College game is still rigged

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Admissions should be based on merit and not on subjective criteria like EC’s which can be easily embellished and manipulated. It will stop all this madness to a great extent.

If "merit" is solely grades and tests scores then hard pass from me. I live in NYC. My kid got into top SHSAT schools but we opted out. Because the majority (but not all) of the kids who get in on "merit" have zero personality. And before someone has a cow, this refers to white kids, Asian kids, Indian kids, etc. And to avoid another cow, again, there are plenty of exceptions. But a university full of these types would be a miserable place to go. I want my kids to go to a school not only with smart kids but ones who have non-academic interests, who have some charisma, emotional intelligence, compassion, and a sense of humor. People who not only will find the cure for cancer in the lab but could also do well at a cocktail party, potentially do well in a sales job, getting really excited at a football game but also appreciate a classical music concert, an art gallery and a rock concert, and would be fun to have a beer with (at the appropriate age, of course).

Admissions people are pretty good at sniffing out fake EC's from real ones. Again, I'm sure we all know someone who snuck one by them. But they know what they are doing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Admissions should be based on merit and not on subjective criteria like EC’s which can be easily embellished and manipulated. It will stop all this madness to a great extent.

If "merit" is solely grades and tests scores then hard pass from me. I live in NYC. My kid got into top SHSAT schools but we opted out. Because the majority (but not all) of the kids who get in on "merit" have zero personality. And before someone has a cow, this refers to white kids, Asian kids, Indian kids, etc. And to avoid another cow, again, there are plenty of exceptions. But a university full of these types would be a miserable place to go. I want my kids to go to a school not only with smart kids but ones who have non-academic interests, who have some charisma, emotional intelligence, compassion, and a sense of humor. People who not only will find the cure for cancer in the lab but could also do well at a cocktail party, potentially do well in a sales job, getting really excited at a football game but also appreciate a classical music concert, an art gallery and a rock concert, and would be fun to have a beer with (at the appropriate age, of course).

Admissions people are pretty good at sniffing out fake EC's from real ones. Again, I'm sure we all know someone who snuck one by them. But they know what they are doing.

Why are these characteristics mutually exclusive? Students can still have other interests, just because they don’t have to list their non-academic interests doesn’t mean they don’t have any. What are you even talking about? Do you think students from the rest of the world (canada, Europe ) have no interests?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Admissions should be based on merit and not on subjective criteria like EC’s which can be easily embellished and manipulated. It will stop all this madness to a great extent.

If "merit" is solely grades and tests scores then hard pass from me. I live in NYC. My kid got into top SHSAT schools but we opted out. Because the majority (but not all) of the kids who get in on "merit" have zero personality. And before someone has a cow, this refers to white kids, Asian kids, Indian kids, etc. And to avoid another cow, again, there are plenty of exceptions. But a university full of these types would be a miserable place to go. I want my kids to go to a school not only with smart kids but ones who have non-academic interests, who have some charisma, emotional intelligence, compassion, and a sense of humor. People who not only will find the cure for cancer in the lab but could also do well at a cocktail party, potentially do well in a sales job, getting really excited at a football game but also appreciate a classical music concert, an art gallery and a rock concert, and would be fun to have a beer with (at the appropriate age, of course).

Admissions people are pretty good at sniffing out fake EC's from real ones. Again, I'm sure we all know someone who snuck one by them. But they know what they are doing.

Why are these characteristics mutually exclusive? Students can still have other interests, just because they don’t have to list their non-academic interests doesn’t mean they don’t have any. What are you even talking about? Do you think students from the rest of the world (canada, Europe ) have no interests?

As I said at the top of my admittedly too long post, "Merit" does not seem to work out well at the selective high schools where that is the criteria. Though that depends on your definition of "merit" and "working out well."

The American system has been completely corrupted and undoing that will be very difficult. But going to a strictly test/grade based system will lead to even more rampant grade inflation and a cram school mentality towards testing even worse than it is now.

Schools should be allowed to prioritize whatever they want. If they think non-quantitative factors are important, then that is their prerogative. Then the market will speak for itself, both in terms of admissions stats and exmissions stats. For many jobs, I would be perfectly fine with someone with slightly lower stats who has the people skills I referred to. For many posters here, what I am saying is completely impossible to understand. Particularly those who come from places where admissions are strictly test-based. Guess what - I don't want to be like those places.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Admissions should be based on merit and not on subjective criteria like EC’s which can be easily embellished and manipulated. It will stop all this madness to a great extent.

If "merit" is solely grades and tests scores then hard pass from me. I live in NYC. My kid got into top SHSAT schools but we opted out. Because the majority (but not all) of the kids who get in on "merit" have zero personality. And before someone has a cow, this refers to white kids, Asian kids, Indian kids, etc. And to avoid another cow, again, there are plenty of exceptions. But a university full of these types would be a miserable place to go. I want my kids to go to a school not only with smart kids but ones who have non-academic interests, who have some charisma, emotional intelligence, compassion, and a sense of humor. People who not only will find the cure for cancer in the lab but could also do well at a cocktail party, potentially do well in a sales job, getting really excited at a football game but also appreciate a classical music concert, an art gallery and a rock concert, and would be fun to have a beer with (at the appropriate age, of course).

Admissions people are pretty good at sniffing out fake EC's from real ones. Again, I'm sure we all know someone who snuck one by them. But they know what they are doing.

Why are these characteristics mutually exclusive? Students can still have other interests, just because they don’t have to list their non-academic interests doesn’t mean they don’t have any. What are you even talking about? Do you think students from the rest of the world (canada, Europe ) have no interests?

+100000

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Admissions should be based on merit and not on subjective criteria like EC’s which can be easily embellished and manipulated. It will stop all this madness to a great extent.

Define merit….don’t say tests and grades because they do not provide a good measure of merit given the huge variation in US k12 education.

[Anonymous]

The American college “ holistic” definition of “merit” is centred on what rich mediocre white boys excel at so that colleges can get that donation money and access to the elite professional network the parents have to continue the circle for their students. So spare me the “personality”argument. That’s unless admissions based on obscure sports that only private school and rich white public high school kids participate in ends. Point me to the elite all black rowing or fencing team from a title 1 high school?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Admissions should be based on merit and not on subjective criteria like EC’s which can be easily embellished and manipulated. It will stop all this madness to a great extent.

Define merit….don’t say tests and grades because they do not provide a good measure of merit given the huge variation in US k12 education.

They are a fine measure of merit. SAT/ACT should be only be taken once and probably revised to make it harder so not many students get 1500 plus .. like it used to be. Students can take subject SAT’s too.

[Anonymous]

The whole process is rigged from top to bottom and is rigged on purpose to admit rich white mediocre influential students. These powerful institutions will not change because they will lose money. Its a business at the end of the day.

[Anonymous]

PP here.. and its a means to keep the rich and powerful.. well rich and powerful.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Article in Ny times.. by Jeff Selingo


“That mind-set makes acceptance to a highly selective college feel like a game. The rules are set by colleges, then carried out by admissions offices, and are stacked against the vast majority of teenagers. Fewer than a tenth of applicants win that prize of getting into one of the nation’s most selective colleges. If that weren’t enough, every year elite colleges move the goal line with new rules for getting across it.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/22/opinion/college-admissions-seniors-stats.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare


I doubt most people will learn anything from his book or article. We keep playing this game and colleges keep winning..

Selingo says in this article you can’t do anything about the rules set by colleges. It’s called legislation. Abolish ED.

Nonsense, they are private institutions. People can choose to apply or not to apply but private schools have every right to create an admissions process that works for their interests.

It is a simple act of Congress. Or Mass can do it at the state level to get it started. Or enforce existing anti-trust law.

While we are at it, limit waitlists to some reasonable number — not in the thousands.

Why? Why do you care? Colleges are businesses whose ultimate goal is to fill the freshman class with X students. Not X+100 and not X-100. Both create different ramifications for the school. You can either get on a WL or not. Up to you. But in general it's best to assume you wont get off any WL, and make your best pick by May1 and proceed with attending in the fall.

But the school needs to ensure they have X students matriculating for Fall semester. WL are part of that management.

Sure, why should anyone care if colleges have 5,000-person waitlists for 10 potential spots? Nothing wrong with that — at all. It should even be celebrated. Thanks, colleges.

So you would rather your kid get put on ZERO Wait lists? When a college sends out a WL offer, they have no clue how many spots there will be. Their jobs is to fill their freshman class. You can choose to accept a WL or not.

If your kid is "qualified " for a T25 school, they can literally find tons of merit and mostly acceptances in the 30-75 range. If you find schools outside the T25, you won't have so much stress and will be happier

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Article in Ny times.. by Jeff Selingo


“That mind-set makes acceptance to a highly selective college feel like a game. The rules are set by colleges, then carried out by admissions offices, and are stacked against the vast majority of teenagers. Fewer than a tenth of applicants win that prize of getting into one of the nation’s most selective colleges. If that weren’t enough, every year elite colleges move the goal line with new rules for getting across it.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/22/opinion/college-admissions-seniors-stats.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare


I doubt most people will learn anything from his book or article. We keep playing this game and colleges keep winning..

Selingo says in this article you can’t do anything about the rules set by colleges. It’s called legislation. Abolish ED.

Nonsense, they are private institutions. People can choose to apply or not to apply but private schools have every right to create an admissions process that works for their interests.

It is a simple act of Congress. Or Mass can do it at the state level to get it started. Or enforce existing anti-trust law.

While we are at it, limit waitlists to some reasonable number — not in the thousands.

"A simple act of Congress."

Are you in the DMV and writing that without sarcasm? That's amazing.

A “simple act of Congress” just taxed endowments, with huge budget implications. A “no ED requirement” is not an unfunded mandate; it costs nothing. As would limiting waitlists to — I don’t know — 1/4 the size of the previous years fall freshman class?

Ok---so then your kid simply wouldn't get on any WL apparently. You'd rather have that? Quite frankly, we told our kid WL don't matter, pick a school and get excited about it. DOn't mull around and hope for "something better" and waste away your summer being miserable

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Article in Ny times.. by Jeff Selingo


“That mind-set makes acceptance to a highly selective college feel like a game. The rules are set by colleges, then carried out by admissions offices, and are stacked against the vast majority of teenagers. Fewer than a tenth of applicants win that prize of getting into one of the nation’s most selective colleges. If that weren’t enough, every year elite colleges move the goal line with new rules for getting across it.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/22/opinion/college-admissions-seniors-stats.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare


I doubt most people will learn anything from his book or article. We keep playing this game and colleges keep winning..

Selingo says in this article you can’t do anything about the rules set by colleges. It’s called legislation. Abolish ED.

Nonsense, they are private institutions. People can choose to apply or not to apply but private schools have every right to create an admissions process that works for their interests.

It is a simple act of Congress. Or Mass can do it at the state level to get it started. Or enforce existing anti-trust law.

While we are at it, limit waitlists to some reasonable number — not in the thousands.

Why? Why do you care? Colleges are businesses whose ultimate goal is to fill the freshman class with X students. Not X+100 and not X-100. Both create different ramifications for the school. You can either get on a WL or not. Up to you. But in general it's best to assume you wont get off any WL, and make your best pick by May1 and proceed with attending in the fall.

But the school needs to ensure they have X students matriculating for Fall semester. WL are part of that management.

Sure, why should anyone care if colleges have 5,000-person waitlists for 10 potential spots? Nothing wrong with that — at all. It should even be celebrated. Thanks, colleges.

So you would rather your kid get put on ZERO Wait lists? When a college sends out a WL offer, they have no clue how many spots there will be. Their jobs is to fill their freshman class. You can choose to accept a WL or not.

If your kid is "qualified " for a T25 school, they can literally find tons of merit and mostly acceptances in the 30-75 range. If you find schools outside the T25, you won't have so much stress and will be happier

What are you, nutty? Yes, 4,500 kids would be done a tremendous favor if it was mandated that the waitlist be limited, in this example, to, say, 500 kids. What you fail to understand is that no more than 100 kids had any chance in hell of getting off that waitlist, let alone 500, let alone 5,000. It is totally unnecessary and borderline emotionally abusive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Greater transparency, i.e. what is the 50th/ 75th% SAT/ GPA of the non athlete admittees? What percent of the ED admits are legacy, what percent are recruited athletes how many are "dean's interest," i.e donors? It would be useful to know how many spots at the T20 privates are really "available" for unhooked applicants?
But in the end that info won't change that there are only a few spots.
That scarcity is what makes this all so fraught and I don't see how any legislation can fix that

You can guess most of this accurately with a bit of brain usage. If the school has X freshman athletes on average, they are all mostly getting in ED. If it's a Duke, Harvard, Northwestern etc with tons of rich legacy famous alumni, there will be a good percentage of ED going to those families. ED in reality is only about 1/2 the published numbers. It is what it is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Admissions should be based on merit and not on subjective criteria like EC’s which can be easily embellished and manipulated. It will stop all this madness to a great extent.

Define merit….don’t say tests and grades because they do not provide a good measure of merit given the huge variation in US k12 education.

They are a fine measure of merit. SAT/ACT should be only be taken once and probably revised to make it harder so not many students get 1500 plus .. like it used to be. Students can take subject SAT’s too.

Students cannot take subject SATs. They have been discontinued.

Anyway the reason American schools don’t do this is because it would be a race to madness. Kids would prep the SAT for years, then kill themselves if they didn’t get a perfect score the one time they were allowed to take it. And then the student body at elite schools would be 99% kids who spent their entire childhoods doing test prep.

In Canada and Europe admissions standards are more relaxed because schools are larger relative to the population and most people don’t travel far even for the more elite schools. Larger American schools could adopt standards like this, and in fact many essentially do. It’s the rare student with a 1550+ or 35+ who is rejected from their in-state flagship.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Admissions should be based on merit and not on subjective criteria like EC’s which can be easily embellished and manipulated. It will stop all this madness to a great extent.

Define merit….don’t say tests and grades because they do not provide a good measure of merit given the huge variation in US k12 education.

They are a fine measure of merit. SAT/ACT should be only be taken once and probably revised to make it harder so not many students get 1500 plus .. like it used to be. Students can take subject SAT’s too.

I think twice, to allow for one bad day, but that’s it. No super scoring.