In your opinion, how should the elite colleges decide conduct admissions?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The schools should enter everyone who meets base qualifications in a lottery. This could account for 75% of all accepted students. The other 25% would be the university’s discretion.

So meet the base requirements and you are entered in to the lottery.
Harvard 4.0 unweighted GPA, 1530 SAT, etc
UVA GPA: 4.32, SAT 1445, etc.

Don’t meet the base requirements hard rejection.

that’s what they largely do now (for 90% of the slots. But schools are smart and recognize a kid from a difficult upbringing with a 1450 and rigor for their school might be a shining star and they want them too. Not everyone’s as privileged as dcum

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No one's educational experience is enhanced by a class of drones. That being said, for highly selective schools I'd want to see the stress on class rigor and being challenged, GPA, SAT/ACT test scores, interesting ECs that really demonstrate some passion and talent, teacher recommendations, and can they write a compelling essay.

I'd get rid of legacy, significant wealth, and nearly all admissions advantages for athletes. If Duke wants a competitive basketball team, fine. I understand that's a special thing. Same with Notre Dame football. But crew and tennis and lacrosse and soccer and Columbia football are pretty ridiculous. The SLACs are usually appalling with this. Nearly half of Williams and Amherst are "athletes."

I'd also put way less emphasis on race even in the post SC era. Context always matters, but have seen way too many mediocre private school students getting spots solely because they check a box. It's never the brilliant kid from SE or the immigrant in Gaithersburg with the 1300 that gets into a T20. I would, however, really like to find the first generation and low income smart kids. That's a special group of students.

I'd also limit the international admits for undergrad. Grad school is a different story. But for undergrad, no student has ever said all that's missing from my college experience is more wealthy students from mainland China and the Persian Gulf.

Basically, less class. More talent.

You want "talent" but you kept ranting about athletes. You do know that athletic performance requires talent, right? So much so that as a general rule only about 7% of high school athletes have the talent to compete at any level in college.

And Amherst and Williams athletes are, in fact, genuine athletes not "athletes" in skeptical quotes as you put it.

I'm sorry your kid got cut from the 8th grade club team but why haven't you gotten over it by now?

Actually, both kids are at T20s. And they are both very athletic. States, varsity, etc. One recruited by D3 schools. But they chose D1 schools for the education. [Sure, Jan. 🙄]

But I still think it's a waste of space for tiny little D3 schools like Amherst and Williams to devote nearly half their spots to "athletes."

These schools clearly have the wrong approach and it’s strange they haven’t recognized this due to the declining number of applicants over the past 20 years oh wait their acceptance rate is lower than ever I guess they don’t have to care what you think.

I mean colleges will never recognize that they are doing something wrong. Liberal arts colleges could've decided they'll make 50% of the class orchestra players, and it still would've been a bad admissions decision. Anything exclusive enough to shut out most of your applicant pool just attracts more students.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The SAT needs to go back to being an IQ test and should be the basis of admission along with gpa. No more extracurriculars! They are turning high schoolers into freaks who can do research but can barely process information.

God no. That's the last thing these schools want. Talk about a class of freaks, a bunch of kids with great SATs and perfect GPAs and zero going on outside of that

How horrible. Academia full of...academics, instead of future middle managers. Whatever will we do if we actually supported innovation and intellectuals rather than the next consultant at Deloitte?!

[Anonymous]

Eliminate legacies, hooks and sports admissions. Set a baseline standard for admissions. Cut everyone who doesn't meet it. Put everyone else in a lottery and random draw your class. Guaranteed you're going to get a more interesting class that is just as good as whatever you were trying to do otherwise.

[Anonymous]

Am I the only one who is fine with the way it is?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No one's educational experience is enhanced by a class of drones. That being said, for highly selective schools I'd want to see the stress on class rigor and being challenged, GPA, SAT/ACT test scores, interesting ECs that really demonstrate some passion and talent, teacher recommendations, and can they write a compelling essay.

I'd get rid of legacy, significant wealth, and nearly all admissions advantages for athletes. If Duke wants a competitive basketball team, fine. I understand that's a special thing. Same with Notre Dame football. But crew and tennis and lacrosse and soccer and Columbia football are pretty ridiculous. The SLACs are usually appalling with this. Nearly half of Williams and Amherst are "athletes."

I'd also put way less emphasis on race even in the post SC era. Context always matters, but have seen way too many mediocre private school students getting spots solely because they check a box. It's never the brilliant kid from SE or the immigrant in Gaithersburg with the 1300 that gets into a T20. I would, however, really like to find the first generation and low income smart kids. That's a special group of students.

I'd also limit the international admits for undergrad. Grad school is a different story. But for undergrad, no student has ever said all that's missing from my college experience is more wealthy students from mainland China and the Persian Gulf.

Basically, less class. More talent.

You want "talent" but you kept ranting about athletes. You do know that athletic performance requires talent, right? So much so that as a general rule only about 7% of high school athletes have the talent to compete at any level in college.

And Amherst and Williams athletes are, in fact, genuine athletes not "athletes" in skeptical quotes as you put it.

I'm sorry your kid got cut from the 8th grade club team but why haven't you gotten over it by now?

Hate this disingenuous crap. Stop trying to degrade the person and just make your point. For most non-athletes, the athlete draw is an unfair process that shouldn't mean they can just walk into an elite institution. Especially at LACs, golf should not allow you to waltz into a campus. No one is going to the softball games, so why are we subsidizing them? Sure, these are genuine athletes, but lacrosse and crew should give the same EC boost as drawing or writing, not recruit you to the institution.

You are missing the point. They aren't just waltzing in and their academic achievement is on par with any other applicant. The idea that you think these kids aren't both high achieving students and high achieving athletes is misguided.

Well the rest of us have to observe that they clearly aren't academically bright and just hush up about it, so the prep kid parents don't get mad. These students aren't academically on par, and that lie needs to stop being spread. They are massively mediocre, posh moochers that couldn't get into a D1 program.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No one's educational experience is enhanced by a class of drones. That being said, for highly selective schools I'd want to see the stress on class rigor and being challenged, GPA, SAT/ACT test scores, interesting ECs that really demonstrate some passion and talent, teacher recommendations, and can they write a compelling essay.

I'd get rid of legacy, significant wealth, and nearly all admissions advantages for athletes. If Duke wants a competitive basketball team, fine. I understand that's a special thing. Same with Notre Dame football. But crew and tennis and lacrosse and soccer and Columbia football are pretty ridiculous. The SLACs are usually appalling with this. Nearly half of Williams and Amherst are "athletes."

I'd also put way less emphasis on race even in the post SC era. Context always matters, but have seen way too many mediocre private school students getting spots solely because they check a box. It's never the brilliant kid from SE or the immigrant in Gaithersburg with the 1300 that gets into a T20. I would, however, really like to find the first generation and low income smart kids. That's a special group of students.

I'd also limit the international admits for undergrad. Grad school is a different story. But for undergrad, no student has ever said all that's missing from my college experience is more wealthy students from mainland China and the Persian Gulf.

Basically, less class. More talent.

No, they are STUDENT ATHLETES. They are generally kids whose academic chops are top tier AND they are competitive on a field or court.

Yeah, it’s actually pretty humbling to see what some of these kids have accomplished. These aren’t the old jock stereotypes at all. We have a family friend that got into HYP this year - 4.0 GPA, perfect SAT *and* one of the top in our state (a large one) for their sport (that isn’t a country club sport). A lot of people are in denial that there is a large group of applicants that are both elite academically and then an elite athlete on top of it.

Not dismissing your anecdote, but you met one athlete. There are scores of athletes who simply wouldn't have obtained admission if it weren't for the coaching they get for pre-reads and the massive advantage playing niche sports gives you.

[Anonymous]

Not the IQ test argument again?!?!?! No!

Two of the smartest people I know are SO unable to function in normal society. One is both a computer genius and criminally violent (with the arrest record to prove it) and the other is a computer genius living in his parent's basement. Dude is over 50. Used to have a million in options from internet startups. Now he has nothing.

Intelligence and ability are not at all determinative.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Am I the only one who is fine with the way it is?

+1

I wish corporate recruitment and promotion could be this well defined.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No one's educational experience is enhanced by a class of drones. That being said, for highly selective schools I'd want to see the stress on class rigor and being challenged, GPA, SAT/ACT test scores, interesting ECs that really demonstrate some passion and talent, teacher recommendations, and can they write a compelling essay.

I'd get rid of legacy, significant wealth, and nearly all admissions advantages for athletes. If Duke wants a competitive basketball team, fine. I understand that's a special thing. Same with Notre Dame football. But crew and tennis and lacrosse and soccer and Columbia football are pretty ridiculous. The SLACs are usually appalling with this. Nearly half of Williams and Amherst are "athletes."

I'd also put way less emphasis on race even in the post SC era. Context always matters, but have seen way too many mediocre private school students getting spots solely because they check a box. It's never the brilliant kid from SE or the immigrant in Gaithersburg with the 1300 that gets into a T20. I would, however, really like to find the first generation and low income smart kids. That's a special group of students.

I'd also limit the international admits for undergrad. Grad school is a different story. But for undergrad, no student has ever said all that's missing from my college experience is more wealthy students from mainland China and the Persian Gulf.

Basically, less class. More talent.

You want "talent" but you kept ranting about athletes. You do know that athletic performance requires talent, right? So much so that as a general rule only about 7% of high school athletes have the talent to compete at any level in college.

And Amherst and Williams athletes are, in fact, genuine athletes not "athletes" in skeptical quotes as you put it.

I'm sorry your kid got cut from the 8th grade club team but why haven't you gotten over it by now?

Hate this disingenuous crap. Stop trying to degrade the person and just make your point. For most non-athletes, the athlete draw is an unfair process that shouldn't mean they can just walk into an elite institution. Especially at LACs, golf should not allow you to waltz into a campus. No one is going to the softball games, so why are we subsidizing them? Sure, these are genuine athletes, but lacrosse and crew should give the same EC boost as drawing or writing, not recruit you to the institution.

You are missing the point. They aren't just waltzing in and their academic achievement is on par with any other applicant. The idea that you think these kids aren't both high achieving students and high achieving athletes is misguided.

Well the rest of us have to observe that they clearly aren't academically bright and just hush up about it, so the prep kid parents don't get mad. These students aren't academically on par, and that lie needs to stop being spread. They are massively mediocre, posh moochers that couldn't get into a D1 program.

Based on my kid's current experience being recruited for D1 and selective SLACS, I can tell you that your broad-brushed observations are wrong. Especially with the SLAC's. On initial phone calls, after the pleasantries are done it goes right to how are your grades, what classes are you taking, can you send your official transcripts, what is your school profile, please send official class list for the next year, etc. If the process started real early, they will ask for transcripts at the end of every semester and cut those who aren't hitting what it will take to get in. Pre-read time is right around the corner, if they don't make it through that the coaches will find someone else. This is real, not an observation.

[Anonymous]

How?

First donors. Then legacy. Then athletes. Then holistic review.

Not many donors but the focus should be on legacy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No one's educational experience is enhanced by a class of drones. That being said, for highly selective schools I'd want to see the stress on class rigor and being challenged, GPA, SAT/ACT test scores, interesting ECs that really demonstrate some passion and talent, teacher recommendations, and can they write a compelling essay.

I'd get rid of legacy, significant wealth, and nearly all admissions advantages for athletes. If Duke wants a competitive basketball team, fine. I understand that's a special thing. Same with Notre Dame football. But crew and tennis and lacrosse and soccer and Columbia football are pretty ridiculous. The SLACs are usually appalling with this. Nearly half of Williams and Amherst are "athletes."

I'd also put way less emphasis on race even in the post SC era. Context always matters, but have seen way too many mediocre private school students getting spots solely because they check a box. It's never the brilliant kid from SE or the immigrant in Gaithersburg with the 1300 that gets into a T20. I would, however, really like to find the first generation and low income smart kids. That's a special group of students.

I'd also limit the international admits for undergrad. Grad school is a different story. But for undergrad, no student has ever said all that's missing from my college experience is more wealthy students from mainland China and the Persian Gulf.

Basically, less class. More talent.

No, they are STUDENT ATHLETES. They are generally kids whose academic chops are top tier AND they are competitive on a field or court.

Yeah, it’s actually pretty humbling to see what some of these kids have accomplished. These aren’t the old jock stereotypes at all. We have a family friend that got into HYP this year - 4.0 GPA, perfect SAT *and* one of the top in our state (a large one) for their sport (that isn’t a country club sport). A lot of people are in denial that there is a large group of applicants that are both elite academically and then an elite athlete on top of it.

Not dismissing your anecdote, but you met one athlete. There are scores of athletes who simply wouldn't have obtained admission if it weren't for the coaching they get for pre-reads and the massive advantage playing niche sports gives you.

Depnds on school but there are very few high academic schools where the athletes are out of the norm for the student body.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No one's educational experience is enhanced by a class of drones. That being said, for highly selective schools I'd want to see the stress on class rigor and being challenged, GPA, SAT/ACT test scores, interesting ECs that really demonstrate some passion and talent, teacher recommendations, and can they write a compelling essay.

I'd get rid of legacy, significant wealth, and nearly all admissions advantages for athletes. If Duke wants a competitive basketball team, fine. I understand that's a special thing. Same with Notre Dame football. But crew and tennis and lacrosse and soccer and Columbia football are pretty ridiculous. The SLACs are usually appalling with this. Nearly half of Williams and Amherst are "athletes."

I'd also put way less emphasis on race even in the post SC era. Context always matters, but have seen way too many mediocre private school students getting spots solely because they check a box. It's never the brilliant kid from SE or the immigrant in Gaithersburg with the 1300 that gets into a T20. I would, however, really like to find the first generation and low income smart kids. That's a special group of students.

I'd also limit the international admits for undergrad. Grad school is a different story. But for undergrad, no student has ever said all that's missing from my college experience is more wealthy students from mainland China and the Persian Gulf.

Basically, less class. More talent.

You want "talent" but you kept ranting about athletes. You do know that athletic performance requires talent, right? So much so that as a general rule only about 7% of high school athletes have the talent to compete at any level in college.

And Amherst and Williams athletes are, in fact, genuine athletes not "athletes" in skeptical quotes as you put it.

I'm sorry your kid got cut from the 8th grade club team but why haven't you gotten over it by now?

Hate this disingenuous crap. Stop trying to degrade the person and just make your point. For most non-athletes, the athlete draw is an unfair process that shouldn't mean they can just walk into an elite institution. Especially at LACs, golf should not allow you to waltz into a campus. No one is going to the softball games, so why are we subsidizing them? Sure, these are genuine athletes, but lacrosse and crew should give the same EC boost as drawing or writing, not recruit you to the institution.

You are missing the point. They aren't just waltzing in and their academic achievement is on par with any other applicant. The idea that you think these kids aren't both high achieving students and high achieving athletes is misguided.

Well the rest of us have to observe that they clearly aren't academically bright and just hush up about it, so the prep kid parents don't get mad. These students aren't academically on par, and that lie needs to stop being spread. They are massively mediocre, posh moochers that couldn't get into a D1 program.

Depends on the school. Most had D1 offers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No one's educational experience is enhanced by a class of drones. That being said, for highly selective schools I'd want to see the stress on class rigor and being challenged, GPA, SAT/ACT test scores, interesting ECs that really demonstrate some passion and talent, teacher recommendations, and can they write a compelling essay.

I'd get rid of legacy, significant wealth, and nearly all admissions advantages for athletes. If Duke wants a competitive basketball team, fine. I understand that's a special thing. Same with Notre Dame football. But crew and tennis and lacrosse and soccer and Columbia football are pretty ridiculous. The SLACs are usually appalling with this. Nearly half of Williams and Amherst are "athletes."

I'd also put way less emphasis on race even in the post SC era. Context always matters, but have seen way too many mediocre private school students getting spots solely because they check a box. It's never the brilliant kid from SE or the immigrant in Gaithersburg with the 1300 that gets into a T20. I would, however, really like to find the first generation and low income smart kids. That's a special group of students.

I'd also limit the international admits for undergrad. Grad school is a different story. But for undergrad, no student has ever said all that's missing from my college experience is more wealthy students from mainland China and the Persian Gulf.

Basically, less class. More talent.

You want "talent" but you kept ranting about athletes. You do know that athletic performance requires talent, right? So much so that as a general rule only about 7% of high school athletes have the talent to compete at any level in college.

And Amherst and Williams athletes are, in fact, genuine athletes not "athletes" in skeptical quotes as you put it.

I'm sorry your kid got cut from the 8th grade club team but why haven't you gotten over it by now?

Hate this disingenuous crap. Stop trying to degrade the person and just make your point. For most non-athletes, the athlete draw is an unfair process that shouldn't mean they can just walk into an elite institution. Especially at LACs, golf should not allow you to waltz into a campus. No one is going to the softball games, so why are we subsidizing them? Sure, these are genuine athletes, but lacrosse and crew should give the same EC boost as drawing or writing, not recruit you to the institution.

You are missing the point. They aren't just waltzing in and their academic achievement is on par with any other applicant. The idea that you think these kids aren't both high achieving students and high achieving athletes is misguided.

Well the rest of us have to observe that they clearly aren't academically bright and just hush up about it, so the prep kid parents don't get mad. These students aren't academically on par, and that lie needs to stop being spread. They are massively mediocre, posh moochers that couldn't get into a D1 program.

Based on my kid's current experience being recruited for D1 and selective SLACS, I can tell you that your broad-brushed observations are wrong. Especially with the SLAC's. On initial phone calls, after the pleasantries are done it goes right to how are your grades, what classes are you taking, can you send your official transcripts, what is your school profile, please send official class list for the next year, etc. If the process started real early, they will ask for transcripts at the end of every semester and cut those who aren't hitting what it will take to get in. Pre-read time is right around the corner, if they don't make it through that the coaches will find someone else. This is real, not an observation.

This. We know kids who have been offered by Ivies and NESAC schools, but the coaches are very clear that the transcripts need to be there for the kid to get admitted. One of DD's best friends had an Ivy offer that turned into a joke in the friend group because the girl was a proud C student how cared about basketball and nothing else. She took a D1 full ride

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The SAT needs to go back to being an IQ test and should be the basis of admission along with gpa. No more extracurriculars! They are turning high schoolers into freaks who can do research but can barely process information.

God no. That's the last thing these schools want. Talk about a class of freaks, a bunch of kids with great SATs and perfect GPAs and zero going on outside of that

How horrible. Academia full of...academics, instead of future middle managers. Whatever will we do if we actually supported innovation and intellectuals rather than the next consultant at Deloitte?!

This is where there is a disconnect. The middle managers are the ones with the high scores. The athletes (who have just as high scores at most places) are the CEOs.