Reply to Universities Really Are Messed Up (says Yale

Forum Index » College and University Discussion

Reply to "Universities Really Are Messed Up (says Yale"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]Unless Yale plans to dramatically increase in size, the only way to end the “murky admissions practices” is to be open about conducting a lottery for everyone over a certain benchmark. There is no fair way to pick a mere 2% from a pool of highly-qualified 17 year olds. [/quote]

The pool of truly highly qualified applicants is much smaller than the number who appear highly qualified on paper. grade inflation, test optional, superscoring, score choice, fake ECs all make it highly difficult to separate the wheat from the chaff, turns college admissions into a cynical game of PR and marketing.[/quote]

It’s not that you’re wrong, it’s that Yale and its peers have no ability to reverse grade inflation or eliminate the cynical game of PR and marketing, and their admissions offices have no ability to distinguish between the truly qualified and those who only look qualified on paper. Picking the 2% who are truly qualified from a very large pool of people who appear to be truly qualified is impossible. [/quote]

Qualified for what?   Yale needs to have biochem majors and math majors and history majors and drama students and hockey players on and on.  You don't get that with a lottery.   They can change to a lottery but it fundamentally changes lots of things about current American colleges.

And what good is freeing up science research dollars because you instituted a lottery and ending up without the students interested in pursuing the research?  That makes no sense.

I see nothing in this report that indicates a lottery system is going to be used by American universities.[/quote]

I could do without Hockey players.

You know what would be popular - if the ivy League together got rid of 20% of their sports. Hockey is popular, I get it. But how about moving the following from varsity/recruited sports to club sports:

Mens sailing
Women sailing 
Mens skiing
Womens skiing 
mens water polo
womens water polo 
mens squash
womens squash
mens fencing
womens fencing
I'd also get rid of mens field hockey and women's wrestling but maybe that's too controversial

if you have sports that dont bring in 30 spectators at home, it's a club sport. treat it like one.

get rid of legacy at the same time.

get rid of the Z list.

and put in place SAT minimums.

announce it all at once.

[/quote]

I am fine with giving up sports recruiting.  It favors wealthy kids like most other things but has no academic purpose.[/quote]

You are fine with it, so what. The Ivies have been recruiting for athletics for 125 years, it's important to them and they have every right to it. They shouldn't have to give one inch on sports recruiting until every other school does. Why should they disadvantage themselves relative to Alabama any more than they already do by not offering scholarships??[/quote]

DP. Now that’s funny. (You were trying to be funny, right?).

[/quote]

It's a fair point. What's fair for the Ivy leagues is fair for all Privates correct?....Notre Dame, Clemson, USC. The Ivies are already restricting themselves. Where does it stop? Certain groups only care about because they are chasing prestige. How come they aren't complaining about athletics at Purdue which is generally a better engineering school with D1 scholarships? The answer is Prestige....nothing more.[/quote]

Which groups are complaining about athletic recruiting?[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics