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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No one's educational experience is enhanced by a class of drones. That being said, for highly selective schools I'd want to see the stress on class rigor and being challenged, GPA, SAT/ACT test scores, interesting ECs that really demonstrate some passion and talent, teacher recommendations, and can they write a compelling essay.

I'd get rid of legacy, significant wealth, and nearly all admissions advantages for athletes. If Duke wants a competitive basketball team, fine. I understand that's a special thing. Same with Notre Dame football. But crew and tennis and lacrosse and soccer and Columbia football are pretty ridiculous. The SLACs are usually appalling with this. Nearly half of Williams and Amherst are "athletes."

I'd also put way less emphasis on race even in the post SC era. Context always matters, but have seen way too many mediocre private school students getting spots solely because they check a box. It's never the brilliant kid from SE or the immigrant in Gaithersburg with the 1300 that gets into a T20. I would, however, really like to find the first generation and low income smart kids. That's a special group of students.

I'd also limit the international admits for undergrad. Grad school is a different story. But for undergrad, no student has ever said all that's missing from my college experience is more wealthy students from mainland China and the Persian Gulf.

Basically, less class. More talent.

You want "talent" but you kept ranting about athletes. You do know that athletic performance requires talent, right? So much so that as a general rule only about 7% of high school athletes have the talent to compete at any level in college.

And Amherst and Williams athletes are, in fact, genuine athletes not "athletes" in skeptical quotes as you put it.

I'm sorry your kid got cut from the 8th grade club team but why haven't you gotten over it by now?

Actually, both kids are at T20s. And they are both very athletic. States, varsity, etc. One recruited by D3 schools. But they chose D1 schools for the education. [Sure, Jan. 🙄]

But I still think it's a waste of space for tiny little D3 schools like Amherst and Williams to devote nearly half their spots to "athletes."

These schools clearly have the wrong approach and it’s strange they haven’t recognized this due to the declining number of applicants over the past 20 years oh wait their acceptance rate is lower than ever I guess they don’t have to care what you think.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some people care a lot about the SAT, while others think the extracurriculars are what count. What do you think?

40 point scale

ACT or SAT - required, max. two attempts (two total, not two ACT and two SAT), no superscoring, max. 10 points.

ACT:
36: 10 points
34 - 35: 8 points
31 - 33: 6 points
26 - 30: 4 points
20 - 25: 2 points
18 - 20: 1 point
Below 20: 0 points

SAT:
1580 - 1600: 10 points
1500 - 1570: 8 points
1400 - 1490: 6 points
1200 - 1390: 4 points
1000 - 1190: 2 points
900 - 990: 1 point
Below 900: 0 points

GPA - unweighted, max. 10 points.

GPA:
3.90 - 4.00: 10 points
3.70 - 3.89: 8 points
3.55 - 3.69: 6 points
3.40 - 3.54: 4 points
3.25 - 3.39: 2 points
3.00 - 3.24: 1 point
Below 3.00: 0 points

Rigor: AP classes, IB classes, DE classes.
(I know nothing of IB and DE enrollment classes, so an equivalency would need to be created).

11+ AP tests with min. 4: 10 points
8 - 10 with min. 3: 7 points
5 - 7 with min. 3: 5 points
3 - 4 with min. 3: 2 points
1 - 2 with min. 3: 1 point

Essays: 0 - 10 points (subjective)

Varsity sport(s), min. 2 years: 4 points
Paid job, min. 2 years: 3 points
Club officer, min. 2 years: 2 points
Volunteer hours, min. 25: 1 point

Tally it up.

45 - 50: Top 10
40 - 45: 11 - 25
35 - 40: 26 - 50
30 - 35: 51 - 100
25 - 30: 100 - 200
20 - 25: 200 - 350
15 - 20: Community College

This could never happen until the US has a standardized grading system and all schools offer the same opportunities in advanced classes, DE, AP/IB, etc.

[Anonymous]

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

God no. That's the last thing these schools want. Talk about a class of freaks, a bunch of kids with great SATs and perfect GPAs and zero going on outside of that

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No recruited athletes - sports as just another EC. No legacy. Standardized test required as part of admissions decisions. One application deadline - no ED/EA/REA. Schools can only have one supplemental essay and one LOC that must be from a teacher.

Admissions staff say they care about the mental and emotional well-being of the students but the system they are part is f is almost abusive.

Good luck convincing Georgia or Florida to give up football or Duke to stop caring about basketball.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Not the American way. The culture of college in the US is academics plus social life/athletics/clubs/etc.

It was the American way for most of America. This shift is relatively recent and has become poisonous to our institutions who've had to reduce the quality of te education to keep up with the test optional dummies and the 1520, which now means nothing. We need smart people back in our top colleges.

So in your mind W Bush, Jared, Trump and Trump Junior were the smart people?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No one's educational experience is enhanced by a class of drones. That being said, for highly selective schools I'd want to see the stress on class rigor and being challenged, GPA, SAT/ACT test scores, interesting ECs that really demonstrate some passion and talent, teacher recommendations, and can they write a compelling essay.

I'd get rid of legacy, significant wealth, and nearly all admissions advantages for athletes. If Duke wants a competitive basketball team, fine. I understand that's a special thing. Same with Notre Dame football. But crew and tennis and lacrosse and soccer and Columbia football are pretty ridiculous. The SLACs are usually appalling with this. Nearly half of Williams and Amherst are "athletes."

I'd also put way less emphasis on race even in the post SC era. Context always matters, but have seen way too many mediocre private school students getting spots solely because they check a box. It's never the brilliant kid from SE or the immigrant in Gaithersburg with the 1300 that gets into a T20. I would, however, really like to find the first generation and low income smart kids. That's a special group of students.

I'd also limit the international admits for undergrad. Grad school is a different story. But for undergrad, no student has ever said all that's missing from my college experience is more wealthy students from mainland China and the Persian Gulf.

Basically, less class. More talent.

No, they are STUDENT ATHLETES. They are generally kids whose academic chops are top tier AND they are competitive on a field or court.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No recruited athletes - sports as just another EC. No legacy. Standardized test required as part of admissions decisions. One application deadline - no ED/EA/REA. Schools can only have one supplemental essay and one LOC that must be from a teacher.

Admissions staff say they care about the mental and emotional well-being of the students but the system they are part is f is almost abusive.

It is honestly shocking colleges can get as many applications as they do, making students run in circles with different deadlines, admissions types, hidden admissions practices with relatively vague advice that lead students to pick up rigorous classes, many different "impactful" extracurriculars (but not too many of course, because that is bad for some reason), etc. It's all a game that is genuinely detrimental to highschool students and needs to have some standardization.

You can choose to not have the game be "detrimental to HS students". My own kid did mostly STEM APs (skipped AP Eng/APUSH/APGovt/AP FL) and skipped the others to have some balance and do what they wanted to focus on (Their EC). They prepped for the SAT for 4 weeks, took it once and was done.

They got into all their Targets and safeties. ED1---Deferred then rejected RD. WL at 2nd choice. NEU--Global Scholars (1 year in London). So it played out exactly as expected. My kid had 3 great choices to choose from (2 targets and top safety). I'd say they ended up where they belonged. Top stats kid who didn't "win the lottery" at single digit schools, but only outright rejected at 1 school (T10).
We chose to let our kid skip the non-STEM APs, because it's not healthy to sleep only 2-3 hours each night (and those would have taken a ton of time, they are time consuming courses---for the STEM courses it wasn't much more work than a normal Calc/Science course and my kid got A/5s. ). We let them drop Spanish when it didn't work in their schedule and the alternate was a crappy teacher (they'd had previously---really really bad).
It's your choice. My kid enjoyed HS and got into a great T35 ranked school. They are happy with the choice, as they might not have gotten into a T10 with even the extra courses

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some people care a lot about the SAT, while others think the extracurriculars are what count. What do you think?

It's not either or. With elite colleges, the academic profile is the the baseline and everyone meets and exceeds that threshold. ECs are differentiators. With lower level schools, ECs don't matter. They just pretend it does.

This. Students at the elite schools have the academic chops AND the ECs. Thus idea that a 1590 somehow ranks someone's IQ above a 1540 is nonsense. I taught SAT prep, and they are coachable tests, not some IQ determinant. This obsession is ridiculous and just offbase. It's not an either/or. It's yes, and...

Yes, SAT/ACT are "teachable"/coachable. My kid went from 1320 to 1520 with 4 hours of "test prep", targeted to their issues. Once they learned the tricks, every practice test was around 1520. Had they wanted to do 15-20 hours of prep, they likely could have gotten to 1580+. But we smartly chose not to waste their life doing test prep

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

God no. That's the last thing these schools want. Talk about a class of freaks, a bunch of kids with great SATs and perfect GPAs and zero going on outside of that

It’s funny, I work with tons of people with super high GPA and test scores and they’re generally interesting people with lots of different hobbies. Massively different personalities too. Not sure why you think high grades and scores necessarily mean deficits in other areas.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No one's educational experience is enhanced by a class of drones. That being said, for highly selective schools I'd want to see the stress on class rigor and being challenged, GPA, SAT/ACT test scores, interesting ECs that really demonstrate some passion and talent, teacher recommendations, and can they write a compelling essay.

I'd get rid of legacy, significant wealth, and nearly all admissions advantages for athletes. If Duke wants a competitive basketball team, fine. I understand that's a special thing. Same with Notre Dame football. But crew and tennis and lacrosse and soccer and Columbia football are pretty ridiculous. The SLACs are usually appalling with this. Nearly half of Williams and Amherst are "athletes."

I'd also put way less emphasis on race even in the post SC era. Context always matters, but have seen way too many mediocre private school students getting spots solely because they check a box. It's never the brilliant kid from SE or the immigrant in Gaithersburg with the 1300 that gets into a T20. I would, however, really like to find the first generation and low income smart kids. That's a special group of students.

I'd also limit the international admits for undergrad. Grad school is a different story. But for undergrad, no student has ever said all that's missing from my college experience is more wealthy students from mainland China and the Persian Gulf.

Basically, less class. More talent.

You want "talent" but you kept ranting about athletes. You do know that athletic performance requires talent, right? So much so that as a general rule only about 7% of high school athletes have the talent to compete at any level in college.

And Amherst and Williams athletes are, in fact, genuine athletes not "athletes" in skeptical quotes as you put it.

I'm sorry your kid got cut from the 8th grade club team but why haven't you gotten over it by now?

Hate this disingenuous crap. Stop trying to degrade the person and just make your point. For most non-athletes, the athlete draw is an unfair process that shouldn't mean they can just walk into an elite institution. Especially at LACs, golf should not allow you to waltz into a campus. No one is going to the softball games, so why are we subsidizing them? Sure, these are genuine athletes, but lacrosse and crew should give the same EC boost as drawing or writing, not recruit you to the institution.

You are missing the point. They aren't just waltzing in and their academic achievement is on par with any other applicant. The idea that you think these kids aren't both high achieving students and high achieving athletes is misguided.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No one's educational experience is enhanced by a class of drones. That being said, for highly selective schools I'd want to see the stress on class rigor and being challenged, GPA, SAT/ACT test scores, interesting ECs that really demonstrate some passion and talent, teacher recommendations, and can they write a compelling essay.

I'd get rid of legacy, significant wealth, and nearly all admissions advantages for athletes. If Duke wants a competitive basketball team, fine. I understand that's a special thing. Same with Notre Dame football. But crew and tennis and lacrosse and soccer and Columbia football are pretty ridiculous. The SLACs are usually appalling with this. Nearly half of Williams and Amherst are "athletes."

I'd also put way less emphasis on race even in the post SC era. Context always matters, but have seen way too many mediocre private school students getting spots solely because they check a box. It's never the brilliant kid from SE or the immigrant in Gaithersburg with the 1300 that gets into a T20. I would, however, really like to find the first generation and low income smart kids. That's a special group of students.

I'd also limit the international admits for undergrad. Grad school is a different story. But for undergrad, no student has ever said all that's missing from my college experience is more wealthy students from mainland China and the Persian Gulf.

Basically, less class. More talent.

Those international students at undergrad are typically Full Pay (OOS prices for state schools). Those students help keep your in-state costs down.

And at private schools, why shouldn't the schools get to choose who to select? they are private schools and have no obligation to select only USA students or VA or MD residence.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

God no. That's the last thing these schools want. Talk about a class of freaks, a bunch of kids with great SATs and perfect GPAs and zero going on outside of that

It’s funny, I work with tons of people with super high GPA and test scores and they’re generally interesting people with lots of different hobbies. Massively different personalities too. Not sure why you think high grades and scores necessarily mean deficits in other areas.

You work with people who have gotten through interview processes. If the only screen is GPA and IQ, you'll have plenty wouldn't get over that bar

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No one's educational experience is enhanced by a class of drones. That being said, for highly selective schools I'd want to see the stress on class rigor and being challenged, GPA, SAT/ACT test scores, interesting ECs that really demonstrate some passion and talent, teacher recommendations, and can they write a compelling essay.

I'd get rid of legacy, significant wealth, and nearly all admissions advantages for athletes. If Duke wants a competitive basketball team, fine. I understand that's a special thing. Same with Notre Dame football. But crew and tennis and lacrosse and soccer and Columbia football are pretty ridiculous. The SLACs are usually appalling with this. Nearly half of Williams and Amherst are "athletes."

I'd also put way less emphasis on race even in the post SC era. Context always matters, but have seen way too many mediocre private school students getting spots solely because they check a box. It's never the brilliant kid from SE or the immigrant in Gaithersburg with the 1300 that gets into a T20. I would, however, really like to find the first generation and low income smart kids. That's a special group of students.

I'd also limit the international admits for undergrad. Grad school is a different story. But for undergrad, no student has ever said all that's missing from my college experience is more wealthy students from mainland China and the Persian Gulf.

Basically, less class. More talent.

Those international students at undergrad are typically Full Pay (OOS prices for state schools). Those students help keep your in-state costs down.

And at private schools, why shouldn't the schools get to choose who to select? they are private schools and have no obligation to select only USA students or VA or MD residence.

I agree. The problem is with overly permissive issuance of student visas

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some people care a lot about the SAT, while others think the extracurriculars are what count. What do you think?

It's not either or. With elite colleges, the academic profile is the the baseline and everyone meets and exceeds that threshold. ECs are differentiators. With lower level schools, ECs don't matter. They just pretend it does.

This. Students at the elite schools have the academic chops AND the ECs. Thus idea that a 1590 somehow ranks someone's IQ above a 1540 is nonsense. I taught SAT prep, and they are coachable tests, not some IQ determinant. This obsession is ridiculous and just offbase. It's not an either/or. It's yes, and...

Yes, SAT/ACT are "teachable"/coachable. My kid went from 1320 to 1520 with 4 hours of "test prep", targeted to their issues. Once they learned the tricks, every practice test was around 1520. Had they wanted to do 15-20 hours of prep, they likely could have gotten to 1580+. But we smartly chose not to waste their life doing test prep

And other kids prep for months with no gains. Most studies show test prep shows modest gains. Kids generally improve on the second test, and it’s always possible to have a bad day; it’s hard for an individual to separate that from test prep. End of the day, if the kid doesn’t have the capacity, no amount of prep will help.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some people care a lot about the SAT, while others think the extracurriculars are what count. What do you think?

40 point scale

ACT or SAT - required, max. two attempts (two total, not two ACT and two SAT), no superscoring, max. 10 points.

ACT:
36: 10 points
34 - 35: 8 points
31 - 33: 6 points
26 - 30: 4 points
20 - 25: 2 points
18 - 20: 1 point
Below 20: 0 points

SAT:
1580 - 1600: 10 points
1500 - 1570: 8 points
1400 - 1490: 6 points
1200 - 1390: 4 points
1000 - 1190: 2 points
900 - 990: 1 point
Below 900: 0 points

GPA - unweighted, max. 10 points.

GPA:
3.90 - 4.00: 10 points
3.70 - 3.89: 8 points
3.55 - 3.69: 6 points
3.40 - 3.54: 4 points
3.25 - 3.39: 2 points
3.00 - 3.24: 1 point
Below 3.00: 0 points

Rigor: AP classes, IB classes, DE classes.
(I know nothing of IB and DE enrollment classes, so an equivalency would need to be created).

11+ AP tests with min. 4: 10 points
8 - 10 with min. 3: 7 points
5 - 7 with min. 3: 5 points
3 - 4 with min. 3: 2 points
1 - 2 with min. 3: 1 point

Essays: 0 - 10 points (subjective)

Varsity sport(s), min. 2 years: 4 points
Paid job, min. 2 years: 3 points
Club officer, min. 2 years: 2 points
Volunteer hours, min. 25: 1 point

Tally it up.

45 - 50: Top 10
40 - 45: 11 - 25
35 - 40: 26 - 50
30 - 35: 51 - 100
25 - 30: 100 - 200
20 - 25: 200 - 350
15 - 20: Community College

STupid plan. You give too much credence to SAT/ACT. A 1570 vs 1600 is no real difference. I'll take the 1570 or 1550 who does something over a 1600 drone who only knows how to be perfect on tests. Colleges know that, and that is why they don't care once you make the score cut (somewhere around 1500ish).

If you want a system like this, go to Europe/china/india. You can have your kid Tracked at age 12---have a bad day of testing and no chance at college or STEM/medical