy or skin color bs.

The athletes and legacies have the merit (for the most part). All these students have the merit, but most of the ones getting have something else too -- awards, unique talent/EC, athletic skill, connections or legacy. The last 2 are the ones that seem a shame, but those people probably pay for my kid's financial aid....

It's likely that some rich old dude, whose kids graduated decades ago, with millions to spare is paying your kids financial aid, not the legacy who are just paying 90k for the year. One of the worst hype complexes we give legacy students is that their meager 90k and occasional 50k gift to the university is subsidizing financial aid. Most legacies contribute very little overall to the college.

Call me a pragmatist but if someone donates a billion to a school which allows a significant number of highly qualified but financially strapped kids to attend, then I won't really complain about their kid having a better shot at it than my kid. I certainly cannot afford to pay for any kids to attend college other than my own.

Also legacy kids at top colleges tend to also have higher GPAs and test scores so even if they get in at a higher rate it is not necessarily due to bias. My alma mater, which is a T10, has gotten rid of legacy preference, but I'm still willing to bet that legacy kids are admitted at a higher rate than non-legacy. I have no idea if my kid could get in now vs 20 years ago, but if she doesn't get in I'm also willing to bet that she does not need a degree from an elite school to be successful.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/study-harvard-finds-43-percent-white-students-are-legacy-athletes-n1060361
"The study also found that roughly 75 percent of the white students admitted from those four categories, labeled 'ALDCs' in the study, “would have been rejected if they had been treated as white non-ALDCs,” the study said."

You lost your bet.

I would like the see the legacy data alone please rather than lumped in with faculty and staff kids plus athletes. I have seen hard data with legacy accepted SAT scores compared to the average admit score from my own institution and they are higher. And yes the athlete score is lower. That will anger many people here with athlete kids, and I am not talking about YOUR kids in particular, but as a whole those are the facts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Elite colleges should admit based on academic merit, exactly the same as in the rest of the world.

No more sports or legacy or skin color bs.

The athletes and legacies have the merit (for the most part). All these students have the merit, but most of the ones getting have something else too -- awards, unique talent/EC, athletic skill, connections or legacy. The last 2 are the ones that seem a shame, but those people probably pay for my kid's financial aid....

It's likely that some rich old dude, whose kids graduated decades ago, with millions to spare is paying your kids financial aid, not the legacy who are just paying 90k for the year. One of the worst hype complexes we give legacy students is that their meager 90k and occasional 50k gift to the university is subsidizing financial aid. Most legacies contribute very little overall to the college.

Call me a pragmatist but if someone donates a billion to a school which allows a significant number of highly qualified but financially strapped kids to attend, then I won't really complain about their kid having a better shot at it than my kid. I certainly cannot afford to pay for any kids to attend college other than my own.

Also legacy kids at top colleges tend to also have higher GPAs and test scores so even if they get in at a higher rate it is not necessarily due to bias. My alma mater, which is a T10, has gotten rid of legacy preference, but I'm still willing to bet that legacy kids are admitted at a higher rate than non-legacy. I have no idea if my kid could get in now vs 20 years ago, but if she doesn't get in I'm also willing to bet that she does not need a degree from an elite school to be successful.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/study-harvard-finds-43-percent-white-students-are-legacy-athletes-n1060361
"The study also found that roughly 75 percent of the white students admitted from those four categories, labeled 'ALDCs' in the study, “would have been rejected if they had been treated as white non-ALDCs,” the study said."

You lost your bet.

I would like the see the legacy data alone please rather than lumped in with faculty and staff kids plus athletes. I have seen hard data with legacy accepted SAT scores compared to the average admit score from my own institution and they are higher. And yes the athlete score is lower. That will anger many people here with athlete kids, and I am not talking about YOUR kids in particular, but as a whole those are the facts.

Plus, I am totally fine with legacy not being a non-factor. Just want to point out that if you see a higher legacy count at some institution, it may not reflect active bias, but other factors.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Elite colleges should admit based on academic merit, exactly the same as in the rest of the world.

No more sports or legacy or skin color bs.

The athletes and legacies have the merit (for the most part). All these students have the merit, but most of the ones getting have something else too -- awards, unique talent/EC, athletic skill, connections or legacy. The last 2 are the ones that seem a shame, but those people probably pay for my kid's financial aid....

It's likely that some rich old dude, whose kids graduated decades ago, with millions to spare is paying your kids financial aid, not the legacy who are just paying 90k for the year. One of the worst hype complexes we give legacy students is that their meager 90k and occasional 50k gift to the university is subsidizing financial aid. Most legacies contribute very little overall to the college.

Call me a pragmatist but if someone donates a billion to a school which allows a significant number of highly qualified but financially strapped kids to attend, then I won't really complain about their kid having a better shot at it than my kid. I certainly cannot afford to pay for any kids to attend college other than my own.

Also legacy kids at top colleges tend to also have higher GPAs and test scores so even if they get in at a higher rate it is not necessarily due to bias. My alma mater, which is a T10, has gotten rid of legacy preference, but I'm still willing to bet that legacy kids are admitted at a higher rate than non-legacy. I have no idea if my kid could get in now vs 20 years ago, but if she doesn't get in I'm also willing to bet that she does not need a degree from an elite school to be successful.

Then why not officially eliminate legacy preference?

Totally fine with that. It's been eliminated by my alma mater.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Am I the only one who is fine with the way it is?

+1

I wish corporate recruitment and promotion could be this well defined.

Corporates pay tax and pay my salary.
Colleges take my money and tax payers money.

I expect much better from colleges.

How do colleges take taxpayers money? And don’t say through research grants because that shows you have no idea what research grants are and how they work and what you have to do to get them..

If a college has a student gets Pell grant, that's federal tax money.

If a student receives a pell grant and chooses the college to spend it at you think that creates sons sense of obligation for the college?

by that logic, every supermarket in the United States takes taxpayer money. do you think you get to tell them how to operate also ? and yes, it’s exactly the same thing

You would prefer it if the college then chose not to accept students who needed Pell grants?

If the college wants the student, the cost should be covered by its endowment, otherwise it's taking tax payers money.

You did not answer any of the questions.

The Pell grant is given to the student. Not the college. Hence the supermarket analogy you conveniently ignore. Because of course it defeats your desired narrative that because you pay taxes you get to tell private colleges how to do things, which is preposterous.

+1.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:+2 no common app

Back in the middle ages, aka 1990s, we had to hand pick which colleges and fill out each app individually. Handwriting! It was a headache. Hence, you focused on “most likely, 1safety, 1reach.”

Less likelihood that a kid with a 1200 SAT and B average submits to Yale…

True!

Also many colleges conducted interviews with applicants. My sibling was an interviewer for years for a VA university.