States could take over college admissions to preserve race-neutrality

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How do you begin to standardize GPAs?

My one kid goes to a DCPS high school where he is getting a 4.7 (4.0 unweighted) for pretty much breathing.
My other kid goes to NCS where she has done about 5 times the work of her brother for an unweighted 3.6 (and there is no weighting for honors or APs beyond this and limited APs even offered).

This is why the proposal is stupid. And you likewise cannot compare the SAT of a kid from Sidwell to a kid from DCPS who lives in poverty---you have to consider the advantages one kid has had all their life over the other and the lack of advantages and the life issues the one kid has had to overcome (most likelY).

DP. One problem, in my opinion, is college admission offices attempting to quantify these types of subjective determinations, i.e., assigning a number to things that are inherently not quantifiable. I don't have ideas for other ways to make admission decisions, though my suspicion is that these attempts at quantifying are more problematic than admission offices realize, in a GIGO sort of way.

Because schools are not looking for just a class of 1600/4.0/"perfect ECs and volunteering"---they are looking for the "IT" factor and for kids who are going to go out and change the world. The "go out and change the world" factor is a bit subjective because Harvard might be looking for something different than Stanford or Columbia, etc. Fact remains, the people complaining about all of this are still complaining about NOT getting admission to a school with single digit acceptance rates, where 95% of those who apply are "great candidates". Do the math----tons of highly qualified students will get rejected---it's part of the game of applying to highly rejective schools. Those kids will get into schools ranked slightly lower easily---plenty in the 25-50 range they will get into, sometime with excellent merit. So it's not Harvard or I'm attending my local CC (not that there is anything wrong with that path). People need to get over feeling entitled to attend elite universities.

It's about time universities started to look at grades and test scores more since it is a 'school' after all where learning various academic subjects take place and sports, money etc. should not be the primary purpose of these schools. The primary purpose of any colleges/universities should be about academics.

Schools want to create future leaders and most are very clear about it. The kid with perfect grades isn't better positioned than the athlete with good grades who was also student class president and editor of the year book

+1000

Look around you. Spouse and I attended T10 universities, and another T20 for grad school. Most of our careers we have been surrounded by smart hardworking co-workers who shockingly did not attend an elite school (Sarcasm for the impaired) One of the best coworker I had had only done 2 year AA/CC and then worked their way up in a large tech company in the 90s. Nobody would know they didn't have their 4 year degree, let alone an elite one.
Worked with very few people who attended elite universities, yet somehow we have always worked with excellent people. Because it does not really matter where you go to college. Spouse is an top exec and they are the only Elite graduate on the team---majority of the exec team attended universities ranked 100+ some even in the 200+. Yet somehow they all are executives and excelling in their careers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:States could require the use of standardized testing and codify admissions criteria, including requiring transparency and annual certifications from school officials.

For example, a state could publish an admission grid, wherein applicants are placed into “bands” based on the combination of their standardized scores and grade point averages. They could then allow for other factors to be given a set amount of weight to adjust the ranking in each band based on extracurricular or individual accomplishments. This could be limited to, for example, a 10 or 15 percent step-up from the baseline score in ranking.

Offers of admission would then be based on the ranking, made on a rolling basis downward to fill available seats.

https://thehill.com/opinion/4098712-nuclear-option-have-states-take-over-college-admissions-to-preserve-race-neutrality/

This sounds fair especially since some colleges talked about going around the ruling.

It’s not fair, it’s ridiculous. Schools are looking for different things. A theatre major at Yale needs something different than a physics major at MIT. Also, schools want people with broad interest and experiences for their campus culture (clubs, organizations, etc.). College is not all about test taking.

Also, I don’t understand how the state would get to pick who a private college makes an offer to.

[Anonymous]

How does that work since college admissions cross state lines?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How do you begin to standardize GPAs?

My one kid goes to a DCPS high school where he is getting a 4.7 (4.0 unweighted) for pretty much breathing.
My other kid goes to NCS where she has done about 5 times the work of her brother for an unweighted 3.6 (and there is no weighting for honors or APs beyond this and limited APs even offered).

This is why the proposal is stupid. And you likewise cannot compare the SAT of a kid from Sidwell to a kid from DCPS who lives in poverty---you have to consider the advantages one kid has had all their life over the other and the lack of advantages and the life issues the one kid has had to overcome (most likelY).

DP. One problem, in my opinion, is college admission offices attempting to quantify these types of subjective determinations, i.e., assigning a number to things that are inherently not quantifiable. I don't have ideas for other ways to make admission decisions, though my suspicion is that these attempts at quantifying are more problematic than admission offices realize, in a GIGO sort of way.

Because schools are not looking for just a class of 1600/4.0/"perfect ECs and volunteering"---they are looking for the "IT" factor and for kids who are going to go out and change the world. The "go out and change the world" factor is a bit subjective because Harvard might be looking for something different than Stanford or Columbia, etc. Fact remains, the people complaining about all of this are still complaining about NOT getting admission to a school with single digit acceptance rates, where 95% of those who apply are "great candidates". Do the math----tons of highly qualified students will get rejected---it's part of the game of applying to highly rejective schools. Those kids will get into schools ranked slightly lower easily---plenty in the 25-50 range they will get into, sometime with excellent merit. So it's not Harvard or I'm attending my local CC (not that there is anything wrong with that path). People need to get over feeling entitled to attend elite universities.

It's about time universities started to look at grades and test scores more since it is a 'school' after all where learning various academic subjects take place and sports, money etc. should not be the primary purpose of these schools. The primary purpose of any colleges/universities should be about academics.

That is like saying Michelin starred restaurants should be entirely focused on my health and not their cash flow / ability to stay in business.

Bad analogy, but let's play along. If Michelin star restaurants did focus on health over other things, your fat ass may stop visiting them but there will be enough health conscious people that will gladly replace you. Same deal with top schools. There are enough people with money to fill in all the seats that you may shun because the school doesn't have a tuba team or underwater basket weaving or is not diverse enough.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How do you begin to standardize GPAs?

My one kid goes to a DCPS high school where he is getting a 4.7 (4.0 unweighted) for pretty much breathing.
My other kid goes to NCS where she has done about 5 times the work of her brother for an unweighted 3.6 (and there is no weighting for honors or APs beyond this and limited APs even offered).

This is why the proposal is stupid. And you likewise cannot compare the SAT of a kid from Sidwell to a kid from DCPS who lives in poverty---you have to consider the advantages one kid has had all their life over the other and the lack of advantages and the life issues the one kid has had to overcome (most likelY).

DP. One problem, in my opinion, is college admission offices attempting to quantify these types of subjective determinations, i.e., assigning a number to things that are inherently not quantifiable. I don't have ideas for other ways to make admission decisions, though my suspicion is that these attempts at quantifying are more problematic than admission offices realize, in a GIGO sort of way.

Because schools are not looking for just a class of 1600/4.0/"perfect ECs and volunteering"---they are looking for the "IT" factor and for kids who are going to go out and change the world. The "go out and change the world" factor is a bit subjective because Harvard might be looking for something different than Stanford or Columbia, etc. Fact remains, the people complaining about all of this are still complaining about NOT getting admission to a school with single digit acceptance rates, where 95% of those who apply are "great candidates". Do the math----tons of highly qualified students will get rejected---it's part of the game of applying to highly rejective schools. Those kids will get into schools ranked slightly lower easily---plenty in the 25-50 range they will get into, sometime with excellent merit. So it's not Harvard or I'm attending my local CC (not that there is anything wrong with that path). People need to get over feeling entitled to attend elite universities.

It's about time universities started to look at grades and test scores more since it is a 'school' after all where learning various academic subjects take place and sports, money etc. should not be the primary purpose of these schools. The primary purpose of any colleges/universities should be about academics.

That is like saying Michelin starred restaurants should be entirely focused on my health and not their cash flow / ability to stay in business.

Bad analogy, but let's play along. If Michelin star restaurants did focus on health over other things, your fat ass may stop visiting them but there will be enough health conscious people that will gladly replace you. Same deal with top schools. There are enough people with money to fill in all the seats that you may shun because the school doesn't have a tuba team or underwater basket weaving or is not diverse enough.

Fun! But if you want to go there then let's be accurate: My wealthy fat ass might be sat elsewhere. You can eat rice cakes and broccoli at home if you like.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How do you begin to standardize GPAs?

My one kid goes to a DCPS high school where he is getting a 4.7 (4.0 unweighted) for pretty much breathing.
My other kid goes to NCS where she has done about 5 times the work of her brother for an unweighted 3.6 (and there is no weighting for honors or APs beyond this and limited APs even offered).

This is why the proposal is stupid. And you likewise cannot compare the SAT of a kid from Sidwell to a kid from DCPS who lives in poverty---you have to consider the advantages one kid has had all their life over the other and the lack of advantages and the life issues the one kid has had to overcome (most likelY).

DP. One problem, in my opinion, is college admission offices attempting to quantify these types of subjective determinations, i.e., assigning a number to things that are inherently not quantifiable. I don't have ideas for other ways to make admission decisions, though my suspicion is that these attempts at quantifying are more problematic than admission offices realize, in a GIGO sort of way.

Because schools are not looking for just a class of 1600/4.0/"perfect ECs and volunteering"---they are looking for the "IT" factor and for kids who are going to go out and change the world. The "go out and change the world" factor is a bit subjective because Harvard might be looking for something different than Stanford or Columbia, etc. Fact remains, the people complaining about all of this are still complaining about NOT getting admission to a school with single digit acceptance rates, where 95% of those who apply are "great candidates". Do the math----tons of highly qualified students will get rejected---it's part of the game of applying to highly rejective schools. Those kids will get into schools ranked slightly lower easily---plenty in the 25-50 range they will get into, sometime with excellent merit. So it's not Harvard or I'm attending my local CC (not that there is anything wrong with that path). People need to get over feeling entitled to attend elite universities.

It's about time universities started to look at grades and test scores more since it is a 'school' after all where learning various academic subjects take place and sports, money etc. should not be the primary purpose of these schools. The primary purpose of any colleges/universities should be about academics.

Well there is your flaw—in thinking someone with a 1600 is “more academic” than someone with a 1520 with more drive grit and determination. They want the total package. Some of the most successful people in life did not have 1600 4.0uw in HS

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Any female wanting this is stupid

Republican plans in states with super majority are going all in against women.

That means your daughters will not be admitted to college over a male. If you don’t think this is coming you have not read the court cases correctly.

Good luck ladies your daughters are on for a hell of a ride educationally and jobs you think moving forward companies won’t make it mandatory to hire a make over a female?

We have no protections … ERA was never passed civil rights going away.

Yep …, consequences of dumb Americans

Are you implying that girls are dumber and therefore don't stand a fair chance against boys? Quite the sexist, aren't you?

No, they are saying this plan essentially means the federal government gets to dictate who gets admitted where, so they can change the rules on a whim based on who is in office.

You mean like Fairfax County Public School system did when they changed the admission system for TJ to reduce the number of Asian student?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:States could require the use of standardized testing and codify admissions criteria, including requiring transparency and annual certifications from school officials.

For example, a state could publish an admission grid, wherein applicants are placed into “bands” based on the combination of their standardized scores and grade point averages. They could then allow for other factors to be given a set amount of weight to adjust the ranking in each band based on extracurricular or individual accomplishments. This could be limited to, for example, a 10 or 15 percent step-up from the baseline score in ranking.

Offers of admission would then be based on the ranking, made on a rolling basis downward to fill available seats.

https://thehill.com/opinion/4098712-nuclear-option-have-states-take-over-college-admissions-to-preserve-race-neutrality/

No.

GPA can be inflated. SAT can be gamed.

Plus, you might end up with a very un-diverse school community in terms of being able to field teams, or staff different clubs and activities.

There will absolutely be no problem fielding teams and clubs and maintaining diversity. You will have more 'diverse' sport teams and "diverse" clubs".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How do you begin to standardize GPAs?

My one kid goes to a DCPS high school where he is getting a 4.7 (4.0 unweighted) for pretty much breathing.
My other kid goes to NCS where she has done about 5 times the work of her brother for an unweighted 3.6 (and there is no weighting for honors or APs beyond this and limited APs even offered).

This is why the proposal is stupid. And you likewise cannot compare the SAT of a kid from Sidwell to a kid from DCPS who lives in poverty---you have to consider the advantages one kid has had all their life over the other and the lack of advantages and the life issues the one kid has had to overcome (most likelY).

DP. One problem, in my opinion, is college admission offices attempting to quantify these types of subjective determinations, i.e., assigning a number to things that are inherently not quantifiable. I don't have ideas for other ways to make admission decisions, though my suspicion is that these attempts at quantifying are more problematic than admission offices realize, in a GIGO sort of way.

Because schools are not looking for just a class of 1600/4.0/"perfect ECs and volunteering"---they are looking for the "IT" factor and for kids who are going to go out and change the world. The "go out and change the world" factor is a bit subjective because Harvard might be looking for something different than Stanford or Columbia, etc. Fact remains, the people complaining about all of this are still complaining about NOT getting admission to a school with single digit acceptance rates, where 95% of those who apply are "great candidates". Do the math----tons of highly qualified students will get rejected---it's part of the game of applying to highly rejective schools. Those kids will get into schools ranked slightly lower easily---plenty in the 25-50 range they will get into, sometime with excellent merit. So it's not Harvard or I'm attending my local CC (not that there is anything wrong with that path). People need to get over feeling entitled to attend elite universities.

It's about time universities started to look at grades and test scores more since it is a 'school' after all where learning various academic subjects take place and sports, money etc. should not be the primary purpose of these schools. The primary purpose of any colleges/universities should be about academics.

Schools want to create future leaders and most are very clear about it. The kid with perfect grades isn't better positioned than the athlete with good grades who was also student class president and editor of the year book

Good football players and kids with rich dads do not make 'future leaders' they make bad leaders if they even become leaders. Terrible idea that should be eliminated.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How do you begin to standardize GPAs?

My one kid goes to a DCPS high school where he is getting a 4.7 (4.0 unweighted) for pretty much breathing.
My other kid goes to NCS where she has done about 5 times the work of her brother for an unweighted 3.6 (and there is no weighting for honors or APs beyond this and limited APs even offered).

This is why the proposal is stupid. And you likewise cannot compare the SAT of a kid from Sidwell to a kid from DCPS who lives in poverty---you have to consider the advantages one kid has had all their life over the other and the lack of advantages and the life issues the one kid has had to overcome (most likelY).

DP. One problem, in my opinion, is college admission offices attempting to quantify these types of subjective determinations, i.e., assigning a number to things that are inherently not quantifiable. I don't have ideas for other ways to make admission decisions, though my suspicion is that these attempts at quantifying are more problematic than admission offices realize, in a GIGO sort of way.

Because schools are not looking for just a class of 1600/4.0/"perfect ECs and volunteering"---they are looking for the "IT" factor and for kids who are going to go out and change the world. The "go out and change the world" factor is a bit subjective because Harvard might be looking for something different than Stanford or Columbia, etc. Fact remains, the people complaining about all of this are still complaining about NOT getting admission to a school with single digit acceptance rates, where 95% of those who apply are "great candidates". Do the math----tons of highly qualified students will get rejected---it's part of the game of applying to highly rejective schools. Those kids will get into schools ranked slightly lower easily---plenty in the 25-50 range they will get into, sometime with excellent merit. So it's not Harvard or I'm attending my local CC (not that there is anything wrong with that path). People need to get over feeling entitled to attend elite universities.

It's about time universities started to look at grades and test scores more since it is a 'school' after all where learning various academic subjects take place and sports, money etc. should not be the primary purpose of these schools. The primary purpose of any colleges/universities should be about academics.

That is like saying Michelin starred restaurants should be entirely focused on my health and not their cash flow / ability to stay in business.

Colleges and universities are not some fancy restaurant. Restaurant's purpose is to make money and acquire great reputation/image so that they can make even more money - totally NOT the primary purpose of universities.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How do you begin to standardize GPAs?

My one kid goes to a DCPS high school where he is getting a 4.7 (4.0 unweighted) for pretty much breathing.
My other kid goes to NCS where she has done about 5 times the work of her brother for an unweighted 3.6 (and there is no weighting for honors or APs beyond this and limited APs even offered).

This is why the proposal is stupid. And you likewise cannot compare the SAT of a kid from Sidwell to a kid from DCPS who lives in poverty---you have to consider the advantages one kid has had all their life over the other and the lack of advantages and the life issues the one kid has had to overcome (most likelY).

DP. One problem, in my opinion, is college admission offices attempting to quantify these types of subjective determinations, i.e., assigning a number to things that are inherently not quantifiable. I don't have ideas for other ways to make admission decisions, though my suspicion is that these attempts at quantifying are more problematic than admission offices realize, in a GIGO sort of way.

Because schools are not looking for just a class of 1600/4.0/"perfect ECs and volunteering"---they are looking for the "IT" factor and for kids who are going to go out and change the world. The "go out and change the world" factor is a bit subjective because Harvard might be looking for something different than Stanford or Columbia, etc. Fact remains, the people complaining about all of this are still complaining about NOT getting admission to a school with single digit acceptance rates, where 95% of those who apply are "great candidates". Do the math----tons of highly qualified students will get rejected---it's part of the game of applying to highly rejective schools. Those kids will get into schools ranked slightly lower easily---plenty in the 25-50 range they will get into, sometime with excellent merit. So it's not Harvard or I'm attending my local CC (not that there is anything wrong with that path). People need to get over feeling entitled to attend elite universities.

It's about time universities started to look at grades and test scores more since it is a 'school' after all where learning various academic subjects take place and sports, money etc. should not be the primary purpose of these schools. The primary purpose of any colleges/universities should be about academics.

Schools want to create future leaders and most are very clear about it. The kid with perfect grades isn't better positioned than the athlete with good grades who was also student class president and editor of the year book

Good football players and kids with rich dads do not make 'future leaders' they make bad leaders if they even become leaders. Terrible idea that should be eliminated.

The stats disagree https://www.cnbc.com/2017/01/11/want-to-be-a-ceo-later-play-sports-now.html

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How do you begin to standardize GPAs?

My one kid goes to a DCPS high school where he is getting a 4.7 (4.0 unweighted) for pretty much breathing.
My other kid goes to NCS where she has done about 5 times the work of her brother for an unweighted 3.6 (and there is no weighting for honors or APs beyond this and limited APs even offered).

This is why the proposal is stupid. And you likewise cannot compare the SAT of a kid from Sidwell to a kid from DCPS who lives in poverty---you have to consider the advantages one kid has had all their life over the other and the lack of advantages and the life issues the one kid has had to overcome (most likelY).

DP. One problem, in my opinion, is college admission offices attempting to quantify these types of subjective determinations, i.e., assigning a number to things that are inherently not quantifiable. I don't have ideas for other ways to make admission decisions, though my suspicion is that these attempts at quantifying are more problematic than admission offices realize, in a GIGO sort of way.

Because schools are not looking for just a class of 1600/4.0/"perfect ECs and volunteering"---they are looking for the "IT" factor and for kids who are going to go out and change the world. The "go out and change the world" factor is a bit subjective because Harvard might be looking for something different than Stanford or Columbia, etc. Fact remains, the people complaining about all of this are still complaining about NOT getting admission to a school with single digit acceptance rates, where 95% of those who apply are "great candidates". Do the math----tons of highly qualified students will get rejected---it's part of the game of applying to highly rejective schools. Those kids will get into schools ranked slightly lower easily---plenty in the 25-50 range they will get into, sometime with excellent merit. So it's not Harvard or I'm attending my local CC (not that there is anything wrong with that path). People need to get over feeling entitled to attend elite universities.

It's about time universities started to look at grades and test scores more since it is a 'school' after all where learning various academic subjects take place and sports, money etc. should not be the primary purpose of these schools. The primary purpose of any colleges/universities should be about academics.

Well there is your flaw—in thinking someone with a 1600 is “more academic” than someone with a 1520 with more drive grit and determination. They want the total package. Some of the most successful people in life did not have 1600 4.0uw in HS

'Total package' means 'subjectivity & non-transparency' means pandering. Disgusting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How do you begin to standardize GPAs?

My one kid goes to a DCPS high school where he is getting a 4.7 (4.0 unweighted) for pretty much breathing.
My other kid goes to NCS where she has done about 5 times the work of her brother for an unweighted 3.6 (and there is no weighting for honors or APs beyond this and limited APs even offered).

This is why the proposal is stupid. And you likewise cannot compare the SAT of a kid from Sidwell to a kid from DCPS who lives in poverty---you have to consider the advantages one kid has had all their life over the other and the lack of advantages and the life issues the one kid has had to overcome (most likelY).

DP. One problem, in my opinion, is college admission offices attempting to quantify these types of subjective determinations, i.e., assigning a number to things that are inherently not quantifiable. I don't have ideas for other ways to make admission decisions, though my suspicion is that these attempts at quantifying are more problematic than admission offices realize, in a GIGO sort of way.

Because schools are not looking for just a class of 1600/4.0/"perfect ECs and volunteering"---they are looking for the "IT" factor and for kids who are going to go out and change the world. The "go out and change the world" factor is a bit subjective because Harvard might be looking for something different than Stanford or Columbia, etc. Fact remains, the people complaining about all of this are still complaining about NOT getting admission to a school with single digit acceptance rates, where 95% of those who apply are "great candidates". Do the math----tons of highly qualified students will get rejected---it's part of the game of applying to highly rejective schools. Those kids will get into schools ranked slightly lower easily---plenty in the 25-50 range they will get into, sometime with excellent merit. So it's not Harvard or I'm attending my local CC (not that there is anything wrong with that path). People need to get over feeling entitled to attend elite universities.

It's about time universities started to look at grades and test scores more since it is a 'school' after all where learning various academic subjects take place and sports, money etc. should not be the primary purpose of these schools. The primary purpose of any colleges/universities should be about academics.

Well there is your flaw—in thinking someone with a 1600 is “more academic” than someone with a 1520 with more drive grit and determination. They want the total package. Some of the most successful people in life did not have 1600 4.0uw in HS

No one is preventing the kid w/ 1520 and grit from attending colleges and universities. I do not see any problem whatsoever.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How do you begin to standardize GPAs?

My one kid goes to a DCPS high school where he is getting a 4.7 (4.0 unweighted) for pretty much breathing.
My other kid goes to NCS where she has done about 5 times the work of her brother for an unweighted 3.6 (and there is no weighting for honors or APs beyond this and limited APs even offered).

This is why the proposal is stupid. And you likewise cannot compare the SAT of a kid from Sidwell to a kid from DCPS who lives in poverty---you have to consider the advantages one kid has had all their life over the other and the lack of advantages and the life issues the one kid has had to overcome (most likelY).

DP. One problem, in my opinion, is college admission offices attempting to quantify these types of subjective determinations, i.e., assigning a number to things that are inherently not quantifiable. I don't have ideas for other ways to make admission decisions, though my suspicion is that these attempts at quantifying are more problematic than admission offices realize, in a GIGO sort of way.

Because schools are not looking for just a class of 1600/4.0/"perfect ECs and volunteering"---they are looking for the "IT" factor and for kids who are going to go out and change the world. The "go out and change the world" factor is a bit subjective because Harvard might be looking for something different than Stanford or Columbia, etc. Fact remains, the people complaining about all of this are still complaining about NOT getting admission to a school with single digit acceptance rates, where 95% of those who apply are "great candidates". Do the math----tons of highly qualified students will get rejected---it's part of the game of applying to highly rejective schools. Those kids will get into schools ranked slightly lower easily---plenty in the 25-50 range they will get into, sometime with excellent merit. So it's not Harvard or I'm attending my local CC (not that there is anything wrong with that path). People need to get over feeling entitled to attend elite universities.

It's about time universities started to look at grades and test scores more since it is a 'school' after all where learning various academic subjects take place and sports, money etc. should not be the primary purpose of these schools. The primary purpose of any colleges/universities should be about academics.

That is like saying Michelin starred restaurants should be entirely focused on my health and not their cash flow / ability to stay in business.

Colleges and universities are not some fancy restaurant. Restaurant's purpose is to make money and acquire great reputation/image so that they can make even more money - totally NOT the primary purpose of universities.

Restaurants sell the sizzle. Universities do the same.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How do you begin to standardize GPAs?

My one kid goes to a DCPS high school where he is getting a 4.7 (4.0 unweighted) for pretty much breathing.
My other kid goes to NCS where she has done about 5 times the work of her brother for an unweighted 3.6 (and there is no weighting for honors or APs beyond this and limited APs even offered).

This is why the proposal is stupid. And you likewise cannot compare the SAT of a kid from Sidwell to a kid from DCPS who lives in poverty---you have to consider the advantages one kid has had all their life over the other and the lack of advantages and the life issues the one kid has had to overcome (most likelY).

DP. One problem, in my opinion, is college admission offices attempting to quantify these types of subjective determinations, i.e., assigning a number to things that are inherently not quantifiable. I don't have ideas for other ways to make admission decisions, though my suspicion is that these attempts at quantifying are more problematic than admission offices realize, in a GIGO sort of way.

Because schools are not looking for just a class of 1600/4.0/"perfect ECs and volunteering"---they are looking for the "IT" factor and for kids who are going to go out and change the world. The "go out and change the world" factor is a bit subjective because Harvard might be looking for something different than Stanford or Columbia, etc. Fact remains, the people complaining about all of this are still complaining about NOT getting admission to a school with single digit acceptance rates, where 95% of those who apply are "great candidates". Do the math----tons of highly qualified students will get rejected---it's part of the game of applying to highly rejective schools. Those kids will get into schools ranked slightly lower easily---plenty in the 25-50 range they will get into, sometime with excellent merit. So it's not Harvard or I'm attending my local CC (not that there is anything wrong with that path). People need to get over feeling entitled to attend elite universities.

It's about time universities started to look at grades and test scores more since it is a 'school' after all where learning various academic subjects take place and sports, money etc. should not be the primary purpose of these schools. The primary purpose of any colleges/universities should be about academics.

That is like saying Michelin starred restaurants should be entirely focused on my health and not their cash flow / ability to stay in business.

Colleges and universities are not some fancy restaurant. Restaurant's purpose is to make money and acquire great reputation/image so that they can make even more money - totally NOT the primary purpose of universities.

Restaurants sell the sizzle. Universities do the same.

Just because some schools do it does not make it the wright thing or the correct thing. In fact, it is totally the wrong thing for schools both public and private ones.