What happens when elite schools shift away from test scores, grades, and AP?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Since when are grades, test scores and academic rigor considered "padding" on a resume?

Since admissions committees realized these things are only a meaningless reflection of White Privilege.

yep! But worse, these aren't engaged interested kids. I don't teach at an elite college but I will tell you my honor students are the absolute worse for valuing what teachers value (intellectual curiosity, the life of the mind, knowledge for knowledge's sake). They will work their butts off for an A, but for no purpose but the A and the next hoop. It is sad. Schools are trying to figure out a way not to enroll these kids (though they themselves have created these kids with their admission criteria). But don't worry, they have no way yet. They may take a deeper look at kids from Waldorf schools or homeschool kids is my guess.

At least these kids are working hard enough to get A's. You live in a fantasy world if you think that lower achieving students are more likely to be intellectually curious.

What I have found is that naturally bright kids are bored to death in today's academic environment because our teachers are not from the top of the academic distribution. If you are in the top 10% of your class, you are way smarter than your teacher, and their idea of "intellectual curiosity" is your idea of boredom. You have teachers who think asking questions equates to intellectual curiosity, but the bright kids aren't engaged because the class is too easy and there is no point in asking questions.

And the teascher doesn't call on the bright students to answer because she wants to "give other kids a chance." Meaning my kid is left to doodle and daydream, but God forbid the teacher catch him because then she will embarass & rebuke him for not paying attention.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Since when are grades, test scores and academic rigor considered "padding" on a resume?

Since admissions committees realized these things are only a meaningless reflection of White Privilege.

yep! But worse, these aren't engaged interested kids. I don't teach at an elite college but I will tell you my honor students are the absolute worse for valuing what teachers value (intellectual curiosity, the life of the mind, knowledge for knowledge's sake). They will work their butts off for an A, but for no purpose but the A and the next hoop. It is sad. Schools are trying to figure out a way not to enroll these kids (though they themselves have created these kids with their admission criteria). But don't worry, they have no way yet. They may take a deeper look at kids from Waldorf schools or homeschool kids is my guess.

At least these kids are working hard enough to get A's. You live in a fantasy world if you think that lower achieving students are more likely to be intellectually curious.

What I have found is that naturally bright kids are bored to death in today's academic environment because our teachers are not from the top of the academic distribution. If you are in the top 10% of your class, you are way smarter than your teacher, and their idea of "intellectual curiosity" is your idea of boredom. You have teachers who think asking questions equates to intellectual curiosity, but the bright kids aren't engaged because the class is too easy and there is no point in asking questions.

And the teascher doesn't call on the bright students to answer because she wants to "give other kids a chance." Meaning my kid is left to doodle and daydream, but God forbid the teacher catch him because then she will embarass & rebuke him for not paying attention.

I have a kid who tests in the profoundly gifted range. I hope you don't convey to your child that he is the smartest guy in the room. You're going to raise a kid who is unable to cope with being an entry-level employee, who is unable to cope with working with a team, and who is unable to cope with environments where he is NOT the smartest guy in the room.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They are a lot more objective than extracurriculars. Or learning how to write the right types of college essays.

Objectively, test scores and grades alone are not sufficient to identify future accomplishment. The point of elite college admissions is to make a subjective judgement about which applicants will become elites in their respective fields. It is not to reward high school accomplishments alone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think there is a lot of truth to the notion that the emphasis on APs and standardized assessments takes away from real academic engagement. But, I doubt the system will change much in the short term, unfortunately.

+1000

My DS's constant complaint about most of the AP classes he's taken is the unrelenting focus on rote memorization. He was extremely disappointed to find that "rigorous" courses did not necessarily involve rigorous analysis or rigorous discussions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Getting a job with a soft degree like psychology is a privilege reserved for rich white kids.

Well, and I guess we should thank our lucky stars that SOMEONE is interested in mental health issues, given the growing number of them in our society.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/20/opinion/rethinking-college-admissions.html?ref=opinion

If the best schools begin to actively discourage college resume padding, what happens to the grinds and tiger parenting offspring? Are they going to take their smarts and find purpose and meaning to channel their energy and hard work? Or are they going to stick to their conventional path and game their essays and interviews to fake passion and commitment to get in? Are they going to shift their attention to those really great state universities that are too big to do holistic admissions and abandon the Ivies? What will you do?

This is so condescending. You are such an elitist. You devalue somebody whose goal is to make a lot of money or have a prestigious job. Why not accept that some of us want things like that?

NP here. I don't think OP is devaluing a person -- but certainly you can't believe a goal of making a lot of money or having a prestigious job is supposed to be admired?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The other truth is that there are just too many kids who are doing it all now. You could fill UVA with top students from NO Virginia now, and it is just getting worse here and everywhere. If you want truly exceptional kids who value learning, not only will sat scores and number of AP classes not get you there, they will leave you with a pool of applicants so huge there is no effective, non-arbitrary way to sort them into admits and nonadmits.

Actually, I think there are too many kids trying[b] to do it all now. There is a very, very small cohort of super-talented kids who are able to do -- if not it all -- then at least one or two things very well. Academics and leading a technology club, for example, or academics and sports. For most kids, however, I think it only takes a little digging to see through the resume padding (membership on a Varsity team that isn't particularly good, for instance, or a leadership position that doesn't mean much).

If colleges admissions offices had more interest in investigating, they could probably separate out the truly impressive more quickly than you think.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Unfortunately when we take away objective measures like grades and tests scores, these other characteristics become things that correlate more with parental income and opportunities that kids themselves cannot control.

Actually, as a whole, test scores and advanced curriculum are very closely tied to parental incomes. Expensive test prep boosts scores. You need to be able to afford a house in a strong school district with lots of AP classes (most high schools in the country only offer a couple) to have a super high weighted GPA.

Most studies I've seen basically have SES dropping out as a predictor of test scores when they add parental intelligence or education in as a variable. Put another way, smarter people generally make more money; Intelligence is highly heritable, so their kids are usually smart as well and do well on standardized tests.

[Anonymous]

Especially well with the Potomac college counselor and SAT prep . . . .

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Unfortunately when we take away objective measures like grades and tests scores, these other characteristics become things that correlate more with parental income and opportunities that kids themselves cannot control.

Actually, as a whole, test scores and advanced curriculum are very closely tied to parental incomes. Expensive test prep boosts scores. You need to be able to afford a house in a strong school district with lots of AP classes (most high schools in the country only offer a couple) to have a super high weighted GPA.

Most studies I've seen basically have SES dropping out as a predictor of test scores when they add parental intelligence or education in as a variable. Put another way, smarter people generally make more money; Intelligence is highly heritable, so their kids are usually smart as well and do well on standardized tests.

Sources please.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Unfortunately when we take away objective measures like grades and tests scores, these other characteristics become things that correlate more with parental income and opportunities that kids themselves cannot control.

Actually, as a whole, test scores and advanced curriculum are very closely tied to parental incomes. Expensive test prep boosts scores. You need to be able to afford a house in a strong school district with lots of AP classes (most high schools in the country only offer a couple) to have a super high weighted GPA.

Most studies I've seen basically have SES dropping out as a predictor of test scores when they add parental intelligence or education in as a variable. Put another way, smarter people generally make more money; Intelligence is highly heritable, so their kids are usually smart as well and do well on standardized tests.

So you're arguing that your preferred measure of student merit is most closely related to the intelligence (however that is measured) or education levels of the applicant's parents, not parental incomes. Hmmmm...Why might that be useless to schools choosing students, not parents of students?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Since when are grades, test scores and academic rigor considered "padding" on a resume?

Since admissions committees realized these things are only a meaningless reflection of White Privilege.

yep! But worse, these aren't engaged interested kids. I don't teach at an elite college but I will tell you my honor students are the absolute worse for valuing what teachers value (intellectual curiosity, the life of the mind, knowledge for knowledge's sake). They will work their butts off for an A, but for no purpose but the A and the next hoop. It is sad. Schools are trying to figure out a way not to enroll these kids (though they themselves have created these kids with their admission criteria). But don't worry, they have no way yet. They may take a deeper look at kids from Waldorf schools or homeschool kids is my guess.

At least these kids are working hard enough to get A's. You live in a fantasy world if you think that lower achieving students are more likely to be intellectually curious.

What I have found is that naturally bright kids are bored to death in today's academic environment because our teachers are not from the top of the academic distribution. If you are in the top 10% of your class, you are way smarter than your teacher, and their idea of "intellectual curiosity" is your idea of boredom. You have teachers who think asking questions equates to intellectual curiosity, but the bright kids aren't engaged because the class is too easy and there is no point in asking questions.

And the teascher doesn't call on the bright students to answer because she wants to "give other kids a chance." Meaning my kid is left to doodle and daydream, but God forbid the teacher catch him because then she will embarass & rebuke him for not paying attention.

What a martyr!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Getting a job with a soft degree like psychology is a privilege reserved for rich white kids.

Well, and I guess we should thank our lucky stars that SOMEONE is interested in mental health issues, given the growing number of them in our society.

Wasn't Michelle a sociology major? Didn't hold her back.

[Anonymous]

I'm concerned that the new emphasis on community service, etc. will once again privilege extroverts over introverts. There are lots of very bright people (ahem, myself included) who prefer to work quietly and alone and who really don't turn their smarts towards organizing tasks -- organizing others, getting people 'pumped' about some project. It's possible to be really intelligent without having the personality of an aerobics instructor -- and top schools should recognize that and seek out more of the quiet, brilliant types -- even if to the extroverts we seem dull.

[Anonymous]

Most studies I've seen basically have SES dropping out as a predictor of test scores when they add parental intelligence or education in as a variable. Put another way, smarter people generally make more money; Intelligence is highly heritable, so their kids are usually smart as well and do well on standardized tests.

This is interesting. I would be very curious to learn of the studies.