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?

How about starting with speaking out against white supremacy that has infected many of the systems, including K-12 education?

When mediocre white guys can be Secretary of Defense , run HHS, or be POTUS, there's no such thing as "merit."

Even standardized testing in the U.S. come from racist origins.

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?

So, you admit that you are proposing a system where the elite can just buy their way in through the form of superior education and test prep.
On what planet is that "merit".
This cannot be a serious post.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: Holistic is merit.

Absolutely FALSE.

By definition holistic admissions gives weight to many things that have nothing to do with academic merit.

There's plenty of reasons to favor holistic admissions, but meritocracy is not one.

Academic merit as you put it is not the be all and end all. It is a part -- as is the rest. Don't look to Asia or Europe for the answers here. Both have been falling behind us for years.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

In the UK, Oxford and Cambridge administer exams and interviews for candidates who apply and meet the basic threshold (which is top grades in exams). They aren’t interested in “holistic” admissions, they are interested in having the people who are the best at whatever subject they are seeking to study. For all of the next level down universities, there is enough space for every student who scores highly to get a place at one of them.

What I’m reading is that top candidates still have to interview and might be declined, despite meeting the academic threshold, which does suggest that it’s not a purely merit based system. Otherwise, why interview?

Anonymous wrote:

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

In the UK, Oxford and Cambridge administer exams and interviews for candidates who apply and meet the basic threshold (which is top grades in exams). They aren’t interested in “holistic” admissions, they are interested in having the people who are the best at whatever subject they are seeking to study. For all of the next level down universities, there is enough space for every student who scores highly to get a place at one of them.

Anonymous wrote:Haven't we learned yet that people can be quite successful without top SATs?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: Holistic is merit.

Absolutely FALSE.

By definition holistic admissions gives weight to many things that have nothing to do with academic merit.

There's plenty of reasons to favor holistic admissions, but meritocracy is not one.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Haven't we learned yet that people can be quite successful without top SATs?

Some people can be. In aggregate, high SAT people are more successful and low SAT people are less successful. On average and especially on the margins.

Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, high SAT, high LSAT. Successful presidents.

Joe Biden, low SAT, low LSAT. Unsuccessful president.

Now do Republicans.

JD Vance - Yale law, DeSantis Harvard law
Both passed bar exam first try
Hillary and Kamala both failed bar exam first try
Kamala was also child of faculty at Stanford and Berkeley and inexplicably didn’t get into either

Who in the above isn’t successful? Doesn’t this completely blow up the whole point of this thread?

Hillary was a US senator and Kamala was attorney general of CA and VP.

Clearly, far more successful than you by any measure…including wealth since Hillary has made tens of millions of $$$s as well.

Why did you bring in wealth? Wealth wise I am considerably more successful than three of the four above but I would consider 3 of the four to be more successful than myself. The fourth is just a bit of an idiot who got lucky.

Sure you are. Another DCUM loser just spewing shit.

All 4 of the above are more successful than you. Let's do the smell test...if someone mentioned your name to literally any random person on the street would they have any clue who you are?

Once more, by listing people that have become US Senators, VPs and state governors, and then attributing any of that to pure luck...you realize how foolish you sound?

One is a lucky idiot, we know who that is. You brought wealth into things and by that measure I am more successful than three of them by a pretty good margin. So sit down and stfu buster.

Again, you aren’t anywhere as successful as any of them and just full of shit.

I think your mom is telling you to go back in the basement now.

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?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: Holistic is merit.

Absolutely FALSE.

By definition holistic admissions gives weight to many things that have nothing to do with academic merit.

There's plenty of reasons to favor holistic admissions, but meritocracy is not one.

Anonymous wrote:People often reference the test based system in many countries in Asia. If the resulting societies are so great why are so many Asians migrating to the US or sending their children to be educated here? The best universities seem to realize that test scores are a key part of a good student profile but not the only factor. In the end, these schools know the importance of people skills as related to successful and generous alumni. Also, most CEOs played sports in college. A lot of people fail to realize what traits make up successful leaders and not just smart cogs in the wheel.