small fixes to make this process more sane.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are no AOs.

Every school publishes a minimum GPA and test score. Everyone who qualifies is put into a pool and a blind lottery is held to select the freshman class.

So no more concern about intended majors, specific skills, or building a class to fit their mission... just WHAM! Here you go Harvard, 1,200 CS students, 600 economists and no artists, dancers, right fielders or kids to write for the Lampoon!

So crazy. Worst idea ever.

So out of a pool of 50 or 60 thousand people (100k if you are NYU or UCLA or Michigan) you think a random sample of 5% to 20% of them won’t yield any diversity of race, gender, income, interests and skills?

More like “I don’t want to play any game that’s not rigged in my favor”

Harvard doesn’t recruit for the Lampoon, they have no idea who is funny up front. It’s tryout based. Anyone can show up and pitch to be in the club.

No it probably won't. They could easily end up with an entire class of CS/engineering if they pick the highest GPA/test scores. And we already know those from a higher income background tend to have higher test scores and gpas overall simply from all the support they have to ensure this happens. I am glad Harvard gives the 3.8/3.9 kid from inner city Chicago who has more daily struggles than most a chance, because that kid might just be smarter than all the 4.0/perfect resumes from years of tutoring and curating.

Yes, let's undercut applicants who HAVE demonstrated merit for those who MIGHT demonstrate merit later. I don't disagree that the strategy you describe may lead to some positive outcomes (both for the latter kid, and the student population overall), but let's not pretend that it's fair or sensible (or defensible to the kid who DID demonstrate merit). It's just another form of social engineering.

Says a person of privilege.

First, the difference between a 4.0 and a 3.8 is not really that much. Just like the difference between 1500 and 1600 is minimal. So you need to get over the notion that your kid with a 4.0 is somehow better/smarter/more successful than a kid with a 3.9 or a 3.8. We are not comparing them to a 3.0 student.

Secondly, yes that kid who had to struggle to achieve everything they've gotten is someone most people would happily put on their team. Hence why most colleges want to include those bright shining stars in their class. What you seem not to get is it's the Whole picture, so that person tells a story of drive, determination, overcoming hardships, and succeeding in life. They did demonstrate merit. You are just upset elite colleges don't want to fill their classes with all 1600/4.0/15+ AP students. You cannot understand why they'd want some kids with a 1500 and 3.85 and all the APs their school offered (which might be 3 or 4)

Your kid will do fine wherever they go. And your kid is not entitled to a T25 education, no matter what you think

You're on the mark w/r/t my kid and the lack of entitlement to a T25 education. He doesn't deserve anything more than he's worked for, subject to the same randomness and chance that anyone else might face.

However, you're dead wrong re: the supposed bright shining stars you imagine are out there just waiting to be discovered.

Have you ever interviewed undergraduates from T25 schools? I do this - weekly. I see graduates of the UC system all the time, including grad. school applicants. I'm dumbstruck at how poorly they communicate, how meandering their critical thinking skills are, and so much more about their capacity to contribute. It's fine that you need to believe that all THEY needed was the same resources that were festooned all over the "privileged kids", but your disregard re: the biological influences on intelligence is absurd.

They got a 740 verbal score and an A in AP English long before they got to that T25 school, they wouldn’t even be considered without them.

🤔

Anyway, biotruths on intelligence belong on Stormfront or at your Klan meeting, not here.

First of all, your parting shot isn't appreciated. It's also an attempt to silence someone with whom you disagree. Please don't pass that off to your child/ren as an acceptable method of dispute resolution.

Circling back to the matter at hand, there are biological difference that painfully exist that have nothing to do with race, ethnicity, or the like. Perhaps that's not convenient for you, but it's reality nonetheless.

I'll refrain from a parting shot at the measurables you felt like sharing ...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Just know that the prestige and the quality of graduating class from top schools has been degraded immeasurably over the past 5 - 10 years.

That's a GIGANTIC claim you are going to have to provide evidence for.

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/work-trends-findings-college-graduates-carl-van-horn#:~:text=Fifty%2Dsix%20percent%20(56%25),say%20there%20is%20no%20difference.

#lightwork

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes. I like those rules, OP! I’ll add:

For application, these 2 questions:
-did you use ChatGPT for your application?
-did you hire an independent college counselor?
-did you SAT/ACT test prep services
-remove letter of recommendations

Plus:
-remove activities from 10 to 6 in CommonApp
-increase auditing of Applications due to rampant lying & cheating

I'd like to see some of this. Colleges will audit parents financial statements, but not this.

What I would propose to colleges: once you'd made your final admit list, audit 10-15% of them. Dartmouth admitted 578 kids. This wouldn't be hard. Audit 100 of them. Dartmouth has a staff that's over 10 people, so what I'm proposing is to spend 1-2 days on this. An hour per app. Just google. Maybe make a couple calls. And if you're finding a lot of information like (example from Who Gets in and Why): "Oh, that young woman we were impressed by who was a certified elephant whisperer [I forget the lingo], that was just something she got on a 6k tour of Thailand. [I know because I recently got an email promoting that teen tour]. Are we still impressed?"

And if what you find is you are throwing half these applications back into the WL pile, you need to rethink your process. At this point, I'd email the counselor that there was one application from their school that was initially passed and then failed upon review. Build the reputation of checking this stuff.

If you want to be bad ass - and I do - I would admit the 578 pending authorization of data and THEN email 10-15% that their app has been chosen at random for verification. And then rescind when appropriate. I think after a year or two you'd get much more honest data from the students.

I dont see this as such a big problem for big state schools, but .. maybe verify 2% after admissions to keep things honest.

The High School verifies the grades and graduation status.

The College Board verifies the SAT score.

The College Board verifies the AP scores.

The reference letters verify at least some of the claimed activities.

Things like Eagle Scout are verified by issuing organizations.

You mean like someone whole cloth creates a team sport and photoshops the students picture onto a water polo player?

Yeah the schools caught that and people went to prison.

How does the audit work anyway because the number the student provides for the reference is for Vandelay Industries, their friend answers the phone.

“Just audit 100 people” is definitely a statement from someone who has never run an audit or regulatory validation process.

I totally disagree with everything you are saying, but I adore the fact that you think Varsity Blues solved this problem. Like - clap, clap - solved! High five!

Also I work in HR and we vet apps all the time. If I had a team of 10 I could vet 100 apps in a day.

Yes vetting a 17 year old (many of whom don’t even have Photo ID or any employment record whatsoever) is simple.

Just call up their friends and family members, none of whom have incentive to lie.

Can I see your Credit Report? Don’t have one. I can’t legally sign contracts.

Can I talk to your former Boss? Don’t have one.

Can I talk to someone who knows you well? Sure here’s my Mom.

Someone who knows you well not in your family? Sure here’s my girlfriend.

Can I talk to your coach? Sure! (Puts 23 year old cousin on phone)

Can I talk to your landlord? Sure here’s my Mom again.

Remind me what databases you are finding these CHILDREN in to validate their data.

Half the time it’s not even legal to collect any data on them because again they are minors.

Can I talk to someone who supervised your charity trip? Yeah; he’s in Pakistan though and only speaks Urdu.

You are coming up with pretty extreme examples.

You list a HS varsity sport, AO goes to the school website, finds the coach and calls. That’s easy.

You list school extracurricular activities, again you go the school website and see if they list the teacher / advisor…or you call the main office and ask for the faculty advisor.

You say you volunteered at this charity…again simple google search for a contact. Most kids won’t claim a Pakistani charity.

If colleges decided to do this, they would put an efficient process in place.

Also, I have a DC who is nationally ranked in a couple of things (think areas like chess and debate) and it’s dead easy to find them online. My other DC has won a lot of performing arts competitions and every one can be found online, including the first place notation. Volunteer work and anything they really do is pretty easy to find online. It’s the ECs you’d want to confirm, anyway, since you can’t fake grades and test scores.

Well I googled it and there it is on the web page, investigation is done!!!!

I mean nobody can fake a web page.

You can't easily fake a web page from national organizations. These have results for all students across the country, and in some cases are adult leagues where students can also compete. My point was lots of credentials are easily certified with a google search and I don't think kids are hacking into sites to add their own names. Do you?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Superscoring AND repeat administrations ("score hunting"?) of the SAT or ACT should be struck down as permissible unless colleges and universities are also prepared to allow applicants to ameliorate any grade on their transcript that they wish to improve upon. Grade inflation is already a Pandora's box, why not align it with this superscoring and repeat testing monster that so many succumb to?

“Kids should not be allowed to retake tests to prove they have now mastered the material” gives the real game away.

Actual learning is a scam, got it. What’s important is never ever making any mistake and if you do you can never correct it.

Most selective colleges won’t give a grade worse than a B. The grade inflation is awful. My spouse teaches as an adjunct once a year and the grading instructions were shocking.
Majority A or A-,
then a large # of B+.
A few Bs and 1-2 B-.
Very rare C.
For a class of 30 kids.
T10 private

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes. I like those rules, OP! I’ll add:

For application, these 2 questions:
-did you use ChatGPT for your application?
-did you hire an independent college counselor?
-did you SAT/ACT test prep services
-remove letter of recommendations

Plus:
-remove activities from 10 to 6 in CommonApp
-increase auditing of Applications due to rampant lying & cheating

I'd like to see some of this. Colleges will audit parents financial statements, but not this.

What I would propose to colleges: once you'd made your final admit list, audit 10-15% of them. Dartmouth admitted 578 kids. This wouldn't be hard. Audit 100 of them. Dartmouth has a staff that's over 10 people, so what I'm proposing is to spend 1-2 days on this. An hour per app. Just google. Maybe make a couple calls. And if you're finding a lot of information like (example from Who Gets in and Why): "Oh, that young woman we were impressed by who was a certified elephant whisperer [I forget the lingo], that was just something she got on a 6k tour of Thailand. [I know because I recently got an email promoting that teen tour]. Are we still impressed?"

And if what you find is you are throwing half these applications back into the WL pile, you need to rethink your process. At this point, I'd email the counselor that there was one application from their school that was initially passed and then failed upon review. Build the reputation of checking this stuff.

If you want to be bad ass - and I do - I would admit the 578 pending authorization of data and THEN email 10-15% that their app has been chosen at random for verification. And then rescind when appropriate. I think after a year or two you'd get much more honest data from the students.

I dont see this as such a big problem for big state schools, but .. maybe verify 2% after admissions to keep things honest.

The High School verifies the grades and graduation status.

The College Board verifies the SAT score.

The College Board verifies the AP scores.

The reference letters verify at least some of the claimed activities.

Things like Eagle Scout are verified by issuing organizations.

You mean like someone whole cloth creates a team sport and photoshops the students picture onto a water polo player?

Yeah the schools caught that and people went to prison.

How does the audit work anyway because the number the student provides for the reference is for Vandelay Industries, their friend answers the phone.

“Just audit 100 people” is definitely a statement from someone who has never run an audit or regulatory validation process.

I totally disagree with everything you are saying, but I adore the fact that you think Varsity Blues solved this problem. Like - clap, clap - solved! High five!

Also I work in HR and we vet apps all the time. If I had a team of 10 I could vet 100 apps in a day.

Yes vetting a 17 year old (many of whom don’t even have Photo ID or any employment record whatsoever) is simple.

Just call up their friends and family members, none of whom have incentive to lie.

Can I see your Credit Report? Don’t have one. I can’t legally sign contracts.

Can I talk to your former Boss? Don’t have one.

Can I talk to someone who knows you well? Sure here’s my Mom.

Someone who knows you well not in your family? Sure here’s my girlfriend.

Can I talk to your coach? Sure! (Puts 23 year old cousin on phone)

Can I talk to your landlord? Sure here’s my Mom again.

Remind me what databases you are finding these CHILDREN in to validate their data.

Half the time it’s not even legal to collect any data on them because again they are minors.

Can I talk to someone who supervised your charity trip? Yeah; he’s in Pakistan though and only speaks Urdu.

They can call my sons 2 listed employers though.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Superscoring AND repeat administrations ("score hunting"?) of the SAT or ACT should be struck down as permissible unless colleges and universities are also prepared to allow applicants to ameliorate any grade on their transcript that they wish to improve upon. Grade inflation is already a Pandora's box, why not align it with this superscoring and repeat testing monster that so many succumb to?

“Kids should not be allowed to retake tests to prove they have now mastered the material” gives the real game away.

Actual learning is a scam, got it. What’s important is never ever making any mistake and if you do you can never correct it.

Yeah, let's not let the civil engineer realize they made a miscalculation and change it before that bridge is built.

Yes civil engineers build it all by themselves and nobody double checks their work first, they draw up the plan on the first draft without any validation and then the trucks arrive the next day to start construction.

Like a small child’s conception on how complex jobs work.

That was sarcasm. I understand how the engineering process works.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Just know that the prestige and the quality of graduating class from top schools has been degraded immeasurably over the past 5 - 10 years.

That's a GIGANTIC claim you are going to have to provide evidence for.

Yes---as well as how they actually know that the UCs are generating lower level students and those bad students are the ones who had lower scores and GPAs in HS.
I think it's a troll just talking out their ass. Or someone from CA who is annoyed their kid had to settle for a Cal State school (and not SLO).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Guys, please... if you can tell kids whose resume entries are faked, you don't think the people who do this for a living can?

They can.

Stop worrying about that. It's not a thing.

I really don't believe this is true. 15 years ago, AOs loved those kids going to Kenya working in orphanages before they decided, wait a minute here ...

And now they LOVE the podcasts or YouTube channels or foundations. Those "passion projects" you don't know about because a student really only spend 4 days over the summer building that passion. It's kinda impossible to go through for a year or two not to see this play out.

I don't think it will last forever, but it's a thing now. The example about elephant helper given in the Jeff Selling book is real. And if you read that book at the same time they rejected a lower income applicant who had working 20+ hours a week as an activity, an amount of time the AdCom thought was not "realistic". Which is so crazy to me. Lots of kids do that. Both these examples would have been easy to dig into if a reader had 15 extra minutes.

But neither of those kids were faking.

"she caught the admissions directors’ attention when they learned she was a certified mahout, a trained caretaker for elephants in Thailand."

https://nypost.com/2020/09/12/colleges-reveal-the-secret-formula-for-deciding-who-gets-in/

I am not saying the adcom made the right choice between the two - that's the prerogative of the college. We are speaking of lies for applications, and none of your post illustrates any of that.

It's not a thing. Certainly not in any consequential volume.

I didn't say she was faking. I'm just saying I recently got an email from a teen tour company celebrating their 20th year taking kids to Thailand - where kids will get to become a certified mahout after a morning with the elephants. I was like .. where have I read this before? It happened and .. it's not impressive imo. It's just a different version of digging wells in Africa kinda thing

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Just know that the prestige and the quality of graduating class from top schools has been degraded immeasurably over the past 5 - 10 years.

That's a GIGANTIC claim you are going to have to provide evidence for.

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/work-trends-findings-college-graduates-carl-van-horn#:~:text=Fifty%2Dsix%20percent%20(56%25),say%20there%20is%20no%20difference.

#lightwork

That article has nothing to do with students at "top schools", so it does not prove your point at all.

However, to the article,
Yes, many feel college grads are less prepared than before---because we are raising kids where Mommy & daddy do everything for them. I don't recall in the80s/90s when I was in college ever hearing about a parent calling a college professor to complain about Lara or Ethan---no parent would ever think about that back then. Because in HS no parent went in to fight their kid's battles either. However even back then, at top schools (attended a T10 school), there were kids who literally had no clue how to do a load of laundry. They'd load a top loader so full you couldn't shove another item into it and then wonder why it broke or their clothes were not clean. And these were supposedly some smart kids, who had no common sense in basic life skills. I have to imagine the situation is much worse nowadays (and both my college kids confirmed it was their freshman years---meanwhile my kids had learned those basic life skills back at age 10/12

Now we have parents who are so used to helicoptering and interfering without allowing their kid to develop conflict resolution skills in MS/HS that they go off to college and cannot function. Yes, it happens at elite schools and it happens to "top students" academically.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Superscoring AND repeat administrations ("score hunting"?) of the SAT or ACT should be struck down as permissible unless colleges and universities are also prepared to allow applicants to ameliorate any grade on their transcript that they wish to improve upon. Grade inflation is already a Pandora's box, why not align it with this superscoring and repeat testing monster that so many succumb to?

“Kids should not be allowed to retake tests to prove they have now mastered the material” gives the real game away.

Actual learning is a scam, got it. What’s important is never ever making any mistake and if you do you can never correct it.

Most selective colleges won’t give a grade worse than a B. The grade inflation is awful. My spouse teaches as an adjunct once a year and the grading instructions were shocking.
Majority A or A-,
then a large # of B+.
A few Bs and 1-2 B-.
Very rare C.
For a class of 30 kids.
T10 private

Not all elite colleges. My alma mater/T10 school is not that way. Plenty of parents posting on the Parent FB pages about their kids struggling in the freshman chem sequence and Orgo soph year, and the freshman engineering sequence is quite brutal as well--these are some of the brightest kids working their asses off and struggling to get a C/C+. So perhaps a general LA education is easy to get A's and a few Bs, but for rigorous stem degrees it is brutal and their is no grad inflation

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes. I like those rules, OP! I’ll add:

For application, these 2 questions:
-did you use ChatGPT for your application?
-did you hire an independent college counselor?
-did you SAT/ACT test prep services
-remove letter of recommendations

Plus:
-remove activities from 10 to 6 in CommonApp
-increase auditing of Applications due to rampant lying & cheating

I'd like to see some of this. Colleges will audit parents financial statements, but not this.

What I would propose to colleges: once you'd made your final admit list, audit 10-15% of them. Dartmouth admitted 578 kids. This wouldn't be hard. Audit 100 of them. Dartmouth has a staff that's over 10 people, so what I'm proposing is to spend 1-2 days on this. An hour per app. Just google. Maybe make a couple calls. And if you're finding a lot of information like (example from Who Gets in and Why): "Oh, that young woman we were impressed by who was a certified elephant whisperer [I forget the lingo], that was just something she got on a 6k tour of Thailand. [I know because I recently got an email promoting that teen tour]. Are we still impressed?"

And if what you find is you are throwing half these applications back into the WL pile, you need to rethink your process. At this point, I'd email the counselor that there was one application from their school that was initially passed and then failed upon review. Build the reputation of checking this stuff.

If you want to be bad ass - and I do - I would admit the 578 pending authorization of data and THEN email 10-15% that their app has been chosen at random for verification. And then rescind when appropriate. I think after a year or two you'd get much more honest data from the students.

I dont see this as such a big problem for big state schools, but .. maybe verify 2% after admissions to keep things honest.

The High School verifies the grades and graduation status.

The College Board verifies the SAT score.

The College Board verifies the AP scores.

The reference letters verify at least some of the claimed activities.

Things like Eagle Scout are verified by issuing organizations.

You mean like someone whole cloth creates a team sport and photoshops the students picture onto a water polo player?

Yeah the schools caught that and people went to prison.

How does the audit work anyway because the number the student provides for the reference is for Vandelay Industries, their friend answers the phone.

“Just audit 100 people” is definitely a statement from someone who has never run an audit or regulatory validation process.

I totally disagree with everything you are saying, but I adore the fact that you think Varsity Blues solved this problem. Like - clap, clap - solved! High five!

Also I work in HR and we vet apps all the time. If I had a team of 10 I could vet 100 apps in a day.

Yes vetting a 17 year old (many of whom don’t even have Photo ID or any employment record whatsoever) is simple.

Just call up their friends and family members, none of whom have incentive to lie.

Can I see your Credit Report? Don’t have one. I can’t legally sign contracts.

Can I talk to your former Boss? Don’t have one.

Can I talk to someone who knows you well? Sure here’s my Mom.

Someone who knows you well not in your family? Sure here’s my girlfriend.

Can I talk to your coach? Sure! (Puts 23 year old cousin on phone)

Can I talk to your landlord? Sure here’s my Mom again.

Remind me what databases you are finding these CHILDREN in to validate their data.

Half the time it’s not even legal to collect any data on them because again they are minors.

Can I talk to someone who supervised your charity trip? Yeah; he’s in Pakistan though and only speaks Urdu.

You are coming up with pretty extreme examples.

You list a HS varsity sport, AO goes to the school website, finds the coach and calls. That’s easy.

You list school extracurricular activities, again you go the school website and see if they list the teacher / advisor…or you call the main office and ask for the faculty advisor.

You say you volunteered at this charity…again simple google search for a contact. Most kids won’t claim a Pakistani charity.

If colleges decided to do this, they would put an efficient process in place.

Also, I have a DC who is nationally ranked in a couple of things (think areas like chess and debate) and it’s dead easy to find them online. My other DC has won a lot of performing arts competitions and every one can be found online, including the first place notation. Volunteer work and anything they really do is pretty easy to find online. It’s the ECs you’d want to confirm, anyway, since you can’t fake grades and test scores.

Well I googled it and there it is on the web page, investigation is done!!!!

I mean nobody can fake a web page.

You can't easily fake a web page from national organizations. These have results for all students across the country, and in some cases are adult leagues where students can also compete. My point was lots of credentials are easily certified with a google search and I don't think kids are hacking into sites to add their own names. Do you?

People are fooled everyday by phishing texts and emails where they log in to a completely fake site using their real credentials, setting up a fake site that looks real is trivial. Hey click here and go to the site, sincerely The Student or even better a spoofed email from a counselor.

Now multiply 100 kids per school for say 200 schools and AOs at each need to look through every single site for dozens of activities and verify it’s the real deal and search for the relevant info etc etc

There’s a reason actual background searches don’t stop at “yeah I googled it.”

Anyways the issue with Varsity Blues was that the coaches were in on the scam because they were being bribed.

The AO would normally say “hey I admitted Jimmy, is he actually going to be playing on the team there Coach?”

In this case the coach says “yeah sure he’s the best” when normally the coach says “who????” and admission is rescinded.

Absolutely nobody is going to be fooled by this again.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes. I like those rules, OP! I’ll add:

For application, these 2 questions:
-did you use ChatGPT for your application?
-did you hire an independent college counselor?
-did you SAT/ACT test prep services
-remove letter of recommendations

Plus:
-remove activities from 10 to 6 in CommonApp
-increase auditing of Applications due to rampant lying & cheating

I'd like to see some of this. Colleges will audit parents financial statements, but not this.

What I would propose to colleges: once you'd made your final admit list, audit 10-15% of them. Dartmouth admitted 578 kids. This wouldn't be hard. Audit 100 of them. Dartmouth has a staff that's over 10 people, so what I'm proposing is to spend 1-2 days on this. An hour per app. Just google. Maybe make a couple calls. And if you're finding a lot of information like (example from Who Gets in and Why): "Oh, that young woman we were impressed by who was a certified elephant whisperer [I forget the lingo], that was just something she got on a 6k tour of Thailand. [I know because I recently got an email promoting that teen tour]. Are we still impressed?"

And if what you find is you are throwing half these applications back into the WL pile, you need to rethink your process. At this point, I'd email the counselor that there was one application from their school that was initially passed and then failed upon review. Build the reputation of checking this stuff.

If you want to be bad ass - and I do - I would admit the 578 pending authorization of data and THEN email 10-15% that their app has been chosen at random for verification. And then rescind when appropriate. I think after a year or two you'd get much more honest data from the students.

I dont see this as such a big problem for big state schools, but .. maybe verify 2% after admissions to keep things honest.

The High School verifies the grades and graduation status.

The College Board verifies the SAT score.

The College Board verifies the AP scores.

The reference letters verify at least some of the claimed activities.

Things like Eagle Scout are verified by issuing organizations.

You mean like someone whole cloth creates a team sport and photoshops the students picture onto a water polo player?

Yeah the schools caught that and people went to prison.

How does the audit work anyway because the number the student provides for the reference is for Vandelay Industries, their friend answers the phone.

“Just audit 100 people” is definitely a statement from someone who has never run an audit or regulatory validation process.

I totally disagree with everything you are saying, but I adore the fact that you think Varsity Blues solved this problem. Like - clap, clap - solved! High five!

Also I work in HR and we vet apps all the time. If I had a team of 10 I could vet 100 apps in a day.

Yes vetting a 17 year old (many of whom don’t even have Photo ID or any employment record whatsoever) is simple.

Just call up their friends and family members, none of whom have incentive to lie.

Can I see your Credit Report? Don’t have one. I can’t legally sign contracts.

Can I talk to your former Boss? Don’t have one.

Can I talk to someone who knows you well? Sure here’s my Mom.

Someone who knows you well not in your family? Sure here’s my girlfriend.

Can I talk to your coach? Sure! (Puts 23 year old cousin on phone)

Can I talk to your landlord? Sure here’s my Mom again.

Remind me what databases you are finding these CHILDREN in to validate their data.

Half the time it’s not even legal to collect any data on them because again they are minors.

Can I talk to someone who supervised your charity trip? Yeah; he’s in Pakistan though and only speaks Urdu.

They can call my sons 2 listed employers though.

Using the names, locations, and numbers your son provided right?

Hi, I’m the wallet inspector please present your wallet for review.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are no AOs.

Every school publishes a minimum GPA and test score. Everyone who qualifies is put into a pool and a blind lottery is held to select the freshman class.

So no more concern about intended majors, specific skills, or building a class to fit their mission... just WHAM! Here you go Harvard, 1,200 CS students, 600 economists and no artists, dancers, right fielders or kids to write for the Lampoon!

So crazy. Worst idea ever.

So out of a pool of 50 or 60 thousand people (100k if you are NYU or UCLA or Michigan) you think a random sample of 5% to 20% of them won’t yield any diversity of race, gender, income, interests and skills?

More like “I don’t want to play any game that’s not rigged in my favor”

Harvard doesn’t recruit for the Lampoon, they have no idea who is funny up front. It’s tryout based. Anyone can show up and pitch to be in the club.

No it probably won't. They could easily end up with an entire class of CS/engineering if they pick the highest GPA/test scores. And we already know those from a higher income background tend to have higher test scores and gpas overall simply from all the support they have to ensure this happens. I am glad Harvard gives the 3.8/3.9 kid from inner city Chicago who has more daily struggles than most a chance, because that kid might just be smarter than all the 4.0/perfect resumes from years of tutoring and curating.

Yes, let's undercut applicants who HAVE demonstrated merit for those who MIGHT demonstrate merit later. I don't disagree that the strategy you describe may lead to some positive outcomes (both for the latter kid, and the student population overall), but let's not pretend that it's fair or sensible (or defensible to the kid who DID demonstrate merit). It's just another form of social engineering.

Says a person of privilege.

First, the difference between a 4.0 and a 3.8 is not really that much. Just like the difference between 1500 and 1600 is minimal. So you need to get over the notion that your kid with a 4.0 is somehow better/smarter/more successful than a kid with a 3.9 or a 3.8. We are not comparing them to a 3.0 student.

Secondly, yes that kid who had to struggle to achieve everything they've gotten is someone most people would happily put on their team. Hence why most colleges want to include those bright shining stars in their class. What you seem not to get is it's the Whole picture, so that person tells a story of drive, determination, overcoming hardships, and succeeding in life. They did demonstrate merit. You are just upset elite colleges don't want to fill their classes with all 1600/4.0/15+ AP students. You cannot understand why they'd want some kids with a 1500 and 3.85 and all the APs their school offered (which might be 3 or 4)

Your kid will do fine wherever they go. And your kid is not entitled to a T25 education, no matter what you think

You're on the mark w/r/t my kid and the lack of entitlement to a T25 education. He doesn't deserve anything more than he's worked for, subject to the same randomness and chance that anyone else might face.

However, you're dead wrong re: the supposed bright shining stars you imagine are out there just waiting to be discovered.

Have you ever interviewed undergraduates from T25 schools? I do this - weekly. I see graduates of the UC system all the time, including grad. school applicants. I'm dumbstruck at how poorly they communicate, how meandering their critical thinking skills are, and so much more about their capacity to contribute. It's fine that you need to believe that all THEY needed was the same resources that were festooned all over the "privileged kids", but your disregard re: the biological influences on intelligence is absurd.

They got a 740 verbal score and an A in AP English long before they got to that T25 school, they wouldn’t even be considered without them.

🤔

Anyway, biotruths on intelligence belong on Stormfront or at your Klan meeting, not here.

First of all, your parting shot isn't appreciated. It's also an attempt to silence someone with whom you disagree. Please don't pass that off to your child/ren as an acceptable method of dispute resolution.

Circling back to the matter at hand, there are biological difference that painfully exist that have nothing to do with race, ethnicity, or the like. Perhaps that's not convenient for you, but it's reality nonetheless.

I'll refrain from a parting shot at the measurables you felt like sharing ...

Oh no someone called me out on my polite racism, I’m going to frown real hard about it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are no AOs.

Every school publishes a minimum GPA and test score. Everyone who qualifies is put into a pool and a blind lottery is held to select the freshman class.

So no more concern about intended majors, specific skills, or building a class to fit their mission... just WHAM! Here you go Harvard, 1,200 CS students, 600 economists and no artists, dancers, right fielders or kids to write for the Lampoon!

So crazy. Worst idea ever.

So out of a pool of 50 or 60 thousand people (100k if you are NYU or UCLA or Michigan) you think a random sample of 5% to 20% of them won’t yield any diversity of race, gender, income, interests and skills?

More like “I don’t want to play any game that’s not rigged in my favor”

Harvard doesn’t recruit for the Lampoon, they have no idea who is funny up front. It’s tryout based. Anyone can show up and pitch to be in the club.

No it probably won't. They could easily end up with an entire class of CS/engineering if they pick the highest GPA/test scores. And we already know those from a higher income background tend to have higher test scores and gpas overall simply from all the support they have to ensure this happens. I am glad Harvard gives the 3.8/3.9 kid from inner city Chicago who has more daily struggles than most a chance, because that kid might just be smarter than all the 4.0/perfect resumes from years of tutoring and curating.

Yes, let's undercut applicants who HAVE demonstrated merit for those who MIGHT demonstrate merit later. I don't disagree that the strategy you describe may lead to some positive outcomes (both for the latter kid, and the student population overall), but let's not pretend that it's fair or sensible (or defensible to the kid who DID demonstrate merit). It's just another form of social engineering.

Says a person of privilege.

First, the difference between a 4.0 and a 3.8 is not really that much. Just like the difference between 1500 and 1600 is minimal. So you need to get over the notion that your kid with a 4.0 is somehow better/smarter/more successful than a kid with a 3.9 or a 3.8. We are not comparing them to a 3.0 student.

Secondly, yes that kid who had to struggle to achieve everything they've gotten is someone most people would happily put on their team. Hence why most colleges want to include those bright shining stars in their class. What you seem not to get is it's the Whole picture, so that person tells a story of drive, determination, overcoming hardships, and succeeding in life. They did demonstrate merit. You are just upset elite colleges don't want to fill their classes with all 1600/4.0/15+ AP students. You cannot understand why they'd want some kids with a 1500 and 3.85 and all the APs their school offered (which might be 3 or 4)

Your kid will do fine wherever they go. And your kid is not entitled to a T25 education, no matter what you think

You're on the mark w/r/t my kid and the lack of entitlement to a T25 education. He doesn't deserve anything more than he's worked for, subject to the same randomness and chance that anyone else might face.

However, you're dead wrong re: the supposed bright shining stars you imagine are out there just waiting to be discovered.

Have you ever interviewed undergraduates from T25 schools? I do this - weekly. I see graduates of the UC system all the time, including grad. school applicants. I'm dumbstruck at how poorly they communicate, how meandering their critical thinking skills are, and so much more about their capacity to contribute. It's fine that you need to believe that all THEY needed was the same resources that were festooned all over the "privileged kids", but your disregard re: the biological influences on intelligence is absurd.

They got a 740 verbal score and an A in AP English long before they got to that T25 school, they wouldn’t even be considered without them.

🤔

Anyway, biotruths on intelligence belong on Stormfront or at your Klan meeting, not here.

First of all, your parting shot isn't appreciated. It's also an attempt to silence someone with whom you disagree. Please don't pass that off to your child/ren as an acceptable method of dispute resolution.

Circling back to the matter at hand, there are biological difference that painfully exist that have nothing to do with race, ethnicity, or the like. Perhaps that's not convenient for you, but it's reality nonetheless.

I'll refrain from a parting shot at the measurables you felt like sharing ...

Oh no someone called me out on my polite racism, I’m going to frown real hard about it.

Doubt it was the soaring 740 verbal score or that outlier A in AP Lang that secured your DC's slot in that T25 school; not with this charming disposition roaming around the schoolyard, ready to hoist the racism whistle at a moment's notice if you even catch a whiff of "privilege".

Ugh. if you wouldn't mind, please provide the name of that T25 school so I can be sure to scratch it immutably from my list.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'd like to see kids use PSAT instead of SAT. I disliked the decision making around SAT - how to get a seat, when, how often. And how it just lingers for a full year. There's alway the ACT if people didn't like the PSAT score, but in a largely TO world, I think the PSAT/SAT should move to be more like an AP exam.

Not a bad idea.