Say you had a clean slate...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is this one of those threads where a bunch of people with no industry experience Monday Morning Quarterback and claim they know better than the colleges who have been doing this forever and their staffs who have been doing it professionally?

Cool, I am in. I say make bowling average 35% of the admissions criteria. And yes, my kid bowls his ass off but that is just coincidence.

No, this is one of those threads where people brag about their “industry experience”, sort of like Billy Crystal’s character in that famous movie scene how he can always tell when women fake orgasms. I bet you can always tell when the essays were “helped” too.

Yeah those stupid “experts” and all their “experience “. Just like the dumbass experts who want me to get a vaccine! I know bettthan them!

And just like with vaccines, there are tons of peer reviewed studies showing that the current state of US college admission is the gold standard. I am amazed that the clearly inferior UK system with their single application, one essay and five choices is still kicking.

[Anonymous]

I would have each school set transparent admissions standards, that could include scoring essays. If you meet the standards, you're entered into a lottery (the lottery would likely be stratified by the same kind of thing as now - first year, race, legacy, sports, whatever). Common applications with ranked choice for lottery purposes, public lottery results.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Those of you arguing for ranking seem to have forgotten the reason why many high schools stopped ranking--because it made the top kids intensely competitive grade-grubbers.

Yes. My DD (honors/AP level classes at a competetive FCPS HS) was HORRIFIED when she heard that some schools report class rank publicly. It is hard enough maintaining a level head when surrounded by students who think that a perfect GPA is the key to life success (through admission to the "right" college). What would it be like if they were battling over a tenth of a percentage point determining their class rank (and therefore their future). This is not the answer.

Not to mention the fact that the #1 student at HS A might be #25 if they went to HS B. Not all schools are equal, so not all class ranks are equal either.

I remember when there was a legal fight over who got valedictorian at a school near me (NYC Suburbs) because a school calculated GPAs to three decimal point and not four.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Love these suggestions. I would remove questions pertaining to parents - like where they went to school, occupation etc. Make it all about the applicant and less about reading tea leaves.

I would never endorse this. I fully support schools' attempts to pull in first gen college students.

Not just first gen, you need some context. I wish, however, that more direct questions were asked, such as the amount of test prep, # of times the SAT were taken, all scores, all paid and unpaid assistance with applications.

who would admit to having test prep? and would test prep include taking free tests through Kahn?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We all acknowledge that the college application and admissions process is just insane. If you had a clean slate and could redesign the college admissions process, what would you do? For example in the UK students are permitted to apply only to 5 schools, This restriction as you can imagine creates a very different mindset among all the stakeholders - students, counselors, parents.....not saying it’s better.... but it is certainly a different way than we do things in the states.

I think that application limit would change things - but how do you know which schools to apply to? This year, outcomes were all over the map, with rejections at "easy" schools, and acceptances at difficult schools. Does this mean that colleges would have to be more transparent about what they are looking for? I think, ultimately, this is what parents want - for everything to be spelled out for them re: college admissions. But you and I both know that applications would still be "top heavy" - and that, ultimately, is the issue. There are only so many seats at ivies, and sometimes parents have their child apply at ivies for the wrong reasons. Maybe we need to look at that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I would have each school set transparent admissions standards, that could include scoring essays. If you meet the standards, you're entered into a lottery (the lottery would likely be stratified by the same kind of thing as now - first year, race, legacy, sports, whatever). Common applications with ranked choice for lottery purposes, public lottery results.

What exactly would make this system an improvement over the (actually quite similar) system that already exists? Why would seeing a list of the randomly generated ID numbers assigned to applicants who won the lottery be advantageous?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Those of you arguing for ranking seem to have forgotten the reason why many high schools stopped ranking--because it made the top kids intensely competitive grade-grubbers.

Yes. My DD (honors/AP level classes at a competetive FCPS HS) was HORRIFIED when she heard that some schools report class rank publicly. It is hard enough maintaining a level head when surrounded by students who think that a perfect GPA is the key to life success (through admission to the "right" college). What would it be like if they were battling over a tenth of a percentage point determining their class rank (and therefore their future). This is not the answer.

Not to mention the fact that the #1 student at HS A might be #25 if they went to HS B. Not all schools are equal, so not all class ranks are equal either.

I remember when there was a legal fight over who got valedictorian at a school near me (NYC Suburbs) because a school calculated GPAs to three decimal point and not four.

This is exactly why FCPS doesn't rank students - could you imagine the sh$tstorm about little Johnny supposedly being 3rd and not 4th - or even 25th and not 26th, ad nauseum?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would have each school set transparent admissions standards, that could include scoring essays. If you meet the standards, you're entered into a lottery (the lottery would likely be stratified by the same kind of thing as now - first year, race, legacy, sports, whatever). Common applications with ranked choice for lottery purposes, public lottery results.

What exactly would make this system an improvement over the (actually quite similar) system that already exists? Why would seeing a list of the randomly generated ID numbers assigned to applicants who won the lottery be advantageous?

+1

This reminds me of the mom that had a hit man hired for a Texas cheerleader "competitor" of her daughter's. Her daughter may or may not have been in the running. Let's not feed the crazy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Love these suggestions. I would remove questions pertaining to parents - like where they went to school, occupation etc. Make it all about the applicant and less about reading tea leaves.

I would never endorse this. I fully support schools' attempts to pull in first gen college students.

Not just first gen, you need some context. I wish, however, that more direct questions were asked, such as the amount of test prep, # of times the SAT were taken, all scores, all paid and unpaid assistance with applications.

who would admit to having test prep? and would test prep include taking free tests through Kahn?

Why should kids get dinged b/c their parents have the time/money to give them test prep options? We are by no means rich and I certainly did not do so when I was in college. But all this leveling the economic playing fields at this stage is not good. I'm not saying it never has a role (and don't start with me, I was DIRT POOR, "first gen" growing up - though I had no benefit from that). But, it's role is outsized. This country is SUPPOSED to be a meritocracy. And yes, I am well aware after all my years of scraping and begging and paying my way, that it is not. But, removing one set rules for special access to replace with other rules that many kids cannot meet out of no fault of their own is not the answer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Love these suggestions. I would remove questions pertaining to parents - like where they went to school, occupation etc. Make it all about the applicant and less about reading tea leaves.

I would never endorse this. I fully support schools' attempts to pull in first gen college students.

Not just first gen, you need some context. I wish, however, that more direct questions were asked, such as the amount of test prep, # of times the SAT were taken, all scores, all paid and unpaid assistance with applications.

who would admit to having test prep? and would test prep include taking free tests through Kahn?

+1

Other PP is one of those controlling, yet out of control moms that wants a diagram drawn for her.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Love these suggestions. I would remove questions pertaining to parents - like where they went to school, occupation etc. Make it all about the applicant and less about reading tea leaves.

I would never endorse this. I fully support schools' attempts to pull in first gen college students.

Not just first gen, you need some context. I wish, however, that more direct questions were asked, such as the amount of test prep, # of times the SAT were taken, all scores, all paid and unpaid assistance with applications.

who would admit to having test prep? and would test prep include taking free tests through Kahn?

Why should kids get dinged b/c their parents have the time/money to give them test prep options? We are by no means rich and I certainly did not do so when I was in college. But all this leveling the economic playing fields at this stage is not good. I'm not saying it never has a role (and don't start with me, I was DIRT POOR, "first gen" growing up - though I had no benefit from that). But, it's role is outsized. This country is SUPPOSED to be a meritocracy. And yes, I am well aware after all my years of scraping and begging and paying my way, that it is not. But, removing one set rules for special access to replace with other rules that many kids cannot meet out of no fault of their own is not the answer.

I agree. Too many vendettas here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We all acknowledge that the college application and admissions process is just insane. If you had a clean slate and could redesign the college admissions process, what would you do? For example in the UK students are permitted to apply only to 5 schools, This restriction as you can imagine creates a very different mindset among all the stakeholders - students, counselors, parents.....not saying it’s better.... but it is certainly a different way than we do things in the states.

I think that application limit would change things - but how do you know which schools to apply to? This year, outcomes were all over the map, with rejections at "easy" schools, and acceptances at difficult schools. Does this mean that colleges would have to be more transparent about what they are looking for? I think, ultimately, this is what parents want - for everything to be spelled out for them re: college admissions. But you and I both know that applications would still be "top heavy" - and that, ultimately, is the issue. There are only so many seats at ivies, and sometimes parents have their child apply at ivies for the wrong reasons. Maybe we need to look at that.

What parents want is for Larla to be able to go to whatever school Larla wants, and if Larla can't go there, they want to know the explicit reasons why.

They say they want this information so that they can relax and not worry so much about the "arms race" and take back their kids' teenage years. But really they want this information so that they can make sure Larla ticks off every single required box. Knowing this information would not lead to anyone relaxing. At all.

Parents also don't want to hear that for every applicant admitted to Harvard, they could choose many other EQUALLY QUALIFIED applicants to take their place. Many kids can tick the boxes. So parents also want Harvard to admit thousands more than the number of students they currently admit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Love these suggestions. I would remove questions pertaining to parents - like where they went to school, occupation etc. Make it all about the applicant and less about reading tea leaves.

I would never endorse this. I fully support schools' attempts to pull in first gen college students.

Not just first gen, you need some context. I wish, however, that more direct questions were asked, such as the amount of test prep, # of times the SAT were taken, all scores, all paid and unpaid assistance with applications.

who would admit to having test prep? and would test prep include taking free tests through Kahn?

Why should kids get dinged b/c their parents have the time/money to give them test prep options? We are by no means rich and I certainly did not do so when I was in college. But all this leveling the economic playing fields at this stage is not good. I'm not saying it never has a role (and don't start with me, I was DIRT POOR, "first gen" growing up - though I had no benefit from that). But, it's role is outsized. This country is SUPPOSED to be a meritocracy. And yes, I am well aware after all my years of scraping and begging and paying my way, that it is not. But, removing one set rules for special access to replace with other rules that many kids cannot meet out of no fault of their own is not the answer.

There are no real "dings" associated with not getting into an elite college for the children of well-off parents.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I would have each school set transparent admissions standards, that could include scoring essays. If you meet the standards, you're entered into a lottery (the lottery would likely be stratified by the same kind of thing as now - first year, race, legacy, sports, whatever). Common applications with ranked choice for lottery purposes, public lottery results.

Clearly you don't realize that the admission process is basically a lottery process, as it stands.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Love these suggestions. I would remove questions pertaining to parents - like where they went to school, occupation etc. Make it all about the applicant and less about reading tea leaves.

I would never endorse this. I fully support schools' attempts to pull in first gen college students.

Not just first gen, you need some context. I wish, however, that more direct questions were asked, such as the amount of test prep, # of times the SAT were taken, all scores, all paid and unpaid assistance with applications.

who would admit to having test prep? and would test prep include taking free tests through Kahn?

Why should kids get dinged b/c their parents have the time/money to give them test prep options? We are by no means rich and I certainly did not do so when I was in college. But all this leveling the economic playing fields at this stage is not good. I'm not saying it never has a role (and don't start with me, I was DIRT POOR, "first gen" growing up - though I had no benefit from that). But, it's role is outsized. This country is SUPPOSED to be a meritocracy. And yes, I am well aware after all my years of scraping and begging and paying my way, that it is not. But, removing one set rules for special access to replace with other rules that many kids cannot meet out of no fault of their own is not the answer.

There are no real "dings" associated with not getting into an elite college for the children of well-off parents.

Honestly, if their parents are that well off - it really doesn't matter where they go to school, because they will basically have everything handed to them, anyway.