Say you had a clean slate...

[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.

I agree. Too many vendettas here.

The system is out to get you? Please.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Another thing, for the top schools to do something like a medical residency matching algorithm. You rank schools in advance, and if you ranked Harvard over Princeton and both admit you, you only get an offer from Harvard. Princeton is automatically rejected.

I think state schools already do this, however illegal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I agree. Too many vendettas here.

The system is out to get you? Please.

That is exactly what I am saying (PP here). I was agreeing with PP. Parents want the system that works in their favor, of course.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

+1

Exactly. Let your kid be, for crying out loud. No one has a secret sauce, and the colleges, even if they did have one - are not going to divulge it. Not only that, what "works" one year, will not work the next. Drop the rope, people, before you hang yourselves.

[Anonymous]

Judge solely on academics.


This is what most of the world does, and it makes things so simple, and therefore less stressful. I'm European and my cousins are Japanese. I know what I speak of.

[Anonymous]

My clean slate would be:
-academics only considered by universities (no sports, no extras)
- a limited number of applications submitted and a standard fee for all applications. If the student is not admitted to where they have applied, there is always community college and then a more realistic round of applications the next time.

Ideally, I would like high schools to save a whole bunch of money and stop offering sports, only exercise and nutrition classes instead. Let community sports clubs offer sports.

[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.

So all those kids like you, dirt poor and first gen, if they can't run with the curated kids with their tutors, test prep, essay editors, college counselors, and the best schools and enrichment money can buy - well, screw them. This is a pure meritocracy. Do you even see the irony of your post?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Judge solely on academics.


This is what most of the world does, and it makes things so simple, and therefore less stressful. I'm European and my cousins are Japanese. I know what I speak of.

What you don't seem to want to understand is that there are too many applicants for one slot - given academics only. There are tons of top heavy students who look great on paper. Let them be differentiated by the outside stuff. As it is, admissions are lottery of the top kids (for whatever each college is looking for).

[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.

It seems that you have come to terms with your experience of DIRT POOR, "first gen", didn't benefit and having to scrape and beg your way. Are you advocating for these same DIRT POOR, first gen to continue to struggle on the bottom rung as you once did. If you worked your tail off to finally make it, why wouldn't you want to do every thing you can to give these kids a chance so they don't have to go through what you went through.

[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.

So all those kids like you, dirt poor and first gen, if they can't run with the curated kids with their tutors, test prep, essay editors, college counselors, and the best schools and enrichment money can buy - well, screw them. This is a pure meritocracy. Do you even see the irony of your post?

Do you? How is preparing according to what you have the ability to prepare not a meritocracy? I sat for 2 bar exams (passed them both) and had an entire prep course both times (costly and spent the better part of my summers doing those, in addition to working). Is that not meritocracy? Because I took out additional loans to pay for those but, b/c I did, it wasn't acc to "merit"?

And, more to the point, in HS I hung with the privileged without ANY of that (it CAN be done). And once I was in college -a crappy one by most peoples' standards here- I made the most of it. With my grades, I most certainly would have gotten into better schools if I had any guidance, any help, any . . . . anything whatsoever. I had no idea what I was doing. I showed up for SATs/ACTs day of it with no studying. I had no help identifying "reaches" or "safeties", filling out apps, etc. But I made the most of my situation.

Also, if you are capable of reading, I didn't say that equalizing things had no role. I'm saying it is outsized, imo.

[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.

It seems that you have come to terms with your experience of DIRT POOR, "first gen", didn't benefit and having to scrape and beg your way. Are you advocating for these same DIRT POOR, first gen to continue to struggle on the bottom rung as you once did. If you worked your tail off to finally make it, why wouldn't you want to do every thing you can to give these kids a chance so they don't have to go through what you went through.

Because it is not the role of colleges to equalize the playing field across the board. Why the hell did I bust my a-- to do so only to have it held against me and my kids now?

And you can mock me with your repeated my all caps, etc. That's fine. Bit of assholery but that's to be expected here. But, what you're saying it's ok to tell me and my kids that, regardless of their work, their prep, their grades, "you've done fine enough. Now it's someone else's turn." You have to be content with some lesser position in the college game. I think that's BS. I'm not rich/privileged enough for it not to matter what my kids' stats are (b/c there will be no family connections, legacy status, generational wealth) but I do just well enough to be told my kids should be held back to give someone else a turn? That's really what your advocating?

Sorry, no. I will never be in support of that. The only one losing in this scenarios are families like mine.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It seems that you have come to terms with your experience of DIRT POOR, "first gen", didn't benefit and having to scrape and beg your way. Are you advocating for these same DIRT POOR, first gen to continue to struggle on the bottom rung as you once did. If you worked your tail off to finally make it, why wouldn't you want to do every thing you can to give these kids a chance so they don't have to go through what you went through.

Because it is not the role of colleges to equalize the playing field across the board. Why the hell did I bust my a-- to do so only to have it held against me and my kids now?

And you can mock me with your repeated my all caps, etc. That's fine. Bit of assholery but that's to be expected here. But, what you're saying it's ok to tell me and my kids that, regardless of their work, their prep, their grades, "you've done fine enough. Now it's someone else's turn." You have to be content with some lesser position in the college game. I think that's BS. I'm not rich/privileged enough for it not to matter what my kids' stats are (b/c there will be no family connections, legacy status, generational wealth) but I do just well enough to be told my kids should be held back to give someone else a turn? That's really what your advocating?

Sorry, no. I will never be in support of that. The only one losing in this scenarios are families like mine.

I think there are a number of colleges out there that would tell you they very much view it as their role in society to help equalize the playing field.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It seems that you have come to terms with your experience of DIRT POOR, "first gen", didn't benefit and having to scrape and beg your way. Are you advocating for these same DIRT POOR, first gen to continue to struggle on the bottom rung as you once did. If you worked your tail off to finally make it, why wouldn't you want to do every thing you can to give these kids a chance so they don't have to go through what you went through.

Because it is not the role of colleges to equalize the playing field across the board. Why the hell did I bust my a-- to do so only to have it held against me and my kids now?

And you can mock me with your repeated my all caps, etc. That's fine. Bit of assholery but that's to be expected here. But, what you're saying it's ok to tell me and my kids that, regardless of their work, their prep, their grades, "you've done fine enough. Now it's someone else's turn." You have to be content with some lesser position in the college game. I think that's BS. I'm not rich/privileged enough for it not to matter what my kids' stats are (b/c there will be no family connections, legacy status, generational wealth) but I do just well enough to be told my kids should be held back to give someone else a turn? That's really what your advocating?

Sorry, no. I will never be in support of that. The only one losing in this scenarios are families like mine.

Should then colleges' role be to maintain inequities in society? Why so?

I assume you busted your ass because there were benefits to your doing so. Are you telling me it was all for naught if your kid can't get into Harvard?

Are you worried your kids are going to be denied a college education?

[Anonymous]

When I was in law school, I was a research assistant to a prof who basically ran the admissions process (he was a force of nature and had written a successful casebook -- they pretty much let him do whatever he wanted to). His ideal approach -- not what he did, but what he would have liked to do -- was as follows:

1) Based on scores and GPA, eliminate the bottom 10% of the applicant pool as a kindness to them.

2) Based on scores and GPA, accept the top 10% because you have to.

3) Take the rest of the applications and climb to the top of the tall tower on campus. Then throw the applications down the stairs. In even-numbered years, accept all those that land face up; in odd-numbered years, accept all those that land face down.

Having now gone through the college applications process with three kids and through grad school applications with two of them, I'd say this sounds about right.

[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?

Everyone, if they knew that the risk is losing their spot after being ratted out by jealous classmates. Re: Khan academy, I’d say disclose everything and let colleges figure how they want to view it.