A truly merit based system for college admissions.

[Anonymous]

No GPA, just SAT or IQ test

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We need SAT Subject tests for all subjects end of 11th grade. And that should be the GPA.

.

Worst take of this entire thread. MCQs are pedagogically not good testing methods; certainly not something the entire GPA should be based on. They only benefit the administrators because they are relatively inexpensive to grade.

[Anonymous]

Has OP admitted their loser kid was rejected everywhere?

Why do these useless threads get started every other week?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Would need to get rid of grade inflation & ensure that the education available to all comers was of the same quality. But, UK & European schools also follow this model in addition to Asia. They are just willing to accept that far fewer students will attend college. US has tried to broaden access in past 30 years.

No. There are societal implications to their model. There’s a reason why we have more entrepreneurs and inventors in the USA, by 5x more per capita than UK and Europe. And it’s because we tell our kids they Can do something - do difficult things, make it to college - be a doctor even if they went to community college first - vs UK and other countries that tell their kids they Can’t, and the doors close at 16

I don’t think the way they admit students to university (speaking only about the UK as that is what I have experience with as I am from there) is the reason why the US has more entrepreneurs and inventors though. I think the broader education generally may be something to do with it, but I think the university admissions principle - which is essentially to make everyone take the same exams (subject matter, not IQ) and then admit those with the best results - is a good one. For music/art, auditions and portfolios make sense but for everything else, why isn’t it better to set standard exams and let the most successful go to the best universities?

I lived in the UK for many years so I know it well. Why aren’t exams better? Because the exams, which, let’s be honest, they are Gates, are administered at age 16. So, at 16 if a kid does not do well and does not go on to A levels for Math, the doors to accounting, math, sciences, dentistry, doctor, finance, business, engineering, as possible university majors Are Closed. Forever. There is no path back in the UK. Now you tell me, do you know any kid ever who struggled a little bit with math in HS? And then figured it out? Enough to be an accountant? Or major in business? Or even a hard science? The entire educational and societal construct of the UK is oriented towards telling an individual what they can and cannot do, those are the rules, no math A level? It’s art history for you! so now imagine a couple college dropouts who want to invent something like facebook or Microsoft, those companies would never emerge from that society, bc that’s not part of our rules.

You didn’t answer “why aren’t exams better?” You answered, “why is the British system bad?” I agree with you that the system of exams at 16 and then 18 with super specialisation in the last two years of high school (and abandonment of core subject for many people) isn’t good. But the concept of standardized subject-specific exams - administered at whatever age makes sense for college admissions (here I suppose it would be the end of 11th grade?) - why isn’t that a good system?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I was thinking of what a merit based system would look like: I've come up with a system where you get points based on your SAT or ACT score and your GPA. Those with the highest combination of the scores (can weight the SAT/ACT higher since there is a lot of grade inflation) would get first pick at any of the top schools and then it goes down the list. No more race to the top for extracurriculars- it would just be mainly studying super hard for the SAT. The top colleges would likely comprise of mostly high income , coastal elites but you couldn't argue much with this. Any thoughts? What do you think would be the most merit based system?

While there are lots of problems with this -- here are a couple:

1. Most of the best are private and they can admit who they would like in large part. You could not force what you have proposed on the privates.

2. Top scores and grades get you crap. That is the Asian and Euro model. They get you smart people who are infected with group think and by all measures cannot innovate.

3. There would be no way to obtain uniformity of the high schools is academics or grading. In Asia and Euro -- government controls those schools. Here we have local school districts. No way it could ever be ironed out.

4. Merit is in the eye of the beholder.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was thinking of what a merit based system would look like: I've come up with a system where you get points based on your SAT or ACT score and your GPA. Those with the highest combination of the scores (can weight the SAT/ACT higher since there is a lot of grade inflation) would get first pick at any of the top schools and then it goes down the list. No more race to the top for extracurriculars- it would just be mainly studying super hard for the SAT. The top colleges would likely comprise of mostly high income , coastal elites but you couldn't argue much with this. Any thoughts? What do you think would be the most merit based system?

While there are lots of problems with this -- here are a couple:

1. Most of the best are private and they can admit who they would like in large part. You could not force what you have proposed on the privates.

2. Top scores and grades get you crap. That is the Asian and Euro model. They get you smart people who are infected with group think and by all measures cannot innovate.

3. There would be no way to obtain uniformity of the high schools is academics or grading. In Asia and Euro -- government controls those schools. Here we have local school districts. No way it could ever be ironed out.

4. Merit is in the eye of the beholder.

More importantly, in many countries there is no concept of states as it relates to college or high school education.

Oxford and Cambridge don't charge differently or have different admission rates/standards for someone from England vs. Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland.

[Anonymous]

Will never happen. Colleges need full pay students and so they have to take a good portion of them to keep the lights on. Also, they are beholden to alumni who make donations.
Colleges do offer merit to very good students, they just don’t have a lot of money for them.

[Anonymous]

What happens when you have more top scoring kids than seats? How to the Asian/UK models handle it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was thinking of what a merit based system would look like: I've come up with a system where you get points based on your SAT or ACT score and your GPA. Those with the highest combination of the scores (can weight the SAT/ACT higher since there is a lot of grade inflation) would get first pick at any of the top schools and then it goes down the list. No more race to the top for extracurriculars- it would just be mainly studying super hard for the SAT. The top colleges would likely comprise of mostly high income , coastal elites but you couldn't argue much with this. Any thoughts? What do you think would be the most merit based system?

While there are lots of problems with this -- here are a couple:

1. Most of the best are private and they can admit who they would like in large part. You could not force what you have proposed on the privates.

2. Top scores and grades get you crap. That is the Asian and Euro model. They get you smart people who are infected with group think and by all measures cannot innovate.

3. There would be no way to obtain uniformity of the high schools is academics or grading. In Asia and Euro -- government controls those schools. Here we have local school districts. No way it could ever be ironed out.

4. Merit is in the eye of the beholder.

Agree with PP.

People who do really well on SATs overestimate their importance. The things that aren't measureable. Like EQ and and having a passion for a particular subject, job, industry.

We channel a lot of high-scorers into Wall Street, consulting, etc. I'm not convinced that adds a ton of value to society as a whole.

[Anonymous]

^ VERSUS the things that aren't measureable.

[Anonymous]

True Merit would let everyone in.

Then fail all the dummies out

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What happens when you have more top scoring kids than seats? How to the Asian/UK models handle it?

One problem with the SAT is it has a relatively low ceiling. The top scores all clump together. It's possible to either offer a second, invitational exam or else design a test with a higher ceiling.

[Anonymous]

"Merit" is crap. There is a wide range of kids who would thrive in our "top" schools. Having a high SAT just shows one, narrow aspect of a student, not the full picture.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:"Merit" is crap. There is a wide range of kids who would thrive in our "top" schools. Having a high SAT just shows one, narrow aspect of a student, not the full picture.

This is it. Posters here have a very specific view of what constitutes “merit”. The SAT/ACT are lazy metrics. They offer a single number that these posters want to describe the whole of the kid. The tests were never intended for that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I was thinking of what a merit based system would look like: I've come up with a system where you get points based on your SAT or ACT score and your GPA. Those with the highest combination of the scores (can weight the SAT/ACT higher since there is a lot of grade inflation) would get first pick at any of the top schools and then it goes down the list. No more race to the top for extracurriculars- it would just be mainly studying super hard for the SAT. The top colleges would likely comprise of mostly high income , coastal elites but you couldn't argue much with this. Any thoughts? What do you think would be the most merit based system?

You would have to nix the GPA, as that is highly dependent on where you went to school and the grade inflation factor is rampant.

The SAT or ACT would be the way to go, and this would unfortunately nix the opportunities for those who don't do well on these type of tests.

I believe the holistic method, where SAT/ACT is not optional, is the way.