Anonymous wrote:

There's multiple problems with the German model.

First, if you don't get into the right high school, you will NEVER go to college. You'll be sent to trade school as a teen. This obviously blocks teens with learning issues from getting into college. Some people mature later in life and could end being a brilliant academic in college, if just given the chance. I know many people who had terrible high school experiences and grades (usually due to a traumatic home life or school bullying), but then excelled once they got into college.

The 2nd big issue with the German system is that people would literally be in an undergrad program for 8 years before finishing. Once you got into the university, it was very difficult to get you out. The education was basically free, plus the German government gives you a monthly subsidy as a student to pay your living expenses. The professors in many German universities are very strict about failing 30-50% of the class, so you'd need to take a single class perhaps multiple times before passing. This kept Germans in their 20s in college for way too long. I think they've recently enacted a time limit to finish your bachelor degree (7 years?). That said, the German up-and-out method produces very smart individuals who have a mastery of the material. I've met many who come to the U.S. for grad school and find it to be way too easy compared to the German system.

You are actually quite out of date in your understanding of the German system.

1: While it used to be the case that many kids were "mis-steered" into the vocational/non-academic path, this has largely changed. There are fewer and fewer kids going to the vocational schools, and the threshold (and sadly quality) of the public university-prep schools has fallen, particularly in certain Bundeslaender (like NRW). Actually, an issue in Germany is that more kids should head toward vocational education which in Germany means excellent job prospects.

2: The German university system has changed quite a bit with the introduction of Bachelors/Masters degrees. Students are not taking as long, and with the good economy/jobs prospects there are fewer incentives for staying indefinitely in school. That said, in my view the German university system would not be the model I would support for the US. I think it's too old-fashioned/academic (with few exceptions) and very inflexible. It is also not inspiring with way too large classes in the beginning courses (something that large public universities in the US also suffer from).

“not inspiring” - this is exactly the infantile American attitude that drives so much crap at American schools. If you need to be inspired to learn then perhaps you don’t belong in college?

There's multiple problems with the German model.

First, if you don't get into the right high school, you will NEVER go to college. You'll be sent to trade school as a teen. This obviously blocks teens with learning issues from getting into college. Some people mature later in life and could end being a brilliant academic in college, if just given the chance. I know many people who had terrible high school experiences and grades (usually due to a traumatic home life or school bullying), but then excelled once they got into college.

The 2nd big issue with the German system is that people would literally be in an undergrad program for 8 years before finishing. Once you got into the university, it was very difficult to get you out. The education was basically free, plus the German government gives you a monthly subsidy as a student to pay your living expenses. The professors in many German universities are very strict about failing 30-50% of the class, so you'd need to take a single class perhaps multiple times before passing. This kept Germans in their 20s in college for way too long. I think they've recently enacted a time limit to finish your bachelor degree (7 years?). That said, the German up-and-out method produces very smart individuals who have a mastery of the material. I've met many who come to the U.S. for grad school and find it to be way too easy compared to the German system.

You are actually quite out of date in your understanding of the German system.

1: While it used to be the case that many kids were "mis-steered" into the vocational/non-academic path, this has largely changed. There are fewer and fewer kids going to the vocational schools, and the threshold (and sadly quality) of the public university-prep schools has fallen, particularly in certain Bundeslaender (like NRW). Actually, an issue in Germany is that more kids should head toward vocational education which in Germany means excellent job prospects.

2: The German university system has changed quite a bit with the introduction of Bachelors/Masters degrees. Students are not taking as long, and with the good economy/jobs prospects there are fewer incentives for staying indefinitely in school. That said, in my view the German university system would not be the model I would support for the US. I think it's too old-fashioned/academic (with few exceptions) and very inflexible. It is also not inspiring with way too large classes in the beginning courses (something that large public universities in the US also suffer from).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How has it become so difficult to get into selective schools in the last 25 years? I'm not talking about Yale and Harvard but places like UVA. According to my school most students need a 1440 SAT to get in. Did kids need that kind of score years ago?

In 1985 there were 11 million kids in college.
In 2017 there are 19 million kids in college.

In 1985 there were 10,800 kids at Yale for example.
In 2000 there were 11,000 kids at Yale.
In 2017 there are 12,000 kids at Yale.

those extra 8 million are bottom feeders - they are not going to yale.

Or students from China.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If I could wave a magic wand ...

1) Eliminate activities as a consideration. Do not even have it as an option on the Common or Coalition App -- no preferences for athletes, ballet stars, musical prodigies, marching band members, debaters etc.

Schools can offer these activities to anyone in the freshman class who tries out for them, like high school.

2) Blind admission files, with the exception of perhaps geography and gender (same as with an academic journal; no one knows who the author is).

No names on apps, no interviews with applicants. The record must stand on its own. Recommendations and calls only accepted from teachers or employers.

THIS x a million.

What would be in the actual application? What would they be judged on? SATs obviously aren't a good idea as they can be easily faked or bribed. Grades are inflated. So what basis would be used?

At Oxbridge, they look at test scores and transcripts and then finalists are invited to campus where they sit with actual professors who ask them (can you believe it?) Actual Questions about the Subject they want to study.
Nobody gets in because they wrote a funny essay about eating chicken mcnuggets or using a porta potty. Nobody gets in with a fabricated moving story about making tacos with Abuelita. The people who get in to study math
have to actually show that they have some knowledge and interest in math. What a novel idea!

I am from Eastern Europe and our system is even simpler - to get into college (a specific one) you need to pass entrance exam for that major. The exams are very hard, getting 100% in all 2-3 subjects required is impossible. No smart and savvy kids can hack this without very thorough preparation.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If I could wave a magic wand ...

1) Eliminate activities as a consideration. Do not even have it as an option on the Common or Coalition App -- no preferences for athletes, ballet stars, musical prodigies, marching band members, debaters etc.

Schools can offer these activities to anyone in the freshman class who tries out for them, like high school.

2) Blind admission files, with the exception of perhaps geography and gender (same as with an academic journal; no one knows who the author is).

No names on apps, no interviews with applicants. The record must stand on its own. Recommendations and calls only accepted from teachers or employers.

THIS x a million.

What would be in the actual application? What would they be judged on? SATs obviously aren't a good idea as they can be easily faked or bribed. Grades are inflated. So what basis would be used?

At Oxbridge, they look at test scores and transcripts and then finalists are invited to campus where they sit with actual professors who ask them (can you believe it?) Actual Questions about the Subject they want to study.
Nobody gets in because they wrote a funny essay about eating chicken mcnuggets or using a porta potty. Nobody gets in with a fabricated moving story about making tacos with Abuelita. The people who get in to study math
have to actually show that they have some knowledge and interest in math. What a novel idea!

+1

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lottery--seriously. A certain percentage of the incoming class is offered admission by lottery.

—Parent whose kid has zero chance

This might be a good idea for some schools that are close to the 5% admission rate. They have an abundance of qualified applicants, so selecting by lottery vs allowing the decision to come down to something beside merit might not be bad.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If I could wave a magic wand ...

1) Eliminate activities as a consideration. Do not even have it as an option on the Common or Coalition App -- no preferences for athletes, ballet stars, musical prodigies, marching band members, debaters etc.

Schools can offer these activities to anyone in the freshman class who tries out for them, like high school.

2) Blind admission files, with the exception of perhaps geography and gender (same as with an academic journal; no one knows who the author is).

No names on apps, no interviews with applicants. The record must stand on its own. Recommendations and calls only accepted from teachers or employers.

THIS x a million.

What would be in the actual application? What would they be judged on? SATs obviously aren't a good idea as they can be easily faked or bribed. Grades are inflated. So what basis would be used?

At Oxbridge, they look at test scores and transcripts and then finalists are invited to campus where they sit with actual professors who ask them (can you believe it?) Actual Questions about the Subject they want to study.
Nobody gets in because they wrote a funny essay about eating chicken mcnuggets or using a porta potty. Nobody gets in with a fabricated moving story about making tacos with Abuelita. The people who get in to study math
have to actually show that they have some knowledge and interest in math. What a novel idea!

That system seems ripe for bribery.

Really? I don't think that actually is an issue though. A bigger problem is that the admissions decision is largely down to one professor, based on the interview. And therefore subject to all the conscious and unconscious biases these professors have. The interviews are tough (I had 2 because I failed the first year I applied) - an extremely intense conversation about your subject with one of the leading experts in the world on that subject. In neither interview was I asked anything that wasn't about my subject, other than a few friendly ice-breaker type questions at the beginning.

Anonymous wrote:Proctors will still be bribed.

It's interesting to me how many people seem to think test scores are rarely the result of cheating. It is rampant. Often it goes hand in hand with prepping, too, so the proctor is bribed to give a bit more time but the test taker is prepared so can take advantage of the extra time. Stuff like that.

Proctors don't make a lot of money and have a lot of power. Unfortunately that will always be a weak link.

I bet in the wake of this scandal, some tech wizard is developing an artificial intelligent solution for this.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If I could wave a magic wand ...

1) Eliminate activities as a consideration. Do not even have it as an option on the Common or Coalition App -- no preferences for athletes, ballet stars, musical prodigies, marching band members, debaters etc.

Schools can offer these activities to anyone in the freshman class who tries out for them, like high school.

2) Blind admission files, with the exception of perhaps geography and gender (same as with an academic journal; no one knows who the author is).

No names on apps, no interviews with applicants. The record must stand on its own. Recommendations and calls only accepted from teachers or employers.

THIS x a million.

What would be in the actual application? What would they be judged on? SATs obviously aren't a good idea as they can be easily faked or bribed. Grades are inflated. So what basis would be used?

At Oxbridge, they look at test scores and transcripts and then finalists are invited to campus where they sit with actual professors who ask them (can you believe it?) Actual Questions about the Subject they want to study.
Nobody gets in because they wrote a funny essay about eating chicken mcnuggets or using a porta potty. Nobody gets in with a fabricated moving story about making tacos with Abuelita. The people who get in to study math
have to actually show that they have some knowledge and interest in math. What a novel idea!

That system seems ripe for bribery.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If I could wave a magic wand ...

1) Eliminate activities as a consideration. Do not even have it as an option on the Common or Coalition App -- no preferences for athletes, ballet stars, musical prodigies, marching band members, debaters etc.

Schools can offer these activities to anyone in the freshman class who tries out for them, like high school.

2) Blind admission files, with the exception of perhaps geography and gender (same as with an academic journal; no one knows who the author is).

No names on apps, no interviews with applicants. The record must stand on its own. Recommendations and calls only accepted from teachers or employers.

THIS x a million.

What would be in the actual application? What would they be judged on? SATs obviously aren't a good idea as they can be easily faked or bribed. Grades are inflated. So what basis would be used?

At Oxbridge, they look at test scores and transcripts and then finalists are invited to campus where they sit with actual professors who ask them (can you believe it?) Actual Questions about the Subject they want to study.
Nobody gets in because they wrote a funny essay about eating chicken mcnuggets or using a porta potty. Nobody gets in with a fabricated moving story about making tacos with Abuelita. The people who get in to study math
have to actually show that they have some knowledge and interest in math. What a novel idea!

Proctors will still be bribed.

It's interesting to me how many people seem to think test scores are rarely the result of cheating. It is rampant. Often it goes hand in hand with prepping, too, so the proctor is bribed to give a bit more time but the test taker is prepared so can take advantage of the extra time. Stuff like that.

Proctors don't make a lot of money and have a lot of power. Unfortunately that will always be a weak link.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If I could wave a magic wand ...

1) Eliminate activities as a consideration. Do not even have it as an option on the Common or Coalition App -- no preferences for athletes, ballet stars, musical prodigies, marching band members, debaters etc.

Schools can offer these activities to anyone in the freshman class who tries out for them, like high school.

2) Blind admission files, with the exception of perhaps geography and gender (same as with an academic journal; no one knows who the author is).

No names on apps, no interviews with applicants. The record must stand on its own. Recommendations and calls only accepted from teachers or employers.

THIS x a million.

What would be in the actual application? What would they be judged on? SATs obviously aren't a good idea as they can be easily faked or bribed. Grades are inflated. So what basis would be used?

SAT subject tests in Math, ELA and one of your choice.
High school transcript
SAT or ACT but those can only be administered at your high school. No outside testing centers, no special dates.
High school proctors must take pictures of every student entering, and submit with the results, to ensure that what student submits ahead of time matches.
2 teacher recommendations
Recommendation from a paid employer, if applicable

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oxbridge / caltech model is the best.

German model is good as well.

Caltech is vulnerable to faked test scores.

Oxbridge has no legacy preferences. There's a reason Prince William went to St. Andrews. He would have never gotten in.

Prince Charles did go to Cambridge and many believe it was not on merit.

The Oxbridge system is an escalator system. You have to get into the right preschool to go to the right prep and boarding schools (e.g. Eton and Harrow) to have a much higher chance of going to Oxbridge. These are private all the way, so extremely expensive. 60% at Oxford went to what would be called private schools in the U.S. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/oxford-university-cambridge-state-school-socially-inclusive-ethnicity-sunday-times-guide-david-lammy-a8551036.html

Prince Charles is 70. Things have changed in Britain since then, as evidenced by the fact that you see the rich and royal at schools other than Oxbridge. Not to say that the rich don’t have advantages and privileges, but Britain has moved beyond codified legacy preferences. The US still embraces the inequality.

I went to Oxbridge. At the undergraduate level you can't buy your way in.

Me too, as an undergrad. I was part of the escalator system mentioned above, sort of (I didn't go to a private preschool, prep or boarding school but I went to a private girls school from 11-18) and it is true that if you go to those top schools you have a better than average chance of getting into Oxbridge, if that's your goal. Not only are you more likely to achieve the results you need to get an offer, but you will probably get some specific prep for the interviews, which is fundamental. But the school I went to was also academically selective - we had exams to get into it, and everyone was a super high achiever. Around 30% of our class went to Oxbridge (of the remaining 70%, most did not choose to apply). Oxbridge does have a problem of not choosing enough students from disadvantaged backgrounds and not making enough offers to kids from state (public) schools (or getting those kids to accept - I believe more than 60% of offers are to state school kids but several reject because they don't feel they will fit in, which is really sad), but they are working on it. However, i still prefer that system because the only relevant factor is academics. No sports, no legacy, no extra-curriculars. And contrary to what PP said above, they don't have universities full of sad drones. This obsession here with building a class with diverse interests so that you have a tuba player and a ballet dancer and a charity founder.. it's bizarre, takes the focus off academics, and makes admissions into a total gamble for everyone except those who can buy their way in via legacy donations or who are recruited in as a semi-professional sports player.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oxbridge / caltech model is the best.

German model is good as well.

Caltech is vulnerable to faked test scores.

Oxbridge has no legacy preferences. There's a reason Prince William went to St. Andrews. He would have never gotten in.

Prince Charles did go to Cambridge and many believe it was not on merit.

The Oxbridge system is an escalator system. You have to get into the right preschool to go to the right prep and boarding schools (e.g. Eton and Harrow) to have a much higher chance of going to Oxbridge. These are private all the way, so extremely expensive. 60% at Oxford went to what would be called private schools in the U.S. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/oxford-university-cambridge-state-school-socially-inclusive-ethnicity-sunday-times-guide-david-lammy-a8551036.html

Prince Charles is 70. Things have changed in Britain since then, as evidenced by the fact that you see the rich and royal at schools other than Oxbridge. Not to say that the rich don’t have advantages and privileges, but Britain has moved beyond codified legacy preferences. The US still embraces the inequality.

I went to Oxbridge. At the undergraduate level you can't buy your way in.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oxbridge / caltech model is the best.

German model is good as well.

Caltech is vulnerable to faked test scores.

Oxbridge has no legacy preferences. There's a reason Prince William went to St. Andrews. He would have never gotten in.

Prince Charles did go to Cambridge and many believe it was not on merit.

The Oxbridge system is an escalator system. You have to get into the right preschool to go to the right prep and boarding schools (e.g. Eton and Harrow) to have a much higher chance of going to Oxbridge. These are private all the way, so extremely expensive. 60% at Oxford went to what would be called private schools in the U.S. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/oxford-university-cambridge-state-school-socially-inclusive-ethnicity-sunday-times-guide-david-lammy-a8551036.html

Yes. Who is this prolific poster who thinks Oxbridge is the ideal system? When I was at New College, many of the students were from the Eton/Harrow & the like, or Americans paying a lot for grad, or Rhodes, or famous people.