Would you prefer European-style admissions?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:European way, at least in the UK, is also somewhat holistic. Academic proficiency matters more there, though, and I think they consider the right mix of holistic and academic qualifications.

Not sure their system would work in the US unless we also switched to making kids lock in their majors when they enter college. For example, great math and physics test scores are going to matter if you want to major in physics, but not so much history.

+1 Europeans lock in much earlier to their course of study as teens. And most European colleges are much more focused on that course of study too---definitely not as many electives that are not related to their primary focus (i.e. major). More practical I guess, but I prefer the American way which allows a bit more freedom for a teenager to change their mind about what to do.

Except that nowadays they need to be locked into a “narrative” from the age of 14 to get into one of these elite colleges. If you think teens should have the freedom to explore their interests you should hate everything about the current American admissions process.

Or maybe just stop obsessing about roughly 40 universities and SLACs and attend one of the many other exceptional schools available in the US?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:European way, at least in the UK, is also somewhat holistic. Academic proficiency matters more there, though, and I think they consider the right mix of holistic and academic qualifications.

Not sure their system would work in the US unless we also switched to making kids lock in their majors when they enter college. For example, great math and physics test scores are going to matter if you want to major in physics, but not so much history.

+1 Europeans lock in much earlier to their course of study as teens. And most European colleges are much more focused on that course of study too---definitely not as many electives that are not related to their primary focus (i.e. major). More practical I guess, but I prefer the American way which allows a bit more freedom for a teenager to change their mind about what to do.

Except that nowadays they need to be locked into a “narrative” from the age of 14 to get into one of these elite colleges. If you think teens should have the freedom to explore their interests you should hate everything about the current American admissions process.

Some kids, yes, who are groomed for T10 schools, sure. But other teenagers just remain, clueless teenagers, who might study business, or computer science, or English depending on the day with no need to lockin.

I'm pretty sure this thread is about the elite schools where you do need to lock in from the age of 14.

Pretty sure this thread is titled “Would you prefer European-style admissions”.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:European way, at least in the UK, is also somewhat holistic. Academic proficiency matters more there, though, and I think they consider the right mix of holistic and academic qualifications.

Not sure their system would work in the US unless we also switched to making kids lock in their majors when they enter college. For example, great math and physics test scores are going to matter if you want to major in physics, but not so much history.

Top U.K. schools practice hardcore DEI to ensure that they are not completely dominated by private school kids.

The DEI that they use is mostly by income and location. IMO, that's fine. Also, UK schools mostly look at your test scores. They don't really care that much about your extra curriculars, so their students aren't

That is the type of DEI practiced by the UCs in California which cause howling by Asian families here on DCUM.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Many complain about managing all the factors in US college admissions. Academics, athletics, ECs, and more.

Would you prefer European style admissions where only academics (includes school work/grades and either ACT/SAT, and AP Subject Test results (not the number if AP classes or which AP classes were taken) matter??

Either is fine. Mine would have gotten into Ivy/T10 under that system too, maybe more of them in fact

Doubtful

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Not everyone is college material. The EU recognizes that, and provides off-ramps for those for whom college is not the best destination.

Instead we let people go into massive debt for useless degrees. The US needs to drop the fallacy of equal outcomes for all.

The UK is no longer in the EU. Also it is a perfect example of trying to make college available to everyone and failing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:European way, at least in the UK, is also somewhat holistic. Academic proficiency matters more there, though, and I think they consider the right mix of holistic and academic qualifications.

Not sure their system would work in the US unless we also switched to making kids lock in their majors when they enter college. For example, great math and physics test scores are going to matter if you want to major in physics, but not so much history.

Top U.K. schools practice hardcore DEI to ensure that they are not completely dominated by private school kids.

The DEI that they use is mostly by income and location. IMO, that's fine. Also, UK schools mostly look at your test scores. They don't really care that much about your extra curriculars, so their students aren't

That is the type of DEI practiced by the UCs in California which cause howling by Asian families here on DCUM.

I don't think most Asian Americans, especially immigrants are against SES based diversity given that there are actually a fair amount of low income Asian families in CA.

-signed an Asian American originally from SoCal

https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/03/27/key-facts-about-asian-americans-living-in-poverty/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:European way, at least in the UK, is also somewhat holistic. Academic proficiency matters more there, though, and I think they consider the right mix of holistic and academic qualifications.

Not sure their system would work in the US unless we also switched to making kids lock in their majors when they enter college. For example, great math and physics test scores are going to matter if you want to major in physics, but not so much history.

Top U.K. schools practice hardcore DEI to ensure that they are not completely dominated by private school kids.

The DEI that they use is mostly by income and location. IMO, that's fine. Also, UK schools mostly look at your test scores. They don't really care that much about your extra curriculars, so their students aren't

That is the type of DEI practiced by the UCs in California which cause howling by Asian families here on DCUM.

I don't think most Asian Americans, especially immigrants are against SES based diversity given that there are actually a fair amount of low income Asian families in CA.

-signed an Asian American originally from SoCal

https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/03/27/key-facts-about-asian-americans-living-in-poverty/

I think that is great but the Bay Area Asian community has a very different view of things.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:European way, at least in the UK, is also somewhat holistic. Academic proficiency matters more there, though, and I think they consider the right mix of holistic and academic qualifications.

Not sure their system would work in the US unless we also switched to making kids lock in their majors when they enter college. For example, great math and physics test scores are going to matter if you want to major in physics, but not so much history.

+1 Europeans lock in much earlier to their course of study as teens. And most European colleges are much more focused on that course of study too---definitely not as many electives that are not related to their primary focus (i.e. major). More practical I guess, but I prefer the American way which allows a bit more freedom for a teenager to change their mind about what to do.

Except that nowadays they need to be locked into a “narrative” from the age of 14 to get into one of these elite colleges. If you think teens should have the freedom to explore their interests you should hate everything about the current American admissions process.

Or maybe just stop obsessing about roughly 40 universities and SLACs and attend one of the many other exceptional schools available in the US?

Ironically, if you follow this advice and don’t prioritize the ~40 DCUM-approved schools, college admissions in the United States is already quite similar to the European model.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:European way, at least in the UK, is also somewhat holistic. Academic proficiency matters more there, though, and I think they consider the right mix of holistic and academic qualifications.

Not sure their system would work in the US unless we also switched to making kids lock in their majors when they enter college. For example, great math and physics test scores are going to matter if you want to major in physics, but not so much history.

+1 Europeans lock in much earlier to their course of study as teens. And most European colleges are much more focused on that course of study too---definitely not as many electives that are not related to their primary focus (i.e. major). More practical I guess, but I prefer the American way which allows a bit more freedom for a teenager to change their mind about what to do.

Except that nowadays they need to be locked into a “narrative” from the age of 14 to get into one of these elite colleges. If you think teens should have the freedom to explore their interests you should hate everything about the current American admissions process.

Or maybe just stop obsessing about roughly 40 universities and SLACs and attend one of the many other exceptional schools available in the US?

I'm sure rich people with mediocre kids would love that. But the whole point of the thread is to discuss potential changes to the admissions processes at these schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:European way, at least in the UK, is also somewhat holistic. Academic proficiency matters more there, though, and I think they consider the right mix of holistic and academic qualifications.

Not sure their system would work in the US unless we also switched to making kids lock in their majors when they enter college. For example, great math and physics test scores are going to matter if you want to major in physics, but not so much history.

Top U.K. schools practice hardcore DEI to ensure that they are not completely dominated by private school kids.

The DEI that they use is mostly by income and location. IMO, that's fine. Also, UK schools mostly look at your test scores. They don't really care that much about your extra curriculars, so their students aren't

That is the type of DEI practiced by the UCs in California which cause howling by Asian families here on DCUM.

The UCs basically have a giant set of ostensibly race blind parameters which they tweak to get a metric that maximally penalizes Asian students. That's not the UK does

[Anonymous]

I think it should be more like matching with Questbridge. You have a max of 10 schools you can apply to and you get matched. Can be multiple rounds. But only one application.

[Anonymous]

Right and give up the magic of Silicon Valley? French have been trying for decades to duplicate but it is precisely anti-lycee system here (no tracking) that works!

You can’t measure the motivation in 5th grade.

California has it best - community college of Berkeley to Cal Berkeley. By 20 everyone’s brain is close to maturing if not on heavy drugs…

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think it should be more like matching with Questbridge. You have a max of 10 schools you can apply to and you get matched. Can be multiple rounds. But only one application.

Unfortunately a matching system isn’t compatible with variable pricing. For Questbridge students, and for students using the DC public/charter application system, all potential schools in the system are free. Medical residents draw salaries.

You could do a matching system for colleges but only allow students to use it if their parents are willing to be bound to pay any price, no matter how high, but the optics would obviously be terrible.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No.
I think we need a limit on apps or to abolish the common app or something. The process now is broken compared to when most of us applied.

But the Asian approach of high stakes testing sounds miserable for kids and I want no part of that. I think we would end up closer to that version then the European model if we went to tests only.

+1

I think a lot of problems would be solved if there was a 10 application limit for the common app.

That won’t ever happen. Common App is a business like everything else.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:European way, at least in the UK, is also somewhat holistic. Academic proficiency matters more there, though, and I think they consider the right mix of holistic and academic qualifications.

Not sure their system would work in the US unless we also switched to making kids lock in their majors when they enter college. For example, great math and physics test scores are going to matter if you want to major in physics, but not so much history.

Top U.K. schools practice hardcore DEI to ensure that they are not completely dominated by private school kids.

The DEI that they use is mostly by income and location. IMO, that's fine. Also, UK schools mostly look at your test scores. They don't really care that much about your extra curriculars, so their students aren't

That is the type of DEI practiced by the UCs in California which cause howling by Asian families here on DCUM.

The UCs basically have a giant set of ostensibly race blind parameters which they tweak to get a metric that maximally penalizes Asian students.

Not true.

What did happen is that low-income Asians (California examples: many Hmong, many Lao, some Filipino, some Vietnamese) had slightly higher rates of acceptance to public universities, while wealthy Asians had a bit lower rates of acceptance than previously.