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

[Anonymous]

+1000
My kids are exactly as you describe (as am I). They detest things like pep rallies, car wash fundraisers, "spirit week," etc. Anything that requires them to prance around and scream with feigned excitement. On the other hand, they are excellent students who love nothing more than curling up with good books or having deep discussions about subjects that interest them. However, there's no way to convey that kind of personality to colleges. Apparently, all they want to see are the leaders, the class officers, the kids who spearhead some enormous, all-night charity dance-a-thon. My kids love to learn, but they just don't fit the kind of mold that puts them on display at all times. Too bad, because they would be incredible assets to any college.

Your kids can still be leaders as intellectuals (tutoring, reading to the elderly, teaching computer skills to low-income people)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

+1

If you don't value having a high paying job, then pat yourself on the back for being born into a family that never struggled with a low paying job. If you poor, you won't be able to afford the extracurriculars but your kid can still work to graduate at the top of their class. But of course they will be "drones" :rolls:. If creativity is so important to colleges, then they should teach it to their students. I'm sure the high achieving kids will learn very quickly.

I think drive is to be admired. And focus. Our society values money, so it is not odd at all that people with drive and focus aim towards money. It is elitist to set your values above those of the society around us. The vast majority of people want a nice house, a nice vacation, nice clothes. The people you are calling "drones" are really those who have the self discipline to get these things. They can do anything they choose to do.

Of course drive and focus are to be admired but when the object of all that drive and focus is so superficial and self-centered then, no, that is not admirable. It's kind of douchey. And please don't tell me all those kids are so driven because they're poor -- many are very well off children of doctors and lawyers and Asian elites.

You are right, sister. Being a gangbanger or a drug addict or utter failure at school is so much more in the money

These are the choices, as you perceive them? Wow.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

+1000
My kids are exactly as you describe (as am I). They detest things like pep rallies, car wash fundraisers, "spirit week," etc. Anything that requires them to prance around and scream with feigned excitement. On the other hand, they are excellent students who love nothing more than curling up with good books or having deep discussions about subjects that interest them. However, there's no way to convey that kind of personality to colleges. Apparently, all they want to see are the leaders, the class officers, the kids who spearhead some enormous, all-night charity dance-a-thon. My kids love to learn, but they just don't fit the kind of mold that puts them on display at all times. Too bad, because they would be incredible assets to any college.

This has not been my son's experience at all. His extra-curricular activities have all been of the more intellectual sort. He too reads books on economics and history for pleasure and loves to discuss them with others. He's was accepted at many fine colleges. We found it was best for him to target smaller colleges where interviews were weighted heavily.

That said, I think it's possible to value talents/personalities/interests like those our children have without denigrating those of more extroverted kids. "Prancing and screaming?" Really?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
+1000
My kids are exactly as you describe (as am I). They detest things like pep rallies, car wash fundraisers, "spirit week," etc. Anything that requires them to prance around and scream with feigned excitement. On the other hand, they are excellent students who love nothing more than curling up with good books or having deep discussions about subjects that interest them. However, there's no way to convey that kind of personality to colleges. Apparently, all they want to see are the leaders, the class officers, the kids who spearhead some enormous, all-night charity dance-a-thon. My kids love to learn, but they just don't fit the kind of mold that puts them on display at all times. Too bad, because they would be incredible assets to any college.

Your kids can still be leaders as intellectuals (tutoring, reading to the elderly, teaching computer skills to low-income people)

^^Yes, this is exactly the kind of extracurriculars my DS was involved in. (But I think it's pretty silly to cast these as "leadership" activities.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

+1000
My kids are exactly as you describe (as am I). They detest things like pep rallies, car wash fundraisers, "spirit week," etc. Anything that requires them to prance around and scream with feigned excitement. On the other hand, they are excellent students who love nothing more than curling up with good books or having deep discussions about subjects that interest them. However, there's no way to convey that kind of personality to colleges. Apparently, all they want to see are the leaders, the class officers, the kids who spearhead some enormous, all-night charity dance-a-thon. My kids love to learn, but they just don't fit the kind of mold that puts them on display at all times. Too bad, because they would be incredible assets to any college.

University of Chicago looks for these kids. Their Uncommon Essays really give kids a chance to show off their intellectual playfulness. Teacher recommendations are another place where these qualities may shine through. No interview required at U of C. Canadian universities might be another place to look -- McGill cares about your coursework, your grades, and your scores. No teacher recs, no ECs, no interviews.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:AP exams allow schools to judge across school districts/states. An A at Walter Johnson in MCPS may or may not be the same as an A at Walter Johnson in Des Moines, IA

The elite colleges make an effort to get to know the high schools across the country. They surely know what an A means at various schools. They send their admissions rep to visit schools in every state.

Our independent school does not offer AP courses, per se, yet our kids took AP exams and got college credit. My best friend's daughter is at a highly competitive public high school taking AP classes that consist of mindless memorizing and test prep. No papers, no projects, just read and memorize, read and memorize. It seems to me, and to my friend, that the AP classes are a complete waste of time. Her child is learning very little, aside from how to go through boring books and memorize a lot of information quickly, all of which will be forgotten as soon as the AP test is over because it means so little to her daughter. My kids did not have that experience. They wrote papers, they did projects, they were required to think about what they were learning. No rote memorization or plowing through loads of information just because it "might be" on the AP test. No learning about the trick questions on AP tests.

My children got a great education, and yes, by the way, did well on the AP exams. But that's not an accurate measure of their education, their capacity for learning or thinking. My friend's daughter, who's very bright, will probably get 4s and 5s too on her AP exams, but she's not going to end up nearly as well educated as my children (my friend and I agree on this). The AP exam measures acquired knowledge, but little else. I don't think AP exams matter, and I respect schools that disregard them in their admissions process.

[Anonymous]

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

How will we train all those therapists necessary for the high-scorers who end up dissatisfied with their careers and lives because they've been striving their whole lives and have nothing emotionally satisfying to show for it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:college teacher here. System has created kids who don't care about learning but do care about grades and prizes. These aren't the kids elite colleges want, so they are looking for ways to find kids who care about learning (and they are looking to find smart kids of all ses brackets). But they have yet any way to measure caring about learning and their measure for smarts skews for kids from a certain high ses.

I know two really unpleasant, hugely competitive kids of enormously competitive parents who attend Harvard and Yale. These kids excelled at sports and did well academically at so-so private schools. The parents wanted the prestige of having their kids at "top" Ivies, and they succeeded. I'm hoping the kids have trust funds for therapy, because they are going to need it. I've talked with these kids (and their parents) and they are really disgusting people. But the kids had the creds, and they got in.

I can't understand why Harvard and Yale accept kids like this. They are going to become horrible adults, interested only in advancing themselves and not in improving the world for the rest of the human race.

Getting rid of test scores and GPA and all that crap would require the elite schools to work harder to figure out who the real leaders are, who the deepest thinkers are, who the most compassionate and dedicated people are and offer them the very great privilege of attending their universities. The world does not need another corporate lawyer or investment banker, and elite institutions should recognize this and let those people attend other schools. None of those lawyers or bankers makes the world a better place, and the elite institutions should not be educating them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

+1000
My kids are exactly as you describe (as am I). They detest things like pep rallies, car wash fundraisers, "spirit week," etc. Anything that requires them to prance around and scream with feigned excitement. On the other hand, they are excellent students who love nothing more than curling up with good books or having deep discussions about subjects that interest them. However, there's no way to convey that kind of personality to colleges. Apparently, all they want to see are the leaders, the class officers, the kids who spearhead some enormous, all-night charity dance-a-thon. My kids love to learn, but they just don't fit the kind of mold that puts them on display at all times. Too bad, because they would be incredible assets to any college.

University of Chicago looks for these kids. Their Uncommon Essays really give kids a chance to show off their intellectual playfulness. Teacher recommendations are another place where these qualities may shine through. No interview required at U of C. Canadian universities might be another place to look -- McGill cares about your coursework, your grades, and your scores. No teacher recs, no ECs, no interviews.

You mean where fun goes to die? Nothing like an institution that recruits "creative" kids and crushes them under a rigid curriculum and grade deflation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:college teacher here. System has created kids who don't care about learning but do care about grades and prizes. These aren't the kids elite colleges want, so they are looking for ways to find kids who care about learning (and they are looking to find smart kids of all ses brackets). But they have yet any way to measure caring about learning and their measure for smarts skews for kids from a certain high ses.

I know two really unpleasant, hugely competitive kids of enormously competitive parents who attend Harvard and Yale. These kids excelled at sports and did well academically at so-so private schools. The parents wanted the prestige of having their kids at "top" Ivies, and they succeeded. I'm hoping the kids have trust funds for therapy, because they are going to need it. I've talked with these kids (and their parents) and they are really disgusting people. But the kids had the creds, and they got in.

I can't understand why Harvard and Yale accept kids like this. They are going to become horrible adults, interested only in advancing themselves and not in improving the world for the rest of the human race.

Getting rid of test scores and GPA and all that crap would require the elite schools to work harder to figure out who the real leaders are, who the deepest thinkers are, who the most compassionate and dedicated people are and offer them the very great privilege of attending their universities. The world does not need another corporate lawyer or investment banker, and elite institutions should recognize this and let those people attend other schools. None of those lawyers or bankers makes the world a better place, and the elite institutions should not be educating them.

Because a huge number of bankers and lawyers put in their time, build up their savings, then quit to put their talents to use in better places. If you aren't aware of this trend, then you're not running in the right circles.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Absolutely true, and some of the brightest, most passionate kids do not do as well in school these days because their form of learning does not correspond to the competition and demands of high school. My DS is an example of this. A well-read, passionate kid with math skills who really struggled in school before knocking the SATs out of the park (no prep), getting into college, and blossoming in a more intellectual environment. The structure of high school stifled rather than nourished his learning curve. And this was one of the top schools in this region.

I have a child like this. I think he should go to Harvard, but he'll never get there. He's an extremely thoughtful kid who rails against the idiocy of many of his classes, does indifferent work (I can hardly blame him) and gets Bs when he could easily get As if he jumped through all the hoops. I'm sure he'll do fine in college, but he won't be able to attend a highly selective college under the current admissions structure. He does not have the GPA, and that eliminates him before any of his other qualities, his intellectual abilities, his curiosity, his creativity can be considered. Even if he gets perfect SATs, he's out of the running.

I have a friend who does alumni interviews for Harvard. He agrees that my son would be great at Harvard, would thrive and grow and be a superb addition to the community. But without those grades, my son has no chance to have that experience. I'm sure my kid will do fine elsewhere, and in the long run, it doesn't matter. But there's a symbiosis at places like Harvard that's cut short when kids like mine are not part of the mix. A child who won't jump through hoops is more creative, more intelligent, more interesting than the ones who do. I admire iconoclasts, and perhaps Harvard and the other elite schools are finally realizing that if they want to continue to produce the most innovative thinkers, they will have to expand their admissions process to include kids whose minds do not fill little boxes and circles.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:college teacher here. System has created kids who don't care about learning but do care about grades and prizes. These aren't the kids elite colleges want, so they are looking for ways to find kids who care about learning (and they are looking to find smart kids of all ses brackets). But they have yet any way to measure caring about learning and their measure for smarts skews for kids from a certain high ses.

I know two really unpleasant, hugely competitive kids of enormously competitive parents who attend Harvard and Yale. These kids excelled at sports and did well academically at so-so private schools. The parents wanted the prestige of having their kids at "top" Ivies, and they succeeded. I'm hoping the kids have trust funds for therapy, because they are going to need it. I've talked with these kids (and their parents) and they are really disgusting people. But the kids had the creds, and they got in.

I can't understand why Harvard and Yale accept kids like this. They are going to become horrible adults, interested only in advancing themselves and not in improving the world for the rest of the human race.

Getting rid of test scores and GPA and all that crap would require the elite schools to work harder to figure out who the real leaders are, who the deepest thinkers are, who the most compassionate and dedicated people are and offer them the very great privilege of attending their universities. The world does not need another corporate lawyer or investment banker, and elite institutions should recognize this and let those people attend other schools. None of those lawyers or bankers makes the world a better place, and the elite institutions should not be educating them.

Because a huge number of bankers and lawyers put in their time, build up their savings, then quit to put their talents to use in better places. If you aren't aware of this trend, then you're not running in the right circles.

Oh please. Show me one. Please.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

+1000
My kids are exactly as you describe (as am I). They detest things like pep rallies, car wash fundraisers, "spirit week," etc. Anything that requires them to prance around and scream with feigned excitement. On the other hand, they are excellent students who love nothing more than curling up with good books or having deep discussions about subjects that interest them. However, there's no way to convey that kind of personality to colleges. Apparently, all they want to see are the leaders, the class officers, the kids who spearhead some enormous, all-night charity dance-a-thon. My kids love to learn, but they just don't fit the kind of mold that puts them on display at all times. Too bad, because they would be incredible assets to any college.

University of Chicago looks for these kids. Their Uncommon Essays really give kids a chance to show off their intellectual playfulness. Teacher recommendations are another place where these qualities may shine through. No interview required at U of C. Canadian universities might be another place to look -- McGill cares about your coursework, your grades, and your scores. No teacher recs, no ECs, no interviews.

You mean where fun goes to die? Nothing like an institution that recruits "creative" kids and crushes them under a rigid curriculum and grade deflation.

Depends on your definition of fun. If it's curling up with a good book or having deep discussions about subjects that interest you, then you'll find kindred spirits at Chicago. If "you're a work hard, play hard type" who takes an instrumental view of education then, yeah, you probably won't think Chicago is fun. Plenty of things to do there besides classes, but classes are challenging and you have to take them seriously.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Absolutely true, and some of the brightest, most passionate kids do not do as well in school these days because their form of learning does not correspond to the competition and demands of high school. My DS is an example of this. A well-read, passionate kid with math skills who really struggled in school before knocking the SATs out of the park (no prep), getting into college, and blossoming in a more intellectual environment. The structure of high school stifled rather than nourished his learning curve. And this was one of the top schools in this region.

I have a child like this. I think he should go to Harvard, but he'll never get there. He's an extremely thoughtful kid who rails against the idiocy of many of his classes, does indifferent work (I can hardly blame him) and gets Bs when he could easily get As if he jumped through all the hoops. I'm sure he'll do fine in college, but he won't be able to attend a highly selective college under the current admissions structure. He does not have the GPA, and that eliminates him before any of his other qualities, his intellectual abilities, his curiosity, his creativity can be considered. Even if he gets perfect SATs, he's out of the running.

I have a friend who does alumni interviews for Harvard. He agrees that my son would be great at Harvard, would thrive and grow and be a superb addition to the community. But without those grades, my son has no chance to have that experience. I'm sure my kid will do fine elsewhere, and in the long run, it doesn't matter. But there's a symbiosis at places like Harvard that's cut short when kids like mine are not part of the mix. A child who won't jump through hoops is more creative, more intelligent, more interesting than the ones who do. I admire iconoclasts, and perhaps Harvard and the other elite schools are finally realizing that if they want to continue to produce the most innovative thinkers, they will have to expand their admissions process to include kids whose minds do not fill little boxes and circles.

If he's blowing off HS because it's BS, what outlet has he found for his curiosity/creativity/intellectual abilities? If he's doing something interesting/impressive outside of school, GPA will matter less at some schools. Harvard's always admitted kids who think outside the box but applicants have to manifest that trait in some way other than refusing to jump through hoops.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What happens is, nothing happens, because no top-30 school is actually shifting the target-field. They're not. These are ideas that get bandied about; but, for now, if you want in to a really top-flight school, the numbers matter a very great deal.

It will remain to be see if the elite colleges actually do change their admissions criteria in time. That would be very interesting if they did. It would make the admissions process baffling to college guidance counselors at high schools all over the country. It's a good idea in theory, but in practice they need to figure out how to implement the concept of holistic admissions when they have thousands of applicants for very few places. How do they weed down the pile? I agree with PP that it's not likely anything will change in the near future.