Reply to No, test optional isn’t the reason your kid didn’t get in.

Forum Index » College and University Discussion

Reply to "No, test optional isn’t the reason your kid didn’t get in."

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]Good kids are getting rejected from top schools, because top schools no longer care about academic excellence as much as they care about "Diversity"
There are very few students who meet ALL of the following criteria
1) Top 1-3% of graduating class
2) 1550 in SATor 35 ACT or higher in test scores
3) National AP scholar.
4) 750 or higher in 2 Subject Tests

These are truly gifted students. All of them could easily be accommodated in the top 15 schools, many times over, but most don't get in, because top schools are obsessed with diversity.

This is a tragedy for this country in the long run, because as any economist will tell you, we are grossly misallocating some of the best resources of our academic institutions on some very questionable talent, instead of focusing them on talent that can benefit the most from them and consequently turbocharge the US economy into the next generation.

But eh. Becoming fat, dumb and careless is probably necessary for the baton to pass from the US to some other nation. That's the way history has worked[/quote]

A student like you describe would only be rejected from a tiny handful of universities.  You seem to view admission to those as a brass ring for a job well done.  But I’m pretty confident that same student, if they didn’t feel put upon by not getting into their “dream school” would excel at Michigan State or Ohio State or University of Arizona.  If they are truly as exceptional and gifted as you think they are, there is probably nothing that student couldn’t accomplish from these schools that they could from one on the highly rejective ones.  What you really seem to want is access into the exclusive club that gets what 95% of applicants can’t have, even if you don’t know if it’s inherently better or not.  All over the world countries have exception universities that are not so small as ours are.  The scarcity of supply is false. These schools could easily add more seats.  Alumni don’t want the schools to broaden access because they want the insularity.[/quote]

No, they cannot easily "add more seats".  At most ivy's kids live on campus all 4 years.  Add 500 students per year and you have a huge housing issue.  Not to mention classes will be larger, less advising, classes more difficult to get into, etc... an entire list of issues if the infrastructure is not in place.  So it won't solve the problem (500 at each is still a dent and most will still get rejected) and doing so with out infratsturce would degrade the experience just look at non T25 schools who have done it recently (Northeastern is one example---grown 3-4K students in last few years without any infrastructure in place---many parents and students are not happy.  Many kids cannot land coops, because more students looking coupled with the bad economy is not a good thing, kids cannot get into classes because so many students and they are all registering for classes in case they don't get a coop---which many wont' so they wont be dropping out of the classes to make more space...it's not a good situation when you add students without an infrastructure plan put in place first). [/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