Say you had a clean slate...

[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.

You just sound very bitter. I can see that you struggled. Yet you don't care if others similar to your old self struggle. Then why is in the world are you complaining of the struggles your kids potentially may experience.

Inequity persists in this world when people are selfish in protecting their own privilege and are blind to other's suffering. I am advocating for those who are more fortunate to think of those who are not on many different fronts, whether it is education, income, services, etc. If our education system can churn out a new crop of adults who are mindful of service to others, then the world will be a much better place.

BTW, using your own terms caps and all, is meant to show that I am not trying to twist your words or to paraphrase, out of respect for you. You want to perpetuate this victim mentality, be my guest. You will struggle mightily through the admission process.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

The results from this admission cycle does feel as if someone drop all of those apps in the middle from a clock tower.

[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.

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.

The irony is that you fail to see how programs tailored to help first gen and economically disadvantaged kids that you disparage would have helped you. But you're too busy nursing the chip on your shoulder that some poor first gen kid from Appalachia is taking the spot your kid "deserved" because you paid for it.

[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.

DP. What I am advocating is for a first gen kid who went to crappy schools, never had tutors and nevertheless scored 1500 on SAT, let that be their ticket to Harvard. For a kid who was raised by two professors, went to the best schools, and was tutored up the wazoo, 1500 on SAT and $2.75 will buy a subway ride in NYC.

[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.

You are arguing that your kids be given an advantage in admissions based on what YOU have done- made money to pay for prep and tutoring and extracurriculars. Why should your kids get an advantage for something they haven't done? If they can earn high scores on the SAT/ACT without tutoring, get good grades and demonstrate leadership, motivation and intellectual curiosity on their own volition, then they should absolutely be in line for top colleges. If they are only in contention for admission due to tutoring and other experiences that YOU paid for to make their resume look good, well, then maybe your kids haven't earned that spot.

[Anonymous]

There's no "inequality".

It's not about you at all. Drop your ego at the door.

It is very simple:

The colleges pick who they want, and deal with the consequences. That's their right, entirely.

That's it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There is room to enter or write about ONE meaningful extracurricular activity. The arms race to build a resume by age 17 is burning our kids out.

+10000

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Is this one of those threads where a bunch of people with no industry experience Monday Morning Quarterback and claim they know better than the colleges who have been doing this forever and their staffs who have been doing it professionally?

Cool, I am in. I say make bowling average 35% of the admissions criteria. And yes, my kid bowls his ass off but that is just coincidence.

Well after 6 pages I'd have to answer "yes" to the above post.

Here's my idea:

How about students send the colleges their transcripts and list of accomplishments, and the colleges pick the class they want?

What could be easier than that?

[Anonymous]

There is the key sentence “college picking the class they want” not what one’s parents think their kid is entitled to.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That is exactly what I would do, for starters. Pick your five schools, and get on with it. This applying to 20 schools ridiculous.

Who benefits from this? How would this improve anything?

Schools don’t need to manage yield and will be making their decisions solely on whether they want this student. If they know they are one of five, they know you are serious.

Exactly. They know immediately that you didn’t just throw them in at the last minute, to the list of 20 other random schools you’re applying to. It would make a huge difference. Plus, admissions offices wouldn’t be inundated with thousands of meaningless applications.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:1. Standardized the applications. Whether that's by the Common Application or something else, I don't know. But just managing all the different ways schools ask the same question adds to the time needed to manage all this.

2. Streamling the deadlines and ways to apply. Maybe just have rolling for the less selective schools, one form of early, and then regular. This ED1 and ED2 and priority this, etc. make the application period longer than it needs to be.

3. Limit the activity space (something already mentioned this and I think MIT does it). Have people list their top three activities. Let them write a couple sentences about each. It'll stop the people who think the longest resume wins.

4. Make high schools calculate GPA the same way so kids know where they stand and so the average admitted GPA statistic is reliable.

5. Love the one essay idea mentioned above. I don't think it needs to be academic, but I don't think any college should be allowed to ask "why us" because it forces a kid to write a special essay just for that school. I like how the Common Application has one essay with 4-5 choices on it.




Those ask for an end to test optional know that just because you send something doesn't mean admissions has to use it, right?

Regardless of what you think about the SAT, test optional is admissions' way of telling you that they don't find test scores valuable in their processes.

+100
All great ideas/thoughts!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That is exactly what I would do, for starters. Pick your five schools, and get on with it. This applying to 20 schools ridiculous.

Who benefits from this? How would this improve anything?

Schools don’t need to manage yield and will be making their decisions solely on whether they want this student. If they know they are one of five, they know you are serious.

Exactly. They know immediately that you didn’t just throw them in at the last minute, to the list of 20 other random schools you’re applying to. It would make a huge difference. Plus, admissions offices wouldn’t be inundated with thousands of meaningless applications.

Colleges don't care if you added them at the last minute if they want you.

Admissions offices are not "inundated". They want as many students to choose from as they can and they can handle it. If they didn't they would fill the entire class ED/SCEA. You are applying a solution to a thing that is not a problem, and certainly not your problem.

This would not make anything better and would make a whole lot worse for both students and the colleges. Do you think you thought of this and no one in admissions has? If this was a good idea it would be implemented already. It is a bad idea.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That is exactly what I would do, for starters. Pick your five schools, and get on with it. This applying to 20 schools ridiculous.

Who benefits from this? How would this improve anything?

Schools don’t need to manage yield and will be making their decisions solely on whether they want this student. If they know they are one of five, they know you are serious.

Exactly. They know immediately that you didn’t just throw them in at the last minute, to the list of 20 other random schools you’re applying to. It would make a huge difference. Plus, admissions offices wouldn’t be inundated with thousands of meaningless applications.

Colleges don't care if you added them at the last minute if they want you.

Admissions offices are not "inundated". They want as many students to choose from as they can and they can handle it. If they didn't they would fill the entire class ED/SCEA. You are applying a solution to a thing that is not a problem, and certainly not your problem.

This would not make anything better and would make a whole lot worse for both students and the colleges. Do you think you thought of this and no one in admissions has? If this was a good idea it would be implemented already. It is a bad idea.

No, it would’t be implemented in US because of antitrust considerations. Our laws don’t allow colleges to talk to each other and make any joint decisions limiting competition. Even the idea that a college can’t go after an applicant who already accepted somewhere else got shut down a couple of years ago.

The US college admission game is a classic prisoner’s dilemma - cooperation would be beneficial for all, but the benefits to a single entity that doesn’t cooperate are huge, so everyone refuses to cooperate and we are all worse off.

[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.

Except college isn't solely academics. Colleges have clubs and theater and other activities and want to offer the opportunity for their students to grown and expand across many areas, not just academics.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

Part of the reason sports are in schools is because it is the one place where many kids across the country, have the opportunity. You show your colors when making a comment like this because you are assuming every neighborhood and community has rich offerings outside of school and parents who are willing and able to take their kids to such acitivities and pay for it..