So if it can all be faked, how should college admissions work?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I really don't get the Oxbridge booster on this thread. I lived in the UK for years and the idea that Oxbridge is any more meritorious is laughable.

I'm one of the PPs talking about Oxbridge - there are definitely several of us - and I'm not a booster, I'm just a British person and a Cambridge graduate who has experienced that system. The reason it seems more meritorious to me is that in the UK, if you get excellent GCSE results and then excellent A level results (or predicted results), and can explain yourself coherently in an interview, you stand a fair chance of getting in. It's still really competitive and there are still more applications from excellent students than spots, but it feels achievable if you are academically excellent. Here, from what I am reading - and we are several years away from this process for my children so I don't know everything about it at all - no student, however academically excellent they are, could feel like getting into a top school is "achievable". Without the legacy/sports etc things, getting in feels like a huge longshot even for the most academically capable students.

If you can get into Oxbridge as a US student, you can get into a top school in the US.

The most academically capable students are still getting into great schools here. The problem is that parents get upset when their kid is admitted to [insert a great school] but not to [insert another great school], which is absolutely nuts. We should all be so fortunate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What I find interesting about this whole scandal is the number of people who are doubling down on using test scores when this is an example of how easily and frequently they are fraudulent.

How are SAT scores frequently fraudulent? Do you really think there are many exam proctors accepting bribes?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What I find interesting about this whole scandal is the number of people who are doubling down on using test scores when this is an example of how easily and frequently they are fraudulent.

How are SAT scores frequently fraudulent? Do you really think there are many exam proctors accepting bribes?

Before this, no I didn't. Now I'm starting to wonder.
BTW, who do the proctors work for? Are they employed by the colleges, the College Board, or just volunteers?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How has it become so difficult to get into selective schools in the last 25 years? I'm not talking about Yale and Harvard but places like UVA. According to my school most students need a 1440 SAT to get in. Did kids need that kind of score years ago?

In 1985 there were 11 million kids in college.
In 2017 there are 19 million kids in college.

In 1985 there were 10,800 kids at Yale for example.
In 2000 there were 11,000 kids at Yale.
In 2017 there are 12,000 kids at Yale.

those extra 8 million are bottom feeders - they are not going to yale.

So 8 million kids in college are "bottom feeders"? You are part of the problem along with the loser celebrity frauds and the DCUM UVA is so prestigious parents. It's a frickin state school requiring stats of 2nd tier elites. Read some real reviews by actual student attending so called elites and HYPS.

Did you go to Yale? Rhetorical question because either way, you're a bottom feeder!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oxbridge / caltech model is the best.

German model is good as well.

Caltech is vulnerable to faked test scores.

Oxbridge has no legacy preferences. There's a reason Prince William went to St. Andrews. He would have never gotten in.

Prince Charles did go to Cambridge and many believe it was not on merit.

The Oxbridge system is an escalator system. You have to get into the right preschool to go to the right prep and boarding schools (e.g. Eton and Harrow) to have a much higher chance of going to Oxbridge. These are private all the way, so extremely expensive. 60% at Oxford went to what would be called private schools in the U.S. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/oxford-university-cambridge-state-school-socially-inclusive-ethnicity-sunday-times-guide-david-lammy-a8551036.html

Prince Charles is 70. Things have changed in Britain since then, as evidenced by the fact that you see the rich and royal at schools other than Oxbridge. Not to say that the rich don’t have advantages and privileges, but Britain has moved beyond codified legacy preferences. The US still embraces the inequality.

I went to Oxbridge. At the undergraduate level you can't buy your way in.

Perhaps not directly, but the percentage of private school (U.S. terminology) students at Oxbridge is significantly higher than top U.S. schools, despite the UK actually having a slightly lower percentage of students in private schools. So sending your kid to those expensive private schools increases their odds.

NP: This is all true but it's more of a systemic advantage rather than cheating. Most of the kids at top US colleges come from private or rich public schools. Same issue.

Agreed, but private school advantage is more pronounced in UK. There could be bribes in the UK process as well, but I have not heard any evidence. I think biggest difference is that children of alumni and donors are not supposed to be given preference.

+1 No one said that rich kids from private schools don't get into Oxbridge. But they need to sit the same interviews with professors and A levels as other kids. There's not really the culture of set asides for recruited athletes and big donors that exists in the US. For LSE, there was a big fuss, when one of the richest men in the world made a donation, and then his kid didn't get in and tried to take his donation back. There's no quid pro quo.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1385649/Mittal-reneged-on-LSE-pledge.html

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think there has to be other pathways for success. No need for amassing degrees that you will not use. College education should be for specific career paths and teaching should be amongst the highest paid profession and should take the academically strongest students.

That’s why the US needs to look at the German or Finnish schooling systems.
The US needs good quality technical schools where students learn in demand trades with guaranteed job placement.

There are quite a few 4 year colleges that are specialized in demanding fields. I think the word "trade" throws people off, should find a 21st century replacement. DS is applying soon as we watch the acceptance rate drop below 40% with a 5 year plan to expand/build/renovate extensively. It's known for having one of the countries highest job placement and salaries. Students report that recruiters practically drop offers in their laps. Perfect location doesn't hurt.

Executive Director Career Center at this particular school reports:

I am pleased to report the Class of 2018 achieved an outstanding record
of success, with 96% having secured highly competitive employment
opportunities and admission to prestigious graduate programs within six
months post-graduation. The women of the Class were highly recruited
and 97% reported securing their first destinations within the six-month
post-graduation time-frame. The overall salary average for the Class of
2018 is $71,400.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I really don't get the Oxbridge booster on this thread. I lived in the UK for years and the idea that Oxbridge is any more meritorious is laughable.

I'm one of the PPs talking about Oxbridge - there are definitely several of us - and I'm not a booster, I'm just a British person and a Cambridge graduate who has experienced that system. The reason it seems more meritorious to me is that in the UK, if you get excellent GCSE results and then excellent A level results (or predicted results), and can explain yourself coherently in an interview, you stand a fair chance of getting in. It's still really competitive and there are still more applications from excellent students than spots, but it feels achievable if you are academically excellent. Here, from what I am reading - and we are several years away from this process for my children so I don't know everything about it at all - no student, however academically excellent they are, could feel like getting into a top school is "achievable". Without the legacy/sports etc things, getting in feels like a huge longshot even for the most academically capable students.

another European person with young kids and I agree with this. This board makes it sound like even the most academically capable students with all kinds of extracurriculars (a requirements that itself is absurd and clearly detracts from the academic focus) need “hooks” to get into Harvard etc (is Oxbridge equivalents). I don’t know if this is true, but if it is, then yes, it’s an inferior system.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is really a small problem; very few students involved over a very long period of time.

I think this is the conflation of two separate things:

1) This scam and the ways it exploited loopholes in the system (athletic recruiting, testing accommodations, online schooling)
2) All the little inequities that tip the balance for the most connected, wealthy families (enrollment in private schools / elite public schools, test prep and taking tests multiple times, grade inflation, developing hooks using strategic ECs / volunteering / internships, college consultants, big time donations, relationships with board trustees for recommendations and string pulling)

People are mad and disheartened about both. The prize is a credential from a name brand college, which could lead to career success, let alone financial security. The name brand matters a lot if you're poor or middle class (and, increasingly, UMC, in our socio-economically insecure time). It matters A LOT if you're a person of color or a woman.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I really don't get the Oxbridge booster on this thread. I lived in the UK for years and the idea that Oxbridge is any more meritorious is laughable.

I'm one of the PPs talking about Oxbridge - there are definitely several of us - and I'm not a booster, I'm just a British person and a Cambridge graduate who has experienced that system. The reason it seems more meritorious to me is that in the UK, if you get excellent GCSE results and then excellent A level results (or predicted results), and can explain yourself coherently in an interview, you stand a fair chance of getting in. It's still really competitive and there are still more applications from excellent students than spots, but it feels achievable if you are academically excellent. Here, from what I am reading - and we are several years away from this process for my children so I don't know everything about it at all - no student, however academically excellent they are, could feel like getting into a top school is "achievable". Without the legacy/sports etc things, getting in feels like a huge longshot even for the most academically capable students.

another European person with young kids and I agree with this. This board makes it sound like even the most academically capable students with all kinds of extracurriculars (a requirements that itself is absurd and clearly detracts from the academic focus) need “hooks” to get into Harvard etc (is Oxbridge equivalents). I don’t know if this is true, but if it is, then yes, it’s an inferior system.

You can call it inferior, but it is simply the product of a numbers game. Harvard is going to admit about 5% of applicants but I would suspect that at least another 5% or 10% are essentially equally as qualified in standardized tests and academic performance. The hook is the tie breaker.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What I find interesting about this whole scandal is the number of people who are doubling down on using test scores when this is an example of how easily and frequently they are fraudulent.

How are SAT scores frequently fraudulent? Do you really think there are many exam proctors accepting bribes?

Before this, no I didn't. Now I'm starting to wonder.
BTW, who do the proctors work for? Are they employed by the colleges, the College Board, or just volunteers?

DP. I think it's likely much more common than we think. I also think it's more common in the high scoring cohort.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oxbridge / caltech model is the best.

German model is good as well.

Caltech is vulnerable to faked test scores.

Oxbridge has no legacy preferences. There's a reason Prince William went to St. Andrews. He would have never gotten in.

Prince Charles did go to Cambridge and many believe it was not on merit.

The Oxbridge system is an escalator system. You have to get into the right preschool to go to the right prep and boarding schools (e.g. Eton and Harrow) to have a much higher chance of going to Oxbridge. These are private all the way, so extremely expensive. 60% at Oxford went to what would be called private schools in the U.S. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/oxford-university-cambridge-state-school-socially-inclusive-ethnicity-sunday-times-guide-david-lammy-a8551036.html

Prince Charles is 70. Things have changed in Britain since then, as evidenced by the fact that you see the rich and royal at schools other than Oxbridge. Not to say that the rich don’t have advantages and privileges, but Britain has moved beyond codified legacy preferences. The US still embraces the inequality.

I went to Oxbridge. At the undergraduate level you can't buy your way in.

Perhaps not directly, but the percentage of private school (U.S. terminology) students at Oxbridge is significantly higher than top U.S. schools, despite the UK actually having a slightly lower percentage of students in private schools. So sending your kid to those expensive private schools increases their odds.

NP: This is all true but it's more of a systemic advantage rather than cheating. Most of the kids at top US colleges come from private or rich public schools. Same issue.

Agreed, but private school advantage is more pronounced in UK. There could be bribes in the UK process as well, but I have not heard any evidence. I think biggest difference is that children of alumni and donors are not supposed to be given preference.

+1 No one said that rich kids from private schools don't get into Oxbridge. But they need to sit the same interviews with professors and A levels as other kids. There's not really the culture of set asides for recruited athletes and big donors that exists in the US. For LSE, there was a big fuss, when one of the richest men in the world made a donation, and then his kid didn't get in and tried to take his donation back. There's no quid pro quo.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1385649/Mittal-reneged-on-LSE-pledge.html

I posted on this thread and I was responding to the assertion that "you can't buy your way in". I'd agree you can't do it directly, but the privileged enroll their kids in elite schools with the expectation that it will significantly increase their child's odds of admission and the numbers bear that out. And at Oxbridge, the percentage of students coming from elite private schools is higher than it is for U.S. equivalents, despite the fact that the UK actually has a lower percentage of overall secondary school students in private school than the U.S.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I really don't get the Oxbridge booster on this thread. I lived in the UK for years and the idea that Oxbridge is any more meritorious is laughable.

I'm one of the PPs talking about Oxbridge - there are definitely several of us - and I'm not a booster, I'm just a British person and a Cambridge graduate who has experienced that system. The reason it seems more meritorious to me is that in the UK, if you get excellent GCSE results and then excellent A level results (or predicted results), and can explain yourself coherently in an interview, you stand a fair chance of getting in. It's still really competitive and there are still more applications from excellent students than spots, but it feels achievable if you are academically excellent. Here, from what I am reading - and we are several years away from this process for my children so I don't know everything about it at all - no student, however academically excellent they are, could feel like getting into a top school is "achievable". Without the legacy/sports etc things, getting in feels like a huge longshot even for the most academically capable students.

another European person with young kids and I agree with this. This board makes it sound like even the most academically capable students with all kinds of extracurriculars (a requirements that itself is absurd and clearly detracts from the academic focus) need “hooks” to get into Harvard etc (is Oxbridge equivalents). I don’t know if this is true, but if it is, then yes, it’s an inferior system.

You can call it inferior, but it is simply the product of a numbers game. Harvard is going to admit about 5% of applicants but I would suspect that at least another 5% or 10% are essentially equally as qualified in standardized tests and academic performance. The hook is the tie breaker.

but they are not equally qualified - that’s an illusion because they score the same on tests that require little studying. but only a very small fraction of students admitted to Harvard would be able to pass an properly constructed entrance exam in, say, math. add a few kore subjects and it will be clear who is in fact academically qualified to study a certain subject. this is what Oxbridge method mostly successfully determines. our, not so much.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Combine a minimum, hard score and grade cutoff (maybe adjusted for the difficulty and poverty level of the school) plus a lottery, plus a few discretionary.seat

A score on what? All the tests out there now can be gamed. Those scores are not as useful as we would like them to be.

They need to change the sat into something more “g-loaded” like NSA and cia Analyst tests.

The problem with the sat is that it is too coachable.

Are you the same poster who keeps talking about her kid’s SAT scores from 7th grade? Tons of above-average kids from my DC’s class took it at the same age and aced it, particularly if the parents pushed algebra on them early. No coaching needed.

If your kid is something special, he will stand out on other measures that matter to top colleges. No need to worry about “g-loading.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Combine a minimum, hard score and grade cutoff (maybe adjusted for the difficulty and poverty level of the school) plus a lottery, plus a few discretionary.seat

A score on what? All the tests out there now can be gamed. Those scores are not as useful as we would like them to be.

They need to change the sat into something more “g-loaded” like NSA and cia Analyst tests.

The problem with the sat is that it is too coachable.

Are you the same poster who keeps talking about her kid’s SAT scores from 7th grade? Tons of above-average kids from my DC’s class took it at the same age and aced it, particularly if the parents pushed algebra on them early. No coaching needed.

If your kid is something special, he will stand out on other measures that matter to top colleges. No need to worry about “g-loading.”

the idea that kids need to be “special” is where a lot of problems begin.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Combine a minimum, hard score and grade cutoff (maybe adjusted for the difficulty and poverty level of the school) plus a lottery, plus a few discretionary.seat

A score on what? All the tests out there now can be gamed. Those scores are not as useful as we would like them to be.

They need to change the sat into something more “g-loaded” like NSA and cia Analyst tests.

The problem with the sat is that it is too coachable.

Are you the same poster who keeps talking about her kid’s SAT scores from 7th grade? Tons of above-average kids from my DC’s class took it at the same age and aced it, particularly if the parents pushed algebra on them early. No coaching needed.

If your kid is something special, he will stand out on other measures that matter to top colleges. No need to worry about “g-loading.”

the idea that kids need to be “special” is where a lot of problems begin.

Well then maybe apply to ASU. They don't require you to be "special" and it's just as good an education, right?