Should admissions be more transparent?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The entire US educational system in this country is broken. It is no longer about helping a student reach their potential, but instead painting a mosaic of how some school administrators believe America should look.

I get that universities are businesses and need slots for athletes and other needs to create a school community but some percentage of each class should be set aside for pure merit based admission. I know it won’t happen, so more and more Americans will go to school in the UK where admission is merit based, get a degree in 3 or 4 years from a quality university for less than one would pay for a mid-level SLAC.

For those that choose to stay in the US just understand that admissions are random, and based on the “needs/whims” of the university and not a reflection of the quality of the applicant.

Pure merit by your definition I presume.


Understand that top colleges do admit on merit. The issue that you have is that their definition of merit isn’t your definition of merit.

DP

Even they admit it is not based on merit. AOs are open about this and, in fact, emphasize this point.

Their priorities are to be diverse as in being able to represent all 50 states, x number of countries, male/female balance, represent different races, etc.

None of these are wrong, but it is not pure merit, when you also have these additional constraints.

At MIT, women have a far lower bar compared to men. At SLAC's with some majors, men have a lower bar compared to women. Does not mean the people being admitted are not qualified, but at the margins a slightly weaker candidate is admitted over a stronger candidate to achieve the balance they were seeking.

[Anonymous]

They try to be diverse geographically after considering the pool of applicants that have met minimum threshold criteria for merit.

[Anonymous]

There’s nothing wrong with any of this. The system works to find the candidates the schools actually WANT.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The entire US educational system in this country is broken. It is no longer about helping a student reach their potential, but instead painting a mosaic of how some school administrators believe America should look.

I get that universities are businesses and need slots for athletes and other needs to create a school community but some percentage of each class should be set aside for pure merit based admission. I know it won’t happen, so more and more Americans will go to school in the UK where admission is merit based, get a degree in 3 or 4 years from a quality university for less than one would pay for a mid-level SLAC.

For those that choose to stay in the US just understand that admissions are random, and based on the “needs/whims” of the university and not a reflection of the quality of the applicant.

If you think the UK educational system is better, why don't you just go there?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I have a question for the OP. I can tell why this kid didn't get into the schools he/she wanted. Can you?

https://www.reddit.com/r/ApplyingToCollege/comments/1jks4bh/the_college_admission_process_is_so_unfair/

Yes - he mentions he was a member of the Bollywood Club. That is a demographic low on demand and high on supply. Does not matter if he walks on water.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have a question for the OP. I can tell why this kid didn't get into the schools he/she wanted. Can you?

https://www.reddit.com/r/ApplyingToCollege/comments/1jks4bh/the_college_admission_process_is_so_unfair/

Yes - he mentions he was a member of the Bollywood Club. That is a demographic low on demand and high on supply. Does not matter if he walks on water.

That might be part of the problem. The other part is he did a lot of the "standard" ECs like robotics, piano, research paper, etc. It's harder to "stand out" with those when so many top stats kids are also doing those. The kid is obviously a hard worker so he will do well in life wherever he goes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have a question for the OP. I can tell why this kid didn't get into the schools he/she wanted. Can you?

https://www.reddit.com/r/ApplyingToCollege/comments/1jks4bh/the_college_admission_process_is_so_unfair/

Yes - he mentions he was a member of the Bollywood Club. That is a demographic low on demand and high on supply. Does not matter if he walks on water.

Nope. He was Hispanic. His application was scattered. Horribly done. No theme. He should’ve applied as a linguistics or language major instead of an oversubscribed stem.
read the comments.
Try again.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The entire US educational system in this country is broken. It is no longer about helping a student reach their potential, but instead painting a mosaic of how some school administrators believe America should look.

I get that universities are businesses and need slots for athletes and other needs to create a school community but some percentage of each class should be set aside for pure merit based admission. I know it won’t happen, so more and more Americans will go to school in the UK where admission is merit based, get a degree in 3 or 4 years from a quality university for less than one would pay for a mid-level SLAC.

For those that choose to stay in the US just understand that admissions are random, and based on the “needs/whims” of the university and not a reflection of the quality of the applicant.

Pure merit by your definition I presume.


Understand that top colleges do admit on merit. The issue that you have is that their definition of merit isn’t your definition of merit.

DP

Even they admit it is not based on merit. AOs are open about this and, in fact, emphasize this point.

Their priorities are to be diverse as in being able to represent all 50 states, x number of countries, male/female balance, represent different races, etc.

None of these are wrong, but it is not pure merit, when you also have these additional constraints.

At MIT, women have a far lower bar compared to men. At SLAC's with some majors, men have a lower bar compared to women. Does not mean the people being admitted are not qualified, but at the margins a slightly weaker candidate is admitted over a stronger candidate to achieve the balance they were seeking.

Merit is a myth.

College admissions have never been based on merit.

I guess it was ok when only white men were admitted? No women? No blacks? That's merit?

Today, all of the kids admitted to top schools can do the work and graduate. That's all that matters.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The entire US educational system in this country is broken. It is no longer about helping a student reach their potential, but instead painting a mosaic of how some school administrators believe America should look.

I get that universities are businesses and need slots for athletes and other needs to create a school community but some percentage of each class should be set aside for pure merit based admission. I know it won’t happen, so more and more Americans will go to school in the UK where admission is merit based, get a degree in 3 or 4 years from a quality university for less than one would pay for a mid-level SLAC.

For those that choose to stay in the US just understand that admissions are random, and based on the “needs/whims” of the university and not a reflection of the quality of the applicant.

Pure merit by your definition I presume.


Understand that top colleges do admit on merit. The issue that you have is that their definition of merit isn’t your definition of merit.

DP

Even they admit it is not based on merit. AOs are open about this and, in fact, emphasize this point.

Their priorities are to be diverse as in being able to represent all 50 states, x number of countries, male/female balance, represent different races, etc.

None of these are wrong, but it is not pure merit, when you also have these additional constraints.

At MIT, women have a far lower bar compared to men. At SLAC's with some majors, men have a lower bar compared to women. Does not mean the people being admitted are not qualified, but at the margins a slightly weaker candidate is admitted over a stronger candidate to achieve the balance they were seeking.

Merit is a myth.

College admissions have never been based on merit.

I guess it was ok when only white men were admitted? No women? No blacks? That's merit?

Today, all of the kids admitted to top schools can do the work and graduate. That's all that matters.

Ironically, women's schools like Barnard and Wellesley seem to have the most discrimination these days.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have a question for the OP. I can tell why this kid didn't get into the schools he/she wanted. Can you?

https://www.reddit.com/r/ApplyingToCollege/comments/1jks4bh/the_college_admission_process_is_so_unfair/

Yes - he mentions he was a member of the Bollywood Club. That is a demographic low on demand and high on supply. Does not matter if he walks on water.

The kid was Hispanic. Not everyone in a Bollywood Club has to be Indian. Some people just like the fun and food.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The entire US educational system in this country is broken. It is no longer about helping a student reach their potential, but instead painting a mosaic of how some school administrators believe America should look.

I get that universities are businesses and need slots for athletes and other needs to create a school community but some percentage of each class should be set aside for pure merit based admission. I know it won’t happen, so more and more Americans will go to school in the UK where admission is merit based, get a degree in 3 or 4 years from a quality university for less than one would pay for a mid-level SLAC.

For those that choose to stay in the US just understand that admissions are random, and based on the “needs/whims” of the university and not a reflection of the quality of the applicant.

Pure merit by your definition I presume.


Understand that top colleges do admit on merit. The issue that you have is that their definition of merit isn’t your definition of merit.

DP

Even they admit it is not based on merit. AOs are open about this and, in fact, emphasize this point.

Their priorities are to be diverse as in being able to represent all 50 states, x number of countries, male/female balance, represent different races, etc.

None of these are wrong, but it is not pure merit, when you also have these additional constraints.

At MIT, women have a far lower bar compared to men. At SLAC's with some majors, men have a lower bar compared to women. Does not mean the people being admitted are not qualified, but at the margins a slightly weaker candidate is admitted over a stronger candidate to achieve the balance they were seeking.

Merit is a myth.

College admissions have never been based on merit.

I guess it was ok when only white men were admitted? No women? No blacks? That's merit?

Today, all of the kids admitted to top schools can do the work and graduate. That's all that matters.

Ironically, women's schools like Barnard and Wellesley seem to have the most discrimination these days.

Cute, but missing the main point. Figures.

Using your dumb example, Hampden Sydney does too. 🤣

[Anonymous]

I don't think merit is a myth. As an example, in nyc, we have strong specialized public hs programs that are pure test-based. Yes, kids prep but test prep resources are accessible to everyone. It's an amazing free education to those kids who are willing to put in the work. The process is totally transparent and families know the score range for each school. These schools are extremely diverse with many first gen and immigrant families. The test is really hard and those kids earn their place.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't think merit is a myth. As an example, in nyc, we have strong specialized public hs programs that are pure test-based. Yes, kids prep but test prep resources are accessible to everyone. It's an amazing free education to those kids who are willing to put in the work. The process is totally transparent and families know the score range for each school. These schools are extremely diverse with many first gen and immigrant families. The test is really hard and those kids earn their place.

Merit for admission can't just be defined by one test score.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Should students have the right to see their admissions file? Right now students can only request to view their file only at the university they are enrolled in. Universities fought this in court years but lost per FERPA? After students began requesting their files, universities moved to record less data and expunge reader notes.

If students identify that a reader mischaracterized their ranking, gpa or something verifiable rather than subjective should the student have recourse?

Should universities be required to report all de-identified data on their applicants, admits, waitlists etc?

There would be no recourse. You have no right to a spot.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't think merit is a myth. As an example, in nyc, we have strong specialized public hs programs that are pure test-based. Yes, kids prep but test prep resources are accessible to everyone. It's an amazing free education to those kids who are willing to put in the work. The process is totally transparent and families know the score range for each school. These schools are extremely diverse with many first gen and immigrant families. The test is really hard and those kids earn their place.

Stuy? Hunter?
Nope not what the colleges want - a whole university of that??