They want to go Essay optional as well

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:IQ, achievement, and almost anything else constructive in life is correlated with wealth. Is this a surprise to anyone? What’s the point of wealth if it’s not to support a better life? Generally, poor people are less ready for every aspect of life - relationships, careers, education, finances. Is a college supposed to remediate all that in four years?

Let me guess: You were born in another country?

What you say, well, what can I say? It's absurd. Poor people do not have equal opportunities, but you say they're less ready for...relationships? Really?

Try visiting some overpriced rehab places, and you'll find a lot of not poor people whose lives and relationships are beyond effed up!! Mental illness and substance abuse is not a problem solely of the poor!

IQ? Do you mean intelligence, or an artificial measure of intelligence? There are so many ways to measure intelligence, and IQ is a pretty sad and very limited one.

What country were you born in, PP?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This strikes me as rather stupid. The essay is perhaps the only way to get a feel for the kid, and their "voice."

+1
Watch kids now try to dumb down their writing so as to be seen as more “real” or low-income or whatever. I hope my kids continue to write well, no matter what. Amazing that now being an excellent writer could work against you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It makes more sense to get rid of essays when so many rich people hire help for their kids than it does to get rid of a standardized test the kid has to take alone. Especially since there are so many free test prep resources.

Exactly. The essays are part of the soft, subjective, easily-tampered application items that should disappear.

Standardizes tests MUST be reinstated.

DP. I feel exactly the opposite. Standardized tests can be prepped to the hilt. I think all applicants should be required to pledge that they have neither prepped for the exam nor paid anyone to write their essay for them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The essay is the worst part. There is no way to tell who wrote it, who revised it, or how much the kid paid for either process. There is an entire industry based around 'helping' kids write these essays. They are most reflective of how much parents had to spend and how talented the advisor is

That is why applicants should sign an attestation on this. And paid prep for testing.

+100
And test prep companies should be required to release (to colleges) the names of all their clients.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It makes more sense to get rid of essays when so many rich people hire help for their kids than it does to get rid of a standardized test the kid has to take alone. Especially since there are so many free test prep resources.

Exactly. The essays are part of the soft, subjective, easily-tampered application items that should disappear.

Standardizes tests MUST be reinstated.

By whom? Doesn't each individual college make this decision on the data they think will help them build the class they want?

Why do you get to dictate what they use?

Don't be obtuse, kid. College admissions offices realized this year what a mess the supposedly "equitable" push for optional testing actually creates for selecting applicants - they can't tell who is actually above the pack or not. Collectively, the majority will gradually return to requiring standardized testing, and we've been hearing noises in that direction for months now.

You don't need to believe me. You just need to wait and see.

Link for this claim? Just because YOU don’t like test optional policies doesn’t mean colleges have a problem with it.
DP

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:* Get rid of the essays. They can and are being gamed.
* Tests - Provide everyone the opportunity to prep online. My kid used Khan Academy and one other online course (Prepexpert). Khan Academy is free. Prepexpert cost about $600. Pay poor kids to take these courses.
* ECs - Make a list of "real" ECs - Jobs, community service, ECs related to your major IN SCHOOL, etc. I'm sure others can come up with an equitable list.
* Assign a certain percentage of seats to poor people and "true" URMs (Native Americans and Blacks with slave ancestry on both sides of the family). Others should be covered by the "poor" category.

Can colleges be forced to do play?
- State schools can, by Government mandate.
- The so-called Private schools will play along if you threaten to remove their tax subsidy (i.e. make them pay tax on their income).

So asinine.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why not keep the essay but make it a proctored, on the spot exercise? Like the old SAT/ACT essays. I would not grade it, just provide it to the colleges so they can read it and get an idea of the student’s critical thinking and organization skills as well as their writing skills as they respond to a prompt. The prompt could be unique, so as to mimimize the prep advantage.

+1
I don’t know why they got rid of the SAT/ACT essay component to begin with.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:* Get rid of the essays. They can and are being gamed.
* Tests - Provide everyone the opportunity to prep online. My kid used Khan Academy and one other online course (Prepexpert). Khan Academy is free. Prepexpert cost about $600. Pay poor kids to take these courses.
* ECs - Make a list of "real" ECs - Jobs, community service, ECs related to your major IN SCHOOL, etc. I'm sure others can come up with an equitable list.
* Assign a certain percentage of seats to poor people and "true" URMs (Native Americans and Blacks with slave ancestry on both sides of the family). Others should be covered by the "poor" category.

Can colleges be forced to do play?
- State schools can, by Government mandate.
- The so-called Private schools will play along if you threaten to remove their tax subsidy (i.e. make them pay tax on their income).

Wow. Re: the bold, you'd say that kids who want to go to college would have to ignore doing any ECs they actually enjoy, or which fulfill them personally, because they'd have to spend that time on "jobs, community service, ECs related to your [college] major [in high school]." I guess you can counter that kids can do whatever they want but shouldn't put anything on college applications except the three categories you list.

1. There are not necessarily "ECs related to" a kid's desired college major available at the kid's high school or elsewhere; and many high schoolers don't yet know what they plan to choose as a major so how would they rack up those college-major-related ECs in high school?
2. Community service is already a high school requirement in many school systems.
3. Jobs? Are you one of the adults who believes there are endless jobs out there for high school kids? Do you have any idea how much time advanced HS courses can take up even on weekends? Sure, there are kids who work jobs and also take the hardest HS courses and succeed. But it's not a given that having a job is doable, or desirable in EVERY case. It certainly shouldn't affect a kid's college admission if he or she couldn't work a job for pay while in HS. Some kids live in areas where there aren't jobs for the asking. Maybe you're unaware of that....

Those were just suggestions. See the sentence that follows " I'm sure others can come up with an equitable list. ".

It's difficult to come up with criteria where SES would not give an advantage to some extent. For example, my kids have loads of community service, but most of it depended upon our ability to transport them these opportunities.

I hear you. The URM category is tough to monitor. It's tricky though. My mom is Mexican-American. Thanks to 23andMe, we know that she is about 60% Native American as well as 7% African. She is very brown. Does she qualify? I'm her daughter. I'm probably about 30% Native American. I could look Italian. Do I qualify? My DD is about 15% Native American. She is very white. Does she qualify? My guess is that my mom counts as a minority for sure, but maybe not me and my daughter? I have a friend. He is a very light-skinned Black man, but looks identifiably Black. Does he qualify? What do we do with someone who has a slave ancestor but also predominantly white ancestry? Does this person qualify? I have another friend who is a Mayflower descendant with a trust fund. He adopted Ethiopian kids. Do they qualify? It's tricky. I do agree that giving URM preference to descendants of wealthy Latin Americans is probably not in the spirit of affirmative action.

Here's how you go about it..

Dedicate a certain % of seats for Poor/URMs (with a nicer nomenclature of course). Let's say that's 10% (could be 5, 15 or even 20). 5% of that (flexible) is assigned to what I called "true" URMs, those systematically disadvantaged over a long period of time. IMHO, that's Native Americans and Blacks who were brought here as slaves. We could arbitrarily set the bloodline requirement to 50% and over time change that to 100% for Native American heritage. For Blacks, it would be the ability to trace their ancestry to slaves on BOTH sides of the family. This would be regardless of their financial status.

If the bloodline % is lower, say they married a White, they will not quality but if they became poor or continue to remain poor, they would be covered by the other 5% of the 10% quota. Something along those lines. The purpose of this is to eventually emancipate everyone so these set-asides disappear for everyone other than people who are poor.

This will exclude Hispanics (from Spain or from Latin America), African Americans who just showed up yesterday, etc. If they are poor, of course they would be covered by the other 5%. This way, we don't have to worry about pleasing every URM as well as prevent colleges from coming up with their own version of URM benevolence.

I can’t even believe I just read this. Or that someone actually thinks any of this is rational.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Generally speaking, of course a timed witnessed exam is more indicative of the student's abilities (even if coached) than an untimed, unwitnessed essay.

Overall, we are rapidly moving towards an admission process where the student's 23andme score vastly outranks their SAT score.

That model is self-limiting because it's not globally competitive. USA will lose industries, jobs, contracts etc - or perhaps meritocratic universities will emerge, Google University of the World, competing with the existing system for placement of graduates and dominance of the higher end job market.

But also, as the country is losing its global supremacy, it's very stability will be questionable.

I agree. The issue will resolve itself at some point or other just because of capitalism. However the problem is for our kids, who are teens, and caught in that little window of madness where they will be the guinea pigs used to prove that the "equity" model does not work.

+1,000

[Anonymous]

Getting rid of the essay allows the admissions officers to have to do less work, particularly now that app numbers are up so much. So much for the "holistic admissions process". It also lets them feel better about admitting students who don't write well or can't create an interesting narrative, when those students have other attributes that the school wants. That could be athletic skill, rich/powerful/famous parents, or demographics that they want to fulfill their checklist.
It's laziness.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Getting rid of the essay allows the admissions officers to have to do less work, particularly now that app numbers are up so much. So much for the "holistic admissions process". It also lets them feel better about admitting students who don't write well or can't create an interesting narrative, when those students have other attributes that the school wants. That could be athletic skill, rich/powerful/famous parents, or demographics that they want to fulfill their checklist.
It's laziness.

Your bitterness makes you ignorant.

Admissions officers get to pick whoever they want whether there is an essay or not. Or what the test scores say. Or any other single item. And they always have. And there are no audits or anything like it to check anything other than CDS data.

Admissions officers answer to every constituency on campus if they don't admit a good class. They are not emperors of their own domain admitting based on personal preference. They are doing theirs jobs. Get over yourself.

[Anonymous]

Nothing will change..

- Rich people or people that know how to work the system want essays and ECs - Because they can game them.
- Poor people want essays and ECs because they have been convinced that it makes things "equitable" by the Rich.
- College AOs want essays and ECs because they can admit whoever they want and blame it on the essays/ECs.

It's a game. And idiot taxpayers are funding all this! The vast majority (almost 100%) of the US population will not see the insides of Harvard or any of the top 20 schools. Yet, they pay no taxes and we are OK with that? Why?

If the admission process is not transparent, why do we have to subsidize such a process?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Look, if we want equality in educational opportunity, we need to get rid of private universities. Make all of them public. Kids choose a university based on geography and subject matter they wish to study. Get rid of elite universities. There are fantastic colleges that don't get enough applications, and others that get 20 times more applicants than they have places for. This is a lopsided, idiotic situation.
Read Excellent Sheep for an explanation of how elite universities evolved in this country.
Fortunately, the situation is changing, slowly. The best students are being lured to state universities and second tier colleges by finances.
And, let's face it, does it make sense to crowd the best and the brightest into a few very top universities? All those top students in a few colleges who are trying to get A's must feel like they're constantly competing with little hope of coming out on top because everyone was "on top" in high school. Why not spread the wealth among a large number of excellent colleges and universities, and end this insane competition for a few elite colleges?
So, yeah, get rid of the essay. It's stupid. Usually written by a coach. My friend hired a coach for her kids, one of whom got into Yale. She's a great person (lives in NYC), but she did what all parents in her area do. Another friend (also in NYC) is a coach. He went to Harvard and Columbia and is a writer. Most of the kids he coaches get into Ivies, Williams, Amherst, etc. He charges a lot for his services, and only the upper middle class parents can afford it.
How is that fair to the middle classes and lower income kids who want a level playing field for entrance to these universities?
They need to go back to in person interviews, at the very least. Most schools have gotten rid of them because they're so time consuming. Nowadays you can do them on Zoom, which is cheap and readily available.
This maniacal race for college admissions has got to change. It's become completely unmanageable, unhinged.
It's so much worse than it was a decade ago when my oldest child started the process. My youngest is caught up in the mayhem, and it's not healthy at all.

If we want equality in education - MUCH MUCH more needs to be done at the k-12 level. It's appalling how varied educational opportunities and environments are for children in this country.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Getting rid of the essay allows the admissions officers to have to do less work, particularly now that app numbers are up so much. So much for the "holistic admissions process". It also lets them feel better about admitting students who don't write well or can't create an interesting narrative, when those students have other attributes that the school wants. That could be athletic skill, rich/powerful/famous parents, or demographics that they want to fulfill their checklist.
It's laziness.

Have you considered the fact that maybe admissions officers are using some sort of criteria before reading the essays - weeding out so that they may still only read essays of the same number of applicants while pushing the other applications aside? Don't know if this is true - but universities/colleges can choose how to draw the line and I would not be surprised if there are applications in the NO pile at some schools that never read the essay.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Nothing will change..

- Rich people or people that know how to work the system want essays and ECs - Because they can game them.
- Poor people want essays and ECs because they have been convinced that it makes things "equitable" by the Rich.
- College AOs want essays and ECs because they can admit whoever they want and blame it on the essays/ECs.

It's a game. And idiot taxpayers are funding all this! The vast majority (almost 100%) of the US population will not see the insides of Harvard or any of the top 20 schools. Yet, they pay no taxes and we are OK with that? Why?

If the admission process is not transparent, why do we have to subsidize such a process?

For the millionth time, and continuing every time you post this bullshit:

You don't subsidize Harvard with your tax dollars any more than you subsidize any tax-exempt organization in the country, nor any more than you subsidize any person who gets a tax deduction. By your (ill)logic, since you get to deduct your mortgage interest and your property taxes I as an individual should have a say in what color you paint your house. In addition, what about the taxpayers who disagree with you? Why is only your opinion and only your position as a taxpayer the only one that matters?

You do not understand basic civics.

Please stop. Try different logic, or just complain you don't like it. That's fine. But your tax argument does not help your case AT ALL.