The problem with IT Factor is that they tend to see only PR images crafted by parents and consultants, outside of self-evident great achievers who perform in verifiable contests.

There are two different issues:

1. "Qualifications" are not purely individual and comparable. Each individual has an approximate major, an art or sport, special achievements, demographic characteristics, and the school has a budget for all these attributes in total. It's an optimization packing problem.

2. There are many ways to build a class, so which does the school pick? Some explicit randomness could be an improvement over AO "mood" and bias.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How would people feel about a lottery for college admissions? So for example: everyone with 1500 plus and 4.0 gets a lottery ticket to a top school. That seems to be the only way to solve all the angst. Otherwise things will continue to be legislated.

This is often suggested, and it is very very silly.

You are suggesting that colleges don't get to build their class and choose their students, and that students don't get to choose the college they apply to, or at best only get to apply to one.

Worse for the colleges, worse for the student, and somehow that is more "fair"? By pulling names out of a hat?

I suggest you rethink this idea.

If colleges are telling the truth about having multiple qualified applicants for every seat, why should they care?

Because under your system they won't get that.

Because if they thought pulling names out of a hat was the best way to do it, that is what they would do al;ready.

Because they know that a thoughtful selection process is the best way to increase likelihood of good results, which is why a thoughtful selection process is used for every college, job, program, selective club, etc on the planet.

Nonsense. Harvard can say we want a 3.8 UW GPA a 1540 SAT and x number of leadership positions or y number of service hours or z varsity letters. All the kids who hit that criteria, get their names drawn out of a hat. If you trust schools more, applicants are marked as qualified or not and everyone qualified goes into a lottery.

But Harvard wants more than that. They want kids who will be game changers. They want the kids who did Y service hours but would have done them even if not needed for college admissions and who will continue down this path while in college and beyond, they want kids who lived the HS years doing what they are genuinely interested in and are leaders in their own right and that is different for each person, given their circumstances (be it rich kids, UMC kid, LMC kid, low income kid, etc). it's really not that difficult to understand. However, most are just upset because their kid may not have the final "IT Factor" that the school is looking for and feel their snowflake deserved Harvard because they worked hard and got good grades and checked all the boxes. IT's not how college application process should ever work and not how the real world works. Nobody hires for a job by "looking at resumes and if you are qualified for the actual job, well we are gonna do the drawing at 2pm today, good luck and congrats to the lucky 2 winners". Yes, life isn't fair. We have all missed out on a job because someone got it instead with better connections, not better skills. That is life. You can learn from that or you can just be upset and pout. Most of us learn from that---by learning to build as many connections as you can in your professional career along with being the best, most qualified person for your job. Focus on what you can change---trust me, there will always be some favoritism in the professional world, someday it might be you getting the benefits.

Anonymous wrote:Op here- I just think people seem to be all over the place with this ruling. People are frustrated about diversity and holistic review but then get mad about a lottery system that would essential be the most objective possible solution. The most logical solution to put all things to rest would be a lottery. No room to be upset either way.

I think you underestimate the number of innovative ways Americans can find to be upset.

Anonymous wrote:How about free tutoring for URM from pre K? Even though most colleges are now TO, more studying will make the college life easier. The majority can’t depend on activism as a lifelong career.

Or we could spend more on public education and make sure there are no more than than 15 kids per classes k-12 with qualified and well compensated teachers and accessible curricula across the states and not ask schools to solve the hunger/poverty problems in their communities too.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How would people feel about a lottery for college admissions? So for example: everyone with 1500 plus and 4.0 gets a lottery ticket to a top school. That seems to be the only way to solve all the angst. Otherwise things will continue to be legislated.

This is often suggested, and it is very very silly.

You are suggesting that colleges don't get to build their class and choose their students, and that students don't get to choose the college they apply to, or at best only get to apply to one.

Worse for the colleges, worse for the student, and somehow that is more "fair"? By pulling names out of a hat?

I suggest you rethink this idea.

If colleges are telling the truth about having multiple qualified applicants for every seat, why should they care?

Because they don't just want "kids who make the basic academic threshold". They want the best, brightest, most going to change the world kids. And those with the highest test scores/gpa are not always that. So they need to know about EC, LOR, essays, etc. They want geographical diversity, they want a balance of M/F, a balance of ECS with sports and those with the arts, they want people who volunteer because they want to and will continue doing it in college not just those who did it to check the box for college admissions, etc.

They also want the kids who will donate when they leave and grow their endowments.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How would people feel about a lottery for college admissions? So for example: everyone with 1500 plus and 4.0 gets a lottery ticket to a top school. That seems to be the only way to solve all the angst. Otherwise things will continue to be legislated.

This is often suggested, and it is very very silly.

You are suggesting that colleges don't get to build their class and choose their students, and that students don't get to choose the college they apply to, or at best only get to apply to one.

Worse for the colleges, worse for the student, and somehow that is more "fair"? By pulling names out of a hat?

I suggest you rethink this idea.

If colleges are telling the truth about having multiple qualified applicants for every seat, why should they care?

Because they don't just want "kids who make the basic academic threshold". They want the best, brightest, most going to change the world kids. And those with the highest test scores/gpa are not always that. So they need to know about EC, LOR, essays, etc. They want geographical diversity, they want a balance of M/F, a balance of ECS with sports and those with the arts, they want people who volunteer because they want to and will continue doing it in college not just those who did it to check the box for college admissions, etc.

Those grades and scores already do get you "a lottery ticket" so that when you apply to most of the T25, you make the "first cut" and get your application looked at.

But no, I do not want college admissions to be solely based on gpa and sat. Nope nope nope.

Apply to European colleges and take their tests if you want a system like that.

Anonymous wrote:Texas does this. Top x percent of every HS is guaranteed admissions to UT i believe. State schools can and should do that. Private universities can do what they want to build the class they want.
Us doesnt have a national curriculum and few national tests (and those are optional) so its harder to compare across the population. Other countries are often smaller or have national subject tests which scores determine everything (hence cram schools in Korea and other places). Id much rather have a national curriculum and meaningful subject tests to see that our population is actually educated to some standard but that would never fly.

And what happens in reality is that the high schools cheapen the value of the GPAs to ensure there are many more than the "top X %" who gain admission. It is a true race to the bottom.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How would people feel about a lottery for college admissions? So for example: everyone with 1500 plus and 4.0 gets a lottery ticket to a top school. That seems to be the only way to solve all the angst. Otherwise things will continue to be legislated.

So what happens when the orchestra doesn't have any violinists, or the football team doesn't have a quarterback or the chem department doesn't have any org chem students? Or when the student body is 80% lesbians?

Well it shouldn’t matter if at the end the goal is just academic achievement performance. Seems like lottery is the only way to stop the scapegoating.

There is no college or university in the US who has a mission of rewarding "academic achievement performance" - their missions are to create communities of learning which are generally predicated on varying viewpoints, perspectives and lived lives. A lottery will undermine that mission.

Anonymous wrote:How about free tutoring for URM from pre K? Even though most colleges are now TO, more studying will make the college life easier. The majority can’t depend on activism as a lifelong career.

Lol today I learned that most black people depend on activism to make a living. Can we stop with this scapegoating of blacks now? Affirmative active is gone. So you can stop.

How about free tutoring for URM from pre K? Even though most colleges are now TO, more studying will make the college life easier. The majority can’t depend on activism as a lifelong career.

Aren’t the states the laboratories of democracy? Someone should convince a state to do this with their state schools. Throw your name in the hat, you might get UVA or you might get ODU!

Texas does this. Top x percent of every HS is guaranteed admissions to UT i believe. State schools can and should do that. Private universities can do what they want to build the class they want.
Us doesnt have a national curriculum and few national tests (and those are optional) so its harder to compare across the population. Other countries are often smaller or have national subject tests which scores determine everything (hence cram schools in Korea and other places). Id much rather have a national curriculum and meaningful subject tests to see that our population is actually educated to some standard but that would never fly.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How would people feel about a lottery for college admissions? So for example: everyone with 1500 plus and 4.0 gets a lottery ticket to a top school. That seems to be the only way to solve all the angst. Otherwise things will continue to be legislated.

This is often suggested, and it is very very silly.

You are suggesting that colleges don't get to build their class and choose their students, and that students don't get to choose the college they apply to, or at best only get to apply to one.

Worse for the colleges, worse for the student, and somehow that is more "fair"? By pulling names out of a hat?

I suggest you rethink this idea.

If colleges are telling the truth about having multiple qualified applicants for every seat, why should they care?

Because under your system they won't get that.

Because if they thought pulling names out of a hat was the best way to do it, that is what they would do al;ready.

Because they know that a thoughtful selection process is the best way to increase likelihood of good results, which is why a thoughtful selection process is used for every college, job, program, selective club, etc on the planet.

Nonsense. Harvard can say we want a 3.8 UW GPA a 1540 SAT and x number of leadership positions or y number of service hours or z varsity letters. All the kids who hit that criteria, get their names drawn out of a hat. If you trust schools more, applicants are marked as qualified or not and everyone qualified goes into a lottery.

Want to know how I know you don't know anything about how colleges build a class?

Also, here's an interesting fact: it already works that way. They choose from all the qualified kids who apply.

Your suggestion adds nothing helpful to college or applicant and in fact hurts both by limitation.

Building a class means enough rich kids from the right prep schools who know how to tailor applications or who pay someone to do it for them

Cynicism and bitterness do nothing for your case. That is by no means what "building a class" is. There's about 500 books about how they do it. Read one.