Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Combine a minimum, hard score and grade cutoff (maybe adjusted for the difficulty and poverty level of the school) plus a lottery, plus a few discretionary.seat

A score on what? All the tests out there now can be gamed. Those scores are not as useful as we would like them to be.

They need to change the sat into something more “g-loaded” like NSA and cia Analyst tests.

The problem with the sat is that it is too coachable.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Combine a minimum, hard score and grade cutoff (maybe adjusted for the difficulty and poverty level of the school) plus a lottery, plus a few discretionary.seat

A score on what? All the tests out there now can be gamed. Those scores are not as useful as we would like them to be.

Anonymous wrote:Combine a minimum, hard score and grade cutoff (maybe adjusted for the difficulty and poverty level of the school) plus a lottery, plus a few discretionary.seat

Anonymous wrote:Combine a minimum, hard score and grade cutoff (maybe adjusted for the difficulty and poverty level of the school) plus a lottery, plus a few discretionary.seat

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I really don't get the Oxbridge booster on this thread. I lived in the UK for years and the idea that Oxbridge is any more meritorious is laughable.

I'm one of the PPs talking about Oxbridge - there are definitely several of us - and I'm not a booster, I'm just a British person and a Cambridge graduate who has experienced that system. The reason it seems more meritorious to me is that in the UK, if you get excellent GCSE results and then excellent A level results (or predicted results), and can explain yourself coherently in an interview, you stand a fair chance of getting in. It's still really competitive and there are still more applications from excellent students than spots, but it feels achievable if you are academically excellent. Here, from what I am reading - and we are several years away from this process for my children so I don't know everything about it at all - no student, however academically excellent they are, could feel like getting into a top school is "achievable". Without the legacy/sports etc things, getting in feels like a huge longshot even for the most academically capable students.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I really don't get the Oxbridge booster on this thread. I lived in the UK for years and the idea that Oxbridge is any more meritorious is laughable.

I'm one of the PPs talking about Oxbridge - there are definitely several of us - and I'm not a booster, I'm just a British person and a Cambridge graduate who has experienced that system. The reason it seems more meritorious to me is that in the UK, if you get excellent GCSE results and then excellent A level results (or predicted results), and can explain yourself coherently in an interview, you stand a fair chance of getting in. It's still really competitive and there are still more applications from excellent students than spots, but it feels achievable if you are academically excellent. Here, from what I am reading - and we are several years away from this process for my children so I don't know everything about it at all - no student, however academically excellent they are, could feel like getting into a top school is "achievable". Without the legacy/sports etc things, getting in feels like a huge longshot even for the most academically capable students.

Anonymous wrote:I really don't get the Oxbridge booster on this thread. I lived in the UK for years and the idea that Oxbridge is any more meritorious is laughable.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Perhaps not directly, but the percentage of private school (U.S. terminology) students at Oxbridge is significantly higher than top U.S. schools, despite the UK actually having a slightly lower percentage of students in private schools. So sending your kid to those expensive private schools increases their odds.

NP: This is all true but it's more of a systemic advantage rather than cheating. Most of the kids at top US colleges come from private or rich public schools. Same issue.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Perhaps not directly, but the percentage of private school (U.S. terminology) students at Oxbridge is significantly higher than top U.S. schools, despite the UK actually having a slightly lower percentage of students in private schools. So sending your kid to those expensive private schools increases their odds.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

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: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?

Anonymous wrote:

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.