A truly merit based system for college admissions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Haven't we learned yet that people can be quite successful without top SATs?

Some people can be. In aggregate, high SAT people are more successful and low SAT people are less successful. On average and especially on the margins.

Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, high SAT, high LSAT. Successful presidents.

Joe Biden, low SAT, low LSAT. Unsuccessful president.

Now do Republicans.

JD Vance - Yale law, DeSantis Harvard law
Both passed bar exam first try
Hillary and Kamala both failed bar exam first try
Kamala was also child of faculty at Stanford and Berkeley and inexplicably didn’t get into either

Doubt that you know if Harris even applied to either of those schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was thinking of what a merit based system would look like: I've come up with a system where you get points based on your SAT or ACT score and your GPA. Those with the highest combination of the scores (can weight the SAT/ACT higher since there is a lot of grade inflation) would get first pick at any of the top schools and then it goes down the list. No more race to the top for extracurriculars- it would just be mainly studying super hard for the SAT. The top colleges would likely comprise of mostly high income , coastal elites but you couldn't argue much with this. Any thoughts? What do you think would be the most merit based system?

Standardized testing is highly correlated with household income. You're OK with "high income, coastal elites" getting most of the slots, but the majority are not. There are also built-in biases with standardized tests that UMC parents ignore and rampant cheating with "testing accommodations," again by families with money..

Unless there's some weighting/indexing of SAT/ACT scores by zip code, your proposed system won't work.

Or maybe both test scores and test scores are correlated with intelligence. Seems more likely.

First, standardized tests are not IQ tests.

Second, there's no refuting the HHI and test scores correlation. Let's not even get into superscoring results which also benefits families that can pay for multiple tests.

Third, write a coherent sentence.

Obviously got my point across. Equally obvious is that you deflected rather than refuted.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Would need to get rid of grade inflation & ensure that the education available to all comers was of the same quality. But, UK & European schools also follow this model in addition to Asia. They are just willing to accept that far fewer students will attend college. US has tried to broaden access in past 30 years.

No. There are societal implications to their model. There’s a reason why we have more entrepreneurs and inventors in the USA, by 5x more per capita than UK and Europe. And it’s because we tell our kids they Can do something - do difficult things, make it to college - be a doctor even if they went to community college first - vs UK and other countries that tell their kids they Can’t, and the doors close at 16

I don’t think the way they admit students to university (speaking only about the UK as that is what I have experience with as I am from there) is the reason why the US has more entrepreneurs and inventors though. I think the broader education generally may be something to do with it, but I think the university admissions principle - which is essentially to make everyone take the same exams (subject matter, not IQ) and then admit those with the best results - is a good one. For music/art, auditions and portfolios make sense but for everything else, why isn’t it better to set standard exams and let the most successful go to the best universities?

I lived in the UK for many years so I know it well. Why aren’t exams better? Because the exams, which, let’s be honest, they are Gates, are administered at age 16. So, at 16 if a kid does not do well and does not go on to A levels for Math, the doors to accounting, math, sciences, dentistry, doctor, finance, business, engineering, as possible university majors Are Closed. Forever. There is no path back in the UK. Now you tell me, do you know any kid ever who struggled a little bit with math in HS? And then figured it out? Enough to be an accountant? Or major in business? Or even a hard science? The entire educational and societal construct of the UK is oriented towards telling an individual what they can and cannot do, those are the rules, no math A level? It’s art history for you! so now imagine a couple college dropouts who want to invent something like facebook or Microsoft, those companies would never emerge from that society, bc that’s not part of our rules.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Haven't we learned yet that people can be quite successful without top SATs?

Some people can be. In aggregate, high SAT people are more successful and low SAT people are less successful. On average and especially on the margins.

Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, high SAT, high LSAT. Successful presidents.

Joe Biden, low SAT, low LSAT. Unsuccessful president.

Now do Republicans.

JD Vance - Yale law, DeSantis Harvard law
Both passed bar exam first try
Hillary and Kamala both failed bar exam first try
Kamala was also child of faculty at Stanford and Berkeley and inexplicably didn’t get into either

Hillary and Kamala- great public servants who would've been excellent presidents if not for racism , misogyny, and white women embracing the white patriarchy.

JD Vance - book author who faked his upbringing to get to Harvard. DeSantis- a Trump sycophant who has the personality of a piece of wood.

Keep that BS to yourself.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Haven't we learned yet that people can be quite successful without top SATs?

Some people can be. In aggregate, high SAT people are more successful and low SAT people are less successful. On average and especially on the margins.

Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, high SAT, high LSAT. Successful presidents.

Joe Biden, low SAT, low LSAT. Unsuccessful president.

Now do Republicans.

JD Vance - Yale law, DeSantis Harvard law
Both passed bar exam first try
Hillary and Kamala both failed bar exam first try
Kamala was also child of faculty at Stanford and Berkeley and inexplicably didn’t get into either

Hillary and Kamala- great public servants who would've been excellent presidents if not for racism , misogyny, and white women embracing the white patriarchy.

JD Vance - book author who faked his upbringing to get to Harvard. DeSantis- a Trump sycophant who has the personality of a piece of wood.

Keep that BS to yourself.

The truth hurts.

Keep mediocre white men out of politics.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Social skills are equally important as test scores/GPA. Universities do not want a class filled with robots. If that was the ideal, they would do that now. If employers desired this model, they’d hire more students that fit this profile. Well-rounded students that can work in teams, demonstrate leadership, and represent their company are the most desirable.

+1

[Anonymous]

Most other countries in the world have this system of admissions, and their universities are not vibrant communities of learning (And, yes, I have taught at foreign unjversities). You don't get the same energy, the same conversations across very different kinds of students, the interdisciplinary ideas, the initiative. In turn, you don't get the same caliber of research and innovation.

[Anonymous]

Something they could start doing immediately is provide students and colleges with the raw scores on AP exams. This would differentiate between those who score a 75% on Calc BC vs a 95%, whereas today I believe both are given 5s. The essays in APUSH and English could also be provided to colleges. Right now all that data are thrown away.

[Anonymous]

and more or less Canada and the UK (the latter of which does tests and interviews)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was thinking of what a merit based system would look like: I've come up with a system where you get points based on your SAT or ACT score and your GPA. Those with the highest combination of the scores (can weight the SAT/ACT higher since there is a lot of grade inflation) would get first pick at any of the top schools and then it goes down the list. No more race to the top for extracurriculars- it would just be mainly studying super hard for the SAT. The top colleges would likely comprise of mostly high income , coastal elites but you couldn't argue much with this. Any thoughts? What do you think would be the most merit based system?

How about starting with speaking out against white supremacy that has infected many of the systems, including K-12 education?

When mediocre white guys can be Secretary of Defense , run HHS, or be POTUS, there's no such thing as "merit."

Even standardized testing in the U.S. come from racist origins.

You sound brainwashed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Haven't we learned yet that people can be quite successful without top SATs?

Some people can be. In aggregate, high SAT people are more successful and low SAT people are less successful. On average and especially on the margins.

Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, high SAT, high LSAT. Successful presidents.

Joe Biden, low SAT, low LSAT. Unsuccessful president.

And Dubya?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Haven't we learned yet that people can be quite successful without top SATs?

Some people can be. In aggregate, high SAT people are more successful and low SAT people are less successful. On average and especially on the margins.

Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, high SAT, high LSAT. Successful presidents.

Joe Biden, low SAT, low LSAT. Unsuccessful president.

Now do Republicans.

JD Vance - Yale law, DeSantis Harvard law
Both passed bar exam first try
Hillary and Kamala both failed bar exam first try
Kamala was also child of faculty at Stanford and Berkeley and inexplicably didn’t get into either

Hillary and Kamala- great public servants who would've been excellent presidents if not for racism , misogyny, and white women embracing the white patriarchy.

JD Vance - book author who faked his upbringing to get to Harvard. DeSantis- a Trump sycophant who has the personality of a piece of wood.

Keep that BS to yourself.

The truth hurts.

Keep mediocre white men out of politics.

Sorry, voters decide. Not you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is what they have in Asia...the best and the brightest float to the top. I would nix any consideration of GPA which relies far too heavily on effort.

A lot of success in school and life is about effort. Why would you want to deemphasize effort? Who wants a bunch of underachievers in the best schools?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is what they have in Asia...the best and the brightest float to the top. I would nix any consideration of GPA which relies far too heavily on effort.

A lot of success in school and life is about effort. Why would you want to deemphasize effort? Who wants a bunch of underachievers in the best schools?

This. Effort and conscientiousness are FAR more important that raw aptitude. That said, the SAT is not an IQ or aptitude test. College Board even says so. So people wanting to deemphasize GPA because it reflects effort think that the SAT measures what exactly?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Haven't we learned yet that people can be quite successful without top SATs?

Some people can be. In aggregate, high SAT people are more successful and low SAT people are less successful. On average and especially on the margins.

Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, high SAT, high LSAT. Successful presidents.

Joe Biden, low SAT, low LSAT. Unsuccessful president.

Now do Republicans.

JD Vance - Yale law, DeSantis Harvard law
Both passed bar exam first try
Hillary and Kamala both failed bar exam first try
Kamala was also child of faculty at Stanford and Berkeley and inexplicably didn’t get into either

Who in the above isn’t successful? Doesn’t this completely blow up the whole point of this thread?

Hillary was a US senator and Kamala was attorney general of CA and VP.

Clearly, far more successful than you by any measure…including wealth since Hillary has made tens of millions of $$$s as well.