Diversity of personality and thought. Going to a school with a bunch of Tracy Flicks would be horrible.

Anonymous wrote:No. It's a university deciding that unless they are XPI (tech only school), it's beneficial to have a diverse campus with kids majoring in all areas. Just like it's beneficial to not have 80% male (or 80% female), they want students majoring in Art history, if they have a department.

They also, smartly, value having more than just students from the Top 5% economically. Our country/society will be greatly improved if we value actually educating everyone.

IMO, (and that of both my kids), they don't want to attend school where everyone is "the same carbon copy" of everyone else. They want to meet new people and learn.

I like this!

Anonymous wrote:All the TO talk makes me wonder - what's the point of creating a specific class to your standards, whatever those standards are? Just a prestige thing?

Because for financial and logistical reasons they need a certain % of the class to be “… studies” majors. It costs way more to run labs and educate STEM majors, and since tuition doesn’t vary by major, they need to balance it out. They need a way to attract and keep the rich donor and otherwise connected kids who can’t keep up with more rigorous courses. They need to enrich the said kids’ experiences by providing structured but very low pressure interactions with the slice of population they will never encounter on their own. They want to be able to field a bunch of sports teams (big money there). Etc, etc.

No, the “diverse” class is not for your benefit.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One thing that’s missing- most elite schools can’t support 100% of their classes being the same 3 majors. They need people to subscribe to their other departments.

It’s also good to have students with excellence in a lot of different areas. To be Frank, few people get famous off of engineering or science even at the elite level, so you wanna cast the net wide for the highest probability of getting an impactful, important alum

Holistic admissions doesn't mean not admitting to the same 3 majors. It means admitting a variety of students to those 3 majors.

No it’s also a population control element. Someone has to be in the classics department, even if they’re lower tier than the CS majors. Same with area studies.

"Lower tier"?

Worse student. The CS and engineering students are some of the best students across most universities. The humanities students…eh

lol
this is why you went to a state school

I went to Amherst and Yale buddy, but good try.

To promote inquiry with exposure to different perspectives and lived experiences.

Anonymous wrote:no one, esp a 17/18 yo senior (or if you are DCUM 19/20 yo senior), that gets into a test score only school is picking it over a school that curates a class a la IVY+

Exacly. Which is why there is exactly one school in the US doing this--MIT. And only a very specific kind of student wants to go there, and a very specific kind of student comes out. More international students come to the US for college than anywhere else on earth, because colleges in the US do it right. All of you who think top colleges should be for 1600-only kids need to get out more.

Primarily to ensure even the less popular departments / majors have high quality students. There are a lot of considerations beyond gender, geography, social class, legacy, etc. Staying in business is #1 concern

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:so everyone isn't the same robot STEM kid.
seriously......

balance. a great American college experience is based on diversity of life experiences, thought, interests, background, majors, etc.

also, it allows them to pick students they KNOW will succeed (get jobs, not drop out, etc)

lastly, holistic admissions allows them to make sure they have students in ALL departments.

But why does this matter? I ask this as a engineering graduate from a large university. They didn't care about a holistic class.

Of course they did. They offer way more than just engineering...you have to admit kids that want to study all the things they offer. They also need kids that can play in the marching band, play sports, participate in theatre, etc.

This. A university needs students in a variety of majors that do a variety of things.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One thing that’s missing- most elite schools can’t support 100% of their classes being the same 3 majors. They need people to subscribe to their other departments.

It’s also good to have students with excellence in a lot of different areas. To be Frank, few people get famous off of engineering or science even at the elite level, so you wanna cast the net wide for the highest probability of getting an impactful, important alum

Holistic admissions doesn't mean not admitting to the same 3 majors. It means admitting a variety of students to those 3 majors.

No it’s also a population control element. Someone has to be in the classics department, even if they’re lower tier than the CS majors. Same with area studies.

"Lower tier"?

Worse student. The CS and engineering students are some of the best students across most universities. The humanities students…eh

lol
this is why you went to a state school

A community with variety of backgrounds, race, religion, ability, status, interests,hobbies, geography, strengths and weaknesses is a much better environment to enrich young minds than some monolithic echo chamber.

Anonymous wrote:Colleges want students in all areas of study. Education in general is greatly benefited by having multifaceted students and professors. It is enriching for all students to be exposed to students with many differences in background and experiences. College isn’t meant to be a technical trade school with a narrow focus.

And some colleges really like kids who have both left brain and right brain excellence (thinking of Northwestern).

Colleges want students in all areas of study. Education in general is greatly benefited by having multifaceted students and professors. It is enriching for all students to be exposed to students with many differences in background and experiences. College isn’t meant to be a technical trade school with a narrow focus.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One thing that’s missing- most elite schools can’t support 100% of their classes being the same 3 majors. They need people to subscribe to their other departments.

It’s also good to have students with excellence in a lot of different areas. To be Frank, few people get famous off of engineering or science even at the elite level, so you wanna cast the net wide for the highest probability of getting an impactful, important alum

Holistic admissions doesn't mean not admitting to the same 3 majors. It means admitting a variety of students to those 3 majors.

No it’s also a population control element. Someone has to be in the classics department, even if they’re lower tier than the CS majors. Same with area studies.

"Lower tier"?

Worse student. The CS and engineering students are some of the best students across most universities. The humanities students…eh

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One thing that’s missing- most elite schools can’t support 100% of their classes being the same 3 majors. They need people to subscribe to their other departments.

It’s also good to have students with excellence in a lot of different areas. To be Frank, few people get famous off of engineering or science even at the elite level, so you wanna cast the net wide for the highest probability of getting an impactful, important alum

Holistic admissions doesn't mean not admitting to the same 3 majors. It means admitting a variety of students to those 3 majors.

No it’s also a population control element. Someone has to be in the classics department, even if they’re lower tier than the CS majors. Same with area studies.

+1
I think colleges care less about balance within a given major than they do about balance for the overall school.

Anonymous wrote:All the TO talk makes me wonder - what's the point of creating a specific class to your standards, whatever those standards are? Just a prestige thing?

A. Its needed for intellectual growth and character development.

B. It gives colleges a shield from accountability.

C. It makes colleges look good on paper and helps with PR, grants, funding and donations.