If TJ has such smart kids, why so much cheating?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I've seen studies that argue standardized test scores are a more reliable indicator, and others (more) that indicate GPA is stronger. What seems obvious is that all of these things (standardized test scores, GPAs, essay, teacher recs, etc.) can be indicators of merit, and each measure has strengths and weaknesses, such that none should none of them should really be used as the one-and-only measure of "merit". Personally I do wish that standardized test scores were still one component of the evaluation process, but it seems more than a bit disingenuous, or perhaps more innocuously just misguided, to equate that one measure alone with the broader concept of "merit".

Nobody is arguing for any indicator to be a one-and-only. A true holistic evaluation should take in a lot of inputs. Test scores, GPA, courses taken, math level, teacher recommendations, essays, and significant achievements all belong in a holistic evaluation.

Base ES and personal experience factors as well, I'm sure there are other things we could think of for a holistic evaluation, many of which are currently included in the current process. But the outcry is that one factor has been eliminated (standardized test score) on the basis that this removes "merit" from the process. In the eyes of most who use that phrase, standardized tests are 1:1 with the concept of merit, which is obviously false on the face of it.

And when you DO include standardized tests, myriad parents start complaining when a kid with a lower score got in over their kid, blasting every other measure as subjective and/or biased, but having full blinders on when it comes to the similar limitations and bias of standardized tests. I don't know what the right answer is, but I do know that it's not as cut-and-dry obvious as many seem to want to oversimplify it down to.

What do you imagine is included in the current process? Math level isn't. Rigor of courses isn't. Standardized test scores aren't. SOL scores aren't. Achievements aren't. Teacher recommendations aren't. There honestly isn't much left in the application, which is why people think the process is no longer based on merit.

The only things included are GPA, which isn't counted heavily and is pretty meaningless when grades are so absurdly inflated, experience factors, a super trivial math problem solving essay, and a few fluff portrait of a graduate mini essays.

Even for college admissions grades are the most important measure of merit.

This is clearly not true.

Between GPA and test scores, test scores are far more predictive than GPA.

It's true that test scores are more predictive but it's also well known that colleges put more weight on GPA. Many don't even require SATs these days.

How do you distinguish between a bunch of straight A students?

This isn't especially difficult. Harvard does it annually.

Yes, mostly by using an objective test.

They also have a preference for legacy applicants, athletic recruits and (until recently) black/hispanic applicants.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I've seen studies that argue standardized test scores are a more reliable indicator, and others (more) that indicate GPA is stronger. What seems obvious is that all of these things (standardized test scores, GPAs, essay, teacher recs, etc.) can be indicators of merit, and each measure has strengths and weaknesses, such that none should none of them should really be used as the one-and-only measure of "merit". Personally I do wish that standardized test scores were still one component of the evaluation process, but it seems more than a bit disingenuous, or perhaps more innocuously just misguided, to equate that one measure alone with the broader concept of "merit".

Nobody is arguing for any indicator to be a one-and-only. A true holistic evaluation should take in a lot of inputs. Test scores, GPA, courses taken, math level, teacher recommendations, essays, and significant achievements all belong in a holistic evaluation.

Base ES and personal experience factors as well, I'm sure there are other things we could think of for a holistic evaluation, many of which are currently included in the current process. But the outcry is that one factor has been eliminated (standardized test score) on the basis that this removes "merit" from the process. In the eyes of most who use that phrase, standardized tests are 1:1 with the concept of merit, which is obviously false on the face of it.

And when you DO include standardized tests, myriad parents start complaining when a kid with a lower score got in over their kid, blasting every other measure as subjective and/or biased, but having full blinders on when it comes to the similar limitations and bias of standardized tests. I don't know what the right answer is, but I do know that it's not as cut-and-dry obvious as many seem to want to oversimplify it down to.

What do you imagine is included in the current process? Math level isn't. Rigor of courses isn't. Standardized test scores aren't. SOL scores aren't. Achievements aren't. Teacher recommendations aren't. There honestly isn't much left in the application, which is why people think the process is no longer based on merit.

The only things included are GPA, which isn't counted heavily and is pretty meaningless when grades are so absurdly inflated, experience factors, a super trivial math problem solving essay, and a few fluff portrait of a graduate mini essays.

Even for college admissions grades are the most important measure of merit.

This is clearly not true.

Between GPA and test scores, test scores are far more predictive than GPA.

It's true that test scores are more predictive but it's also well known that colleges put more weight on GPA. Many don't even require SATs these days.

How do you distinguish between a bunch of straight A students?

This isn't especially difficult. Harvard does it annually.

Yes, mostly by using an objective test.

They also have a preference for legacy applicants, athletic recruits and (until recently) black/hispanic applicants.

Back to the original point it's difficult for Harvard to differentiate these applicants since they literally have thousands of applicants with a perfect 1600.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I've seen studies that argue standardized test scores are a more reliable indicator, and others (more) that indicate GPA is stronger. What seems obvious is that all of these things (standardized test scores, GPAs, essay, teacher recs, etc.) can be indicators of merit, and each measure has strengths and weaknesses, such that none should none of them should really be used as the one-and-only measure of "merit". Personally I do wish that standardized test scores were still one component of the evaluation process, but it seems more than a bit disingenuous, or perhaps more innocuously just misguided, to equate that one measure alone with the broader concept of "merit".

Nobody is arguing for any indicator to be a one-and-only. A true holistic evaluation should take in a lot of inputs. Test scores, GPA, courses taken, math level, teacher recommendations, essays, and significant achievements all belong in a holistic evaluation.

Base ES and personal experience factors as well, I'm sure there are other things we could think of for a holistic evaluation, many of which are currently included in the current process. But the outcry is that one factor has been eliminated (standardized test score) on the basis that this removes "merit" from the process. In the eyes of most who use that phrase, standardized tests are 1:1 with the concept of merit, which is obviously false on the face of it.

And when you DO include standardized tests, myriad parents start complaining when a kid with a lower score got in over their kid, blasting every other measure as subjective and/or biased, but having full blinders on when it comes to the similar limitations and bias of standardized tests. I don't know what the right answer is, but I do know that it's not as cut-and-dry obvious as many seem to want to oversimplify it down to.

What do you imagine is included in the current process? Math level isn't. Rigor of courses isn't. Standardized test scores aren't. SOL scores aren't. Achievements aren't. Teacher recommendations aren't. There honestly isn't much left in the application, which is why people think the process is no longer based on merit.

The only things included are GPA, which isn't counted heavily and is pretty meaningless when grades are so absurdly inflated, experience factors, a super trivial math problem solving essay, and a few fluff portrait of a graduate mini essays.

Even for college admissions grades are the most important measure of merit.

This is clearly not true.

Between GPA and test scores, test scores are far more predictive than GPA.

It's true that test scores are more predictive but it's also well known that colleges put more weight on GPA. Many don't even require SATs these days.

How do you distinguish between a bunch of straight A students?

This isn't especially difficult. Harvard does it annually.

Yes, mostly by using an objective test.

They also have a preference for legacy applicants, athletic recruits and (until recently) black/hispanic applicants.

You might've missed it but SCOTUS ruled it's illegal for them to use race.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I've seen studies that argue standardized test scores are a more reliable indicator, and others (more) that indicate GPA is stronger. What seems obvious is that all of these things (standardized test scores, GPAs, essay, teacher recs, etc.) can be indicators of merit, and each measure has strengths and weaknesses, such that none should none of them should really be used as the one-and-only measure of "merit". Personally I do wish that standardized test scores were still one component of the evaluation process, but it seems more than a bit disingenuous, or perhaps more innocuously just misguided, to equate that one measure alone with the broader concept of "merit".

Nobody is arguing for any indicator to be a one-and-only. A true holistic evaluation should take in a lot of inputs. Test scores, GPA, courses taken, math level, teacher recommendations, essays, and significant achievements all belong in a holistic evaluation.

Base ES and personal experience factors as well, I'm sure there are other things we could think of for a holistic evaluation, many of which are currently included in the current process. But the outcry is that one factor has been eliminated (standardized test score) on the basis that this removes "merit" from the process. In the eyes of most who use that phrase, standardized tests are 1:1 with the concept of merit, which is obviously false on the face of it.

And when you DO include standardized tests, myriad parents start complaining when a kid with a lower score got in over their kid, blasting every other measure as subjective and/or biased, but having full blinders on when it comes to the similar limitations and bias of standardized tests. I don't know what the right answer is, but I do know that it's not as cut-and-dry obvious as many seem to want to oversimplify it down to.

What do you imagine is included in the current process? Math level isn't. Rigor of courses isn't. Standardized test scores aren't. SOL scores aren't. Achievements aren't. Teacher recommendations aren't. There honestly isn't much left in the application, which is why people think the process is no longer based on merit.

The only things included are GPA, which isn't counted heavily and is pretty meaningless when grades are so absurdly inflated, experience factors, a super trivial math problem solving essay, and a few fluff portrait of a graduate mini essays.

Even for college admissions grades are the most important measure of merit.

This is clearly not true.

Between GPA and test scores, test scores are far more predictive than GPA.

It's true that test scores are more predictive but it's also well known that colleges put more weight on GPA. Many don't even require SATs these days.

How do you distinguish between a bunch of straight A students?

This isn't especially difficult. Harvard does it annually.

Yes, mostly by using an objective test.

They also have a preference for legacy applicants, athletic recruits and (until recently) black/hispanic applicants.

Back to the original point it's difficult for Harvard to differentiate these applicants since they literally have thousands of applicants with a perfect 1600.

This would be a reasonable retort if it were even close to true, but the best estimates put the annual number of perfect SAT scores somewhere between 300-1000.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I've seen studies that argue standardized test scores are a more reliable indicator, and others (more) that indicate GPA is stronger. What seems obvious is that all of these things (standardized test scores, GPAs, essay, teacher recs, etc.) can be indicators of merit, and each measure has strengths and weaknesses, such that none should none of them should really be used as the one-and-only measure of "merit". Personally I do wish that standardized test scores were still one component of the evaluation process, but it seems more than a bit disingenuous, or perhaps more innocuously just misguided, to equate that one measure alone with the broader concept of "merit".

Nobody is arguing for any indicator to be a one-and-only. A true holistic evaluation should take in a lot of inputs. Test scores, GPA, courses taken, math level, teacher recommendations, essays, and significant achievements all belong in a holistic evaluation.

Base ES and personal experience factors as well, I'm sure there are other things we could think of for a holistic evaluation, many of which are currently included in the current process. But the outcry is that one factor has been eliminated (standardized test score) on the basis that this removes "merit" from the process. In the eyes of most who use that phrase, standardized tests are 1:1 with the concept of merit, which is obviously false on the face of it.

And when you DO include standardized tests, myriad parents start complaining when a kid with a lower score got in over their kid, blasting every other measure as subjective and/or biased, but having full blinders on when it comes to the similar limitations and bias of standardized tests. I don't know what the right answer is, but I do know that it's not as cut-and-dry obvious as many seem to want to oversimplify it down to.

What do you imagine is included in the current process? Math level isn't. Rigor of courses isn't. Standardized test scores aren't. SOL scores aren't. Achievements aren't. Teacher recommendations aren't. There honestly isn't much left in the application, which is why people think the process is no longer based on merit.

The only things included are GPA, which isn't counted heavily and is pretty meaningless when grades are so absurdly inflated, experience factors, a super trivial math problem solving essay, and a few fluff portrait of a graduate mini essays.

Even for college admissions grades are the most important measure of merit.

This is clearly not true.

Between GPA and test scores, test scores are far more predictive than GPA.

It's true that test scores are more predictive but it's also well known that colleges put more weight on GPA. Many don't even require SATs these days.

How do you distinguish between a bunch of straight A students?

This isn't especially difficult. Harvard does it annually.

Yes, mostly by using an objective test.

They also have a preference for legacy applicants, athletic recruits and (until recently) black/hispanic applicants.

You might've missed it but SCOTUS ruled it's illegal for them to use race.

You might have missed the parenthetical in the post you are responding to.
Harvard clearly still WANTS more black and hispanic students but will have to get more creative about it.
Explicit racial preferences will not work.

[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:
I've seen studies that argue standardized test scores are a more reliable indicator, and others (more) that indicate GPA is stronger. What seems obvious is that all of these things (standardized test scores, GPAs, essay, teacher recs, etc.) can be indicators of merit, and each measure has strengths and weaknesses, such that none should none of them should really be used as the one-and-only measure of "merit". Personally I do wish that standardized test scores were still one component of the evaluation process, but it seems more than a bit disingenuous, or perhaps more innocuously just misguided, to equate that one measure alone with the broader concept of "merit".

Nobody is arguing for any indicator to be a one-and-only. A true holistic evaluation should take in a lot of inputs. Test scores, GPA, courses taken, math level, teacher recommendations, essays, and significant achievements all belong in a holistic evaluation.

Base ES and personal experience factors as well, I'm sure there are other things we could think of for a holistic evaluation, many of which are currently included in the current process. But the outcry is that one factor has been eliminated (standardized test score) on the basis that this removes "merit" from the process. In the eyes of most who use that phrase, standardized tests are 1:1 with the concept of merit, which is obviously false on the face of it.

And when you DO include standardized tests, myriad parents start complaining when a kid with a lower score got in over their kid, blasting every other measure as subjective and/or biased, but having full blinders on when it comes to the similar limitations and bias of standardized tests. I don't know what the right answer is, but I do know that it's not as cut-and-dry obvious as many seem to want to oversimplify it down to.

What do you imagine is included in the current process? Math level isn't. Rigor of courses isn't. Standardized test scores aren't. SOL scores aren't. Achievements aren't. Teacher recommendations aren't. There honestly isn't much left in the application, which is why people think the process is no longer based on merit.

The only things included are GPA, which isn't counted heavily and is pretty meaningless when grades are so absurdly inflated, experience factors, a super trivial math problem solving essay, and a few fluff portrait of a graduate mini essays.

Even for college admissions grades are the most important measure of merit.

This is clearly not true.

Between GPA and test scores, test scores are far more predictive than GPA.

It's true that test scores are more predictive but it's also well known that colleges put more weight on GPA. Many don't even require SATs these days.

How do you distinguish between a bunch of straight A students?

This isn't especially difficult. Harvard does it annually.

Yes, mostly by using an objective test.

They also have a preference for legacy applicants, athletic recruits and (until recently) black/hispanic applicants.

You might've missed it but SCOTUS ruled it's illegal for them to use race.

You might have missed the parenthetical in the post you are responding to.
Harvard clearly still WANTS more black and hispanic students but will have to get more creative about it.
Explicit racial preferences will not work.

Targeting low HHI and first gen will identify kids of all races who’d benefit the most.

[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:
I've seen studies that argue standardized test scores are a more reliable indicator, and others (more) that indicate GPA is stronger. What seems obvious is that all of these things (standardized test scores, GPAs, essay, teacher recs, etc.) can be indicators of merit, and each measure has strengths and weaknesses, such that none should none of them should really be used as the one-and-only measure of "merit". Personally I do wish that standardized test scores were still one component of the evaluation process, but it seems more than a bit disingenuous, or perhaps more innocuously just misguided, to equate that one measure alone with the broader concept of "merit".

Nobody is arguing for any indicator to be a one-and-only. A true holistic evaluation should take in a lot of inputs. Test scores, GPA, courses taken, math level, teacher recommendations, essays, and significant achievements all belong in a holistic evaluation.

Base ES and personal experience factors as well, I'm sure there are other things we could think of for a holistic evaluation, many of which are currently included in the current process. But the outcry is that one factor has been eliminated (standardized test score) on the basis that this removes "merit" from the process. In the eyes of most who use that phrase, standardized tests are 1:1 with the concept of merit, which is obviously false on the face of it.

And when you DO include standardized tests, myriad parents start complaining when a kid with a lower score got in over their kid, blasting every other measure as subjective and/or biased, but having full blinders on when it comes to the similar limitations and bias of standardized tests. I don't know what the right answer is, but I do know that it's not as cut-and-dry obvious as many seem to want to oversimplify it down to.

What do you imagine is included in the current process? Math level isn't. Rigor of courses isn't. Standardized test scores aren't. SOL scores aren't. Achievements aren't. Teacher recommendations aren't. There honestly isn't much left in the application, which is why people think the process is no longer based on merit.

The only things included are GPA, which isn't counted heavily and is pretty meaningless when grades are so absurdly inflated, experience factors, a super trivial math problem solving essay, and a few fluff portrait of a graduate mini essays.

Even for college admissions grades are the most important measure of merit.

This is clearly not true.

Between GPA and test scores, test scores are far more predictive than GPA.

It's true that test scores are more predictive but it's also well known that colleges put more weight on GPA. Many don't even require SATs these days.

How do you distinguish between a bunch of straight A students?

This isn't especially difficult. Harvard does it annually.

Yes, mostly by using an objective test.

They also have a preference for legacy applicants, athletic recruits and (until recently) black/hispanic applicants.

You might've missed it but SCOTUS ruled it's illegal for them to use race.

You might have missed the parenthetical in the post you are responding to.
Harvard clearly still WANTS more black and hispanic students but will have to get more creative about it.
Explicit racial preferences will not work.

Targeting low HHI and first gen will identify kids of all races who’d benefit the most.

I'm very skeptical that this will yield the type of racial diversity that people want.

At low income levels culture makes an even greater difference than at higher income levels.
If you focus on low income, you are likely to be replacing mostly wealthier white kids and some wealthier asian kids with poorer asian kids and some poorer black/hispanic kids.

First generation is likely to get you more black kids but not a ton more hispanic kids.
Most high performing hispanic kids are 2nd or 3rd+ generation americans.

[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:
I've seen studies that argue standardized test scores are a more reliable indicator, and others (more) that indicate GPA is stronger. What seems obvious is that all of these things (standardized test scores, GPAs, essay, teacher recs, etc.) can be indicators of merit, and each measure has strengths and weaknesses, such that none should none of them should really be used as the one-and-only measure of "merit". Personally I do wish that standardized test scores were still one component of the evaluation process, but it seems more than a bit disingenuous, or perhaps more innocuously just misguided, to equate that one measure alone with the broader concept of "merit".

Nobody is arguing for any indicator to be a one-and-only. A true holistic evaluation should take in a lot of inputs. Test scores, GPA, courses taken, math level, teacher recommendations, essays, and significant achievements all belong in a holistic evaluation.

Base ES and personal experience factors as well, I'm sure there are other things we could think of for a holistic evaluation, many of which are currently included in the current process. But the outcry is that one factor has been eliminated (standardized test score) on the basis that this removes "merit" from the process. In the eyes of most who use that phrase, standardized tests are 1:1 with the concept of merit, which is obviously false on the face of it.

And when you DO include standardized tests, myriad parents start complaining when a kid with a lower score got in over their kid, blasting every other measure as subjective and/or biased, but having full blinders on when it comes to the similar limitations and bias of standardized tests. I don't know what the right answer is, but I do know that it's not as cut-and-dry obvious as many seem to want to oversimplify it down to.

What do you imagine is included in the current process? Math level isn't. Rigor of courses isn't. Standardized test scores aren't. SOL scores aren't. Achievements aren't. Teacher recommendations aren't. There honestly isn't much left in the application, which is why people think the process is no longer based on merit.

The only things included are GPA, which isn't counted heavily and is pretty meaningless when grades are so absurdly inflated, experience factors, a super trivial math problem solving essay, and a few fluff portrait of a graduate mini essays.

Even for college admissions grades are the most important measure of merit.

This is clearly not true.

Between GPA and test scores, test scores are far more predictive than GPA.

It's true that test scores are more predictive but it's also well known that colleges put more weight on GPA. Many don't even require SATs these days.

How do you distinguish between a bunch of straight A students?

This isn't especially difficult. Harvard does it annually.

Yes, mostly by using an objective test.

They also have a preference for legacy applicants, athletic recruits and (until recently) black/hispanic applicants.

You might've missed it but SCOTUS ruled it's illegal for them to use race.

You might have missed the parenthetical in the post you are responding to.
Harvard clearly still WANTS more black and hispanic students but will have to get more creative about it.
Explicit racial preferences will not work.

Targeting low HHI and first gen will identify kids of all races who’d benefit the most.

I'm very skeptical that this will yield the type of racial diversity that people want.

At low income levels culture makes an even greater difference than at higher income levels.
If you focus on low income, you are likely to be replacing mostly wealthier white kids and some wealthier asian kids with poorer asian kids and some poorer black/hispanic kids.

First generation is likely to get you more black kids but not a ton more hispanic kids.
Most high performing hispanic kids are 2nd or 3rd+ generation americans.

Some people may be focused on the lack of diversity, but not a lot anyone can or should do about it. Presently all groups admission rates are within a few percents of the median. It has more to do with who applies in what numbers.

[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:
I've seen studies that argue standardized test scores are a more reliable indicator, and others (more) that indicate GPA is stronger. What seems obvious is that all of these things (standardized test scores, GPAs, essay, teacher recs, etc.) can be indicators of merit, and each measure has strengths and weaknesses, such that none should none of them should really be used as the one-and-only measure of "merit". Personally I do wish that standardized test scores were still one component of the evaluation process, but it seems more than a bit disingenuous, or perhaps more innocuously just misguided, to equate that one measure alone with the broader concept of "merit".

Nobody is arguing for any indicator to be a one-and-only. A true holistic evaluation should take in a lot of inputs. Test scores, GPA, courses taken, math level, teacher recommendations, essays, and significant achievements all belong in a holistic evaluation.

Base ES and personal experience factors as well, I'm sure there are other things we could think of for a holistic evaluation, many of which are currently included in the current process. But the outcry is that one factor has been eliminated (standardized test score) on the basis that this removes "merit" from the process. In the eyes of most who use that phrase, standardized tests are 1:1 with the concept of merit, which is obviously false on the face of it.

And when you DO include standardized tests, myriad parents start complaining when a kid with a lower score got in over their kid, blasting every other measure as subjective and/or biased, but having full blinders on when it comes to the similar limitations and bias of standardized tests. I don't know what the right answer is, but I do know that it's not as cut-and-dry obvious as many seem to want to oversimplify it down to.

What do you imagine is included in the current process? Math level isn't. Rigor of courses isn't. Standardized test scores aren't. SOL scores aren't. Achievements aren't. Teacher recommendations aren't. There honestly isn't much left in the application, which is why people think the process is no longer based on merit.

The only things included are GPA, which isn't counted heavily and is pretty meaningless when grades are so absurdly inflated, experience factors, a super trivial math problem solving essay, and a few fluff portrait of a graduate mini essays.

Even for college admissions grades are the most important measure of merit.

This is clearly not true.

Between GPA and test scores, test scores are far more predictive than GPA.

It's true that test scores are more predictive but it's also well known that colleges put more weight on GPA. Many don't even require SATs these days.

How do you distinguish between a bunch of straight A students?

This isn't especially difficult. Harvard does it annually.

Yes, mostly by using an objective test.

They also have a preference for legacy applicants, athletic recruits and (until recently) black/hispanic applicants.

Back to the original point it's difficult for Harvard to differentiate these applicants since they literally have thousands of applicants with a perfect 1600.

This would be a reasonable retort if it were even close to true, but the best estimates put the annual number of perfect SAT scores somewhere between 300-1000.

That's really odd since I'd read Harvard could fill their entire class with applicants with UW 4.0 and 1600 and that's several thousand slots.

[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:
I've seen studies that argue standardized test scores are a more reliable indicator, and others (more) that indicate GPA is stronger. What seems obvious is that all of these things (standardized test scores, GPAs, essay, teacher recs, etc.) can be indicators of merit, and each measure has strengths and weaknesses, such that none should none of them should really be used as the one-and-only measure of "merit". Personally I do wish that standardized test scores were still one component of the evaluation process, but it seems more than a bit disingenuous, or perhaps more innocuously just misguided, to equate that one measure alone with the broader concept of "merit".

Nobody is arguing for any indicator to be a one-and-only. A true holistic evaluation should take in a lot of inputs. Test scores, GPA, courses taken, math level, teacher recommendations, essays, and significant achievements all belong in a holistic evaluation.

Base ES and personal experience factors as well, I'm sure there are other things we could think of for a holistic evaluation, many of which are currently included in the current process. But the outcry is that one factor has been eliminated (standardized test score) on the basis that this removes "merit" from the process. In the eyes of most who use that phrase, standardized tests are 1:1 with the concept of merit, which is obviously false on the face of it.

And when you DO include standardized tests, myriad parents start complaining when a kid with a lower score got in over their kid, blasting every other measure as subjective and/or biased, but having full blinders on when it comes to the similar limitations and bias of standardized tests. I don't know what the right answer is, but I do know that it's not as cut-and-dry obvious as many seem to want to oversimplify it down to.

What do you imagine is included in the current process? Math level isn't. Rigor of courses isn't. Standardized test scores aren't. SOL scores aren't. Achievements aren't. Teacher recommendations aren't. There honestly isn't much left in the application, which is why people think the process is no longer based on merit.

The only things included are GPA, which isn't counted heavily and is pretty meaningless when grades are so absurdly inflated, experience factors, a super trivial math problem solving essay, and a few fluff portrait of a graduate mini essays.

Even for college admissions grades are the most important measure of merit.

This is clearly not true.

Between GPA and test scores, test scores are far more predictive than GPA.

It's true that test scores are more predictive but it's also well known that colleges put more weight on GPA. Many don't even require SATs these days.

How do you distinguish between a bunch of straight A students?

This isn't especially difficult. Harvard does it annually.

Yes, mostly by using an objective test.

They also have a preference for legacy applicants, athletic recruits and (until recently) black/hispanic applicants.

Back to the original point it's difficult for Harvard to differentiate these applicants since they literally have thousands of applicants with a perfect 1600.

This would be a reasonable retort if it were even close to true, but the best estimates put the annual number of perfect SAT scores somewhere between 300-1000.

That's really odd since I'd read Harvard could fill their entire class with applicants with UW 4.0 and 1600 and that's several thousand slots.

In a recent year, Harvard had 361 applicants with a perfect SAT score.
We know this because it was discovered during the harvard lawsuit.

[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:
I've seen studies that argue standardized test scores are a more reliable indicator, and others (more) that indicate GPA is stronger. What seems obvious is that all of these things (standardized test scores, GPAs, essay, teacher recs, etc.) can be indicators of merit, and each measure has strengths and weaknesses, such that none should none of them should really be used as the one-and-only measure of "merit". Personally I do wish that standardized test scores were still one component of the evaluation process, but it seems more than a bit disingenuous, or perhaps more innocuously just misguided, to equate that one measure alone with the broader concept of "merit".

Nobody is arguing for any indicator to be a one-and-only. A true holistic evaluation should take in a lot of inputs. Test scores, GPA, courses taken, math level, teacher recommendations, essays, and significant achievements all belong in a holistic evaluation.

Base ES and personal experience factors as well, I'm sure there are other things we could think of for a holistic evaluation, many of which are currently included in the current process. But the outcry is that one factor has been eliminated (standardized test score) on the basis that this removes "merit" from the process. In the eyes of most who use that phrase, standardized tests are 1:1 with the concept of merit, which is obviously false on the face of it.

And when you DO include standardized tests, myriad parents start complaining when a kid with a lower score got in over their kid, blasting every other measure as subjective and/or biased, but having full blinders on when it comes to the similar limitations and bias of standardized tests. I don't know what the right answer is, but I do know that it's not as cut-and-dry obvious as many seem to want to oversimplify it down to.

What do you imagine is included in the current process? Math level isn't. Rigor of courses isn't. Standardized test scores aren't. SOL scores aren't. Achievements aren't. Teacher recommendations aren't. There honestly isn't much left in the application, which is why people think the process is no longer based on merit.

The only things included are GPA, which isn't counted heavily and is pretty meaningless when grades are so absurdly inflated, experience factors, a super trivial math problem solving essay, and a few fluff portrait of a graduate mini essays.

Even for college admissions grades are the most important measure of merit.

This is clearly not true.

Between GPA and test scores, test scores are far more predictive than GPA.

It's true that test scores are more predictive but it's also well known that colleges put more weight on GPA. Many don't even require SATs these days.

How do you distinguish between a bunch of straight A students?

This isn't especially difficult. Harvard does it annually.

Yes, mostly by using an objective test.

They also have a preference for legacy applicants, athletic recruits and (until recently) black/hispanic applicants.

Back to the original point it's difficult for Harvard to differentiate these applicants since they literally have thousands of applicants with a perfect 1600.

This would be a reasonable retort if it were even close to true, but the best estimates put the annual number of perfect SAT scores somewhere between 300-1000.

That's really odd since I'd read Harvard could fill their entire class with applicants with UW 4.0 and 1600 and that's several thousand slots.

In a recent year, Harvard had 361 applicants with a perfect SAT score.
We know this because it was discovered during the harvard lawsuit.

The year I took the SAT, there were 7 perfect scores.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Class of 2008 TJ here. Cheating was rampant back then too. For what it’s worth, my mom was disgusted with the cheating in her MIT grad program in the ‘80s too. It’s the high pressure environment in my opinion.

It’s not just high pressure environments. I never even thought of cheating in school. Then I went to a second tier college and one class was too difficult and I hated it. My friend showed me where to hide the formulas. So I cheated for the first time.

You would hope by the time a student got to an MIT graduate program they wouldn’t have the need to cheat.

But I agree that some kids are in the highest level classes that they have no business being in. Even with their tutors they can’t keep up so they cheat because no one will do what’s best for the student which would be to drop to a lower level.

[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:
I've seen studies that argue standardized test scores are a more reliable indicator, and others (more) that indicate GPA is stronger. What seems obvious is that all of these things (standardized test scores, GPAs, essay, teacher recs, etc.) can be indicators of merit, and each measure has strengths and weaknesses, such that none should none of them should really be used as the one-and-only measure of "merit". Personally I do wish that standardized test scores were still one component of the evaluation process, but it seems more than a bit disingenuous, or perhaps more innocuously just misguided, to equate that one measure alone with the broader concept of "merit".

Nobody is arguing for any indicator to be a one-and-only. A true holistic evaluation should take in a lot of inputs. Test scores, GPA, courses taken, math level, teacher recommendations, essays, and significant achievements all belong in a holistic evaluation.

Base ES and personal experience factors as well, I'm sure there are other things we could think of for a holistic evaluation, many of which are currently included in the current process. But the outcry is that one factor has been eliminated (standardized test score) on the basis that this removes "merit" from the process. In the eyes of most who use that phrase, standardized tests are 1:1 with the concept of merit, which is obviously false on the face of it.

And when you DO include standardized tests, myriad parents start complaining when a kid with a lower score got in over their kid, blasting every other measure as subjective and/or biased, but having full blinders on when it comes to the similar limitations and bias of standardized tests. I don't know what the right answer is, but I do know that it's not as cut-and-dry obvious as many seem to want to oversimplify it down to.

What do you imagine is included in the current process? Math level isn't. Rigor of courses isn't. Standardized test scores aren't. SOL scores aren't. Achievements aren't. Teacher recommendations aren't. There honestly isn't much left in the application, which is why people think the process is no longer based on merit.

The only things included are GPA, which isn't counted heavily and is pretty meaningless when grades are so absurdly inflated, experience factors, a super trivial math problem solving essay, and a few fluff portrait of a graduate mini essays.

Even for college admissions grades are the most important measure of merit.

This is clearly not true.

Between GPA and test scores, test scores are far more predictive than GPA.

It's true that test scores are more predictive but it's also well known that colleges put more weight on GPA. Many don't even require SATs these days.

How do you distinguish between a bunch of straight A students?

This isn't especially difficult. Harvard does it annually.

Yes, mostly by using an objective test.

They also have a preference for legacy applicants, athletic recruits and (until recently) black/hispanic applicants.

Back to the original point it's difficult for Harvard to differentiate these applicants since they literally have thousands of applicants with a perfect 1600.

This would be a reasonable retort if it were even close to true, but the best estimates put the annual number of perfect SAT scores somewhere between 300-1000.

That's really odd since I'd read Harvard could fill their entire class with applicants with UW 4.0 and 1600 and that's several thousand slots.

In a recent year, Harvard had 361 applicants with a perfect SAT score.
We know this because it was discovered during the harvard lawsuit.

I'd read that Harvard could fill their entire class with perfect 1600s, but that's not their priority.

[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:
I've seen studies that argue standardized test scores are a more reliable indicator, and others (more) that indicate GPA is stronger. What seems obvious is that all of these things (standardized test scores, GPAs, essay, teacher recs, etc.) can be indicators of merit, and each measure has strengths and weaknesses, such that none should none of them should really be used as the one-and-only measure of "merit". Personally I do wish that standardized test scores were still one component of the evaluation process, but it seems more than a bit disingenuous, or perhaps more innocuously just misguided, to equate that one measure alone with the broader concept of "merit".

Nobody is arguing for any indicator to be a one-and-only. A true holistic evaluation should take in a lot of inputs. Test scores, GPA, courses taken, math level, teacher recommendations, essays, and significant achievements all belong in a holistic evaluation.

Base ES and personal experience factors as well, I'm sure there are other things we could think of for a holistic evaluation, many of which are currently included in the current process. But the outcry is that one factor has been eliminated (standardized test score) on the basis that this removes "merit" from the process. In the eyes of most who use that phrase, standardized tests are 1:1 with the concept of merit, which is obviously false on the face of it.

And when you DO include standardized tests, myriad parents start complaining when a kid with a lower score got in over their kid, blasting every other measure as subjective and/or biased, but having full blinders on when it comes to the similar limitations and bias of standardized tests. I don't know what the right answer is, but I do know that it's not as cut-and-dry obvious as many seem to want to oversimplify it down to.

What do you imagine is included in the current process? Math level isn't. Rigor of courses isn't. Standardized test scores aren't. SOL scores aren't. Achievements aren't. Teacher recommendations aren't. There honestly isn't much left in the application, which is why people think the process is no longer based on merit.

The only things included are GPA, which isn't counted heavily and is pretty meaningless when grades are so absurdly inflated, experience factors, a super trivial math problem solving essay, and a few fluff portrait of a graduate mini essays.

Even for college admissions grades are the most important measure of merit.

This is clearly not true.

Between GPA and test scores, test scores are far more predictive than GPA.

It's true that test scores are more predictive but it's also well known that colleges put more weight on GPA. Many don't even require SATs these days.

How do you distinguish between a bunch of straight A students?

This isn't especially difficult. Harvard does it annually.

Yes, mostly by using an objective test.

They also have a preference for legacy applicants, athletic recruits and (until recently) black/hispanic applicants.

Back to the original point it's difficult for Harvard to differentiate these applicants since they literally have thousands of applicants with a perfect 1600.

This would be a reasonable retort if it were even close to true, but the best estimates put the annual number of perfect SAT scores somewhere between 300-1000.

That's really odd since I'd read Harvard could fill their entire class with applicants with UW 4.0 and 1600 and that's several thousand slots.

In a recent year, Harvard had 361 applicants with a perfect SAT score.
We know this because it was discovered during the harvard lawsuit.

The year I took the SAT, there were 7 perfect scores.

The test got a lot easier about 30 years ago and scores are far far higher these days.

[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:
I've seen studies that argue standardized test scores are a more reliable indicator, and others (more) that indicate GPA is stronger. What seems obvious is that all of these things (standardized test scores, GPAs, essay, teacher recs, etc.) can be indicators of merit, and each measure has strengths and weaknesses, such that none should none of them should really be used as the one-and-only measure of "merit". Personally I do wish that standardized test scores were still one component of the evaluation process, but it seems more than a bit disingenuous, or perhaps more innocuously just misguided, to equate that one measure alone with the broader concept of "merit".

Nobody is arguing for any indicator to be a one-and-only. A true holistic evaluation should take in a lot of inputs. Test scores, GPA, courses taken, math level, teacher recommendations, essays, and significant achievements all belong in a holistic evaluation.

Base ES and personal experience factors as well, I'm sure there are other things we could think of for a holistic evaluation, many of which are currently included in the current process. But the outcry is that one factor has been eliminated (standardized test score) on the basis that this removes "merit" from the process. In the eyes of most who use that phrase, standardized tests are 1:1 with the concept of merit, which is obviously false on the face of it.

And when you DO include standardized tests, myriad parents start complaining when a kid with a lower score got in over their kid, blasting every other measure as subjective and/or biased, but having full blinders on when it comes to the similar limitations and bias of standardized tests. I don't know what the right answer is, but I do know that it's not as cut-and-dry obvious as many seem to want to oversimplify it down to.

What do you imagine is included in the current process? Math level isn't. Rigor of courses isn't. Standardized test scores aren't. SOL scores aren't. Achievements aren't. Teacher recommendations aren't. There honestly isn't much left in the application, which is why people think the process is no longer based on merit.

The only things included are GPA, which isn't counted heavily and is pretty meaningless when grades are so absurdly inflated, experience factors, a super trivial math problem solving essay, and a few fluff portrait of a graduate mini essays.

Even for college admissions grades are the most important measure of merit.

This is clearly not true.

Between GPA and test scores, test scores are far more predictive than GPA.

It's true that test scores are more predictive but it's also well known that colleges put more weight on GPA. Many don't even require SATs these days.

How do you distinguish between a bunch of straight A students?

This isn't especially difficult. Harvard does it annually.

Yes, mostly by using an objective test.

They also have a preference for legacy applicants, athletic recruits and (until recently) black/hispanic applicants.

Back to the original point it's difficult for Harvard to differentiate these applicants since they literally have thousands of applicants with a perfect 1600.

This would be a reasonable retort if it were even close to true, but the best estimates put the annual number of perfect SAT scores somewhere between 300-1000.

That's really odd since I'd read Harvard could fill their entire class with applicants with UW 4.0 and 1600 and that's several thousand slots.

In a recent year, Harvard had 361 applicants with a perfect SAT score.
We know this because it was discovered during the harvard lawsuit.

I'd read that Harvard could fill their entire class with perfect 1600s, but that's not their priority.

Perfect 1600s or 4.0 GPAs