Anonymous wrote:Allow anyone with minimum requirements to be admitted. Then make the coursework rigorous enough where it’s meaningful and you have to work hard to pass. Otherwise you get kicked out.

This is the French/German/Dutch way, and it’s the most fair way to avoid the advantaged/disadvantaged divide and gaming of the admissions system.

It’s a bit early for a cocktail, isn’t it?

What OP wants just lets the wealthy and connected use their advantages at a different level. In a high weed out environment with huge classes taught by TAs, affluent parents will pay for tutors and excellent parallel learning. So small rigorous classes to learn the material kinda taught in huge crappy ones. And make sure their kids don’t need to work, so that they have plenty of time to study, attend supplemental classes and tutoring, study groups etc.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Allow anyone with minimum requirements to be admitted. Then make the coursework rigorous enough where it’s meaningful and you have to work hard to pass. Otherwise you get kicked out.

This is the French/German/Dutch way, and it’s the most fair way to avoid the advantaged/disadvantaged divide and gaming of the admissions system.

It is not hard to pass in the French/German/Dutch way. I don't know where people are getting these ideas. Students don't work that hard at all in most European universities. Definitely not harder than the US.

Not true. Many drop out because it's hard. That is, in fact, how the system works. When you graduate, you know things. Difficulty varies by major and university, of course.

Tuition is free in some European countries, but you're responsible for your room and board.

I've taught in European universities. They are not that hard and students are not that responsible. Many never attend classes because they are cheap and they are not that invested and thus "drop out."

Isn’t that part of the point? The ones who aren’t meant to be there drop out, but the benefit is everyone has an equal chance from the beginning.

Everyone has an equal chance at the beginning if HS. Work for 4 years and see where you land. If a kid doesn't take the chance, in VA, they still have a second chance by going to NOVA for 2 years. The fact your kid didn’t do well in HS and doesn’t like the terms of the 2nd chance does not mean we should destroy one of the top 5 state college systems in the nation.

Exactly--the best thing about US higher ed is how flexible it is. You don't have to be on a 'college track' in high school to go to college--there are options for every student, including community college. If you excel at a lower-ranked school you can get into a great graduate program.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Allow anyone with minimum requirements to be admitted. Then make the coursework rigorous enough where it’s meaningful and you have to work hard to pass. Otherwise you get kicked out.

This is the French/German/Dutch way, and it’s the most fair way to avoid the advantaged/disadvantaged divide and gaming of the admissions system.

It works for Texas, UT Austin isn't any less prestigious as a result

UT Austin only takes the top 10% of each school. It’s even harder from OOS. UVA and/or WM will take the top 7% or some for Arts and Sciences. (Engineering is a different issue and you didn’t include VT). 90% of the kids in Texas want you know they weren’t admitted.

I think they are now at top 6% and it depends on program.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Allow anyone with minimum requirements to be admitted. Then make the coursework rigorous enough where it’s meaningful and you have to work hard to pass. Otherwise you get kicked out.

This is the French/German/Dutch way, and it’s the most fair way to avoid the advantaged/disadvantaged divide and gaming of the admissions system.

It works for Texas, UT Austin isn't any less prestigious as a result

UT Austin only takes the top 10% of each school. It’s even harder from OOS. UVA and/or WM will take the top 7% or some for Arts and Sciences. (Engineering is a different issue and you didn’t include VT). 90% of the kids in Texas want you know they weren’t admitted.

Top 10% guaranteed would help a lot of local kids

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Allow anyone with minimum requirements to be admitted. Then make the coursework rigorous enough where it’s meaningful and you have to work hard to pass. Otherwise you get kicked out.

This is the French/German/Dutch way, and it’s the most fair way to avoid the advantaged/disadvantaged divide and gaming of the admissions system.

It works for Texas, UT Austin isn't any less prestigious as a result

UT Austin only takes the top 10% of each school. It’s even harder from OOS. UVA and/or WM will take the top 7% or some for Arts and Sciences. (Engineering is a different issue and you didn’t include VT). 90% of the kids in Texas want you know they weren’t admitted.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Allow anyone with minimum requirements to be admitted. Then make the coursework rigorous enough where it’s meaningful and you have to work hard to pass. Otherwise you get kicked out.

This is the French/German/Dutch way, and it’s the most fair way to avoid the advantaged/disadvantaged divide and gaming of the admissions system.

It is not hard to pass in the French/German/Dutch way. I don't know where people are getting these ideas. Students don't work that hard at all in most European universities. Definitely not harder than the US.

Not true. Many drop out because it's hard. That is, in fact, how the system works. When you graduate, you know things. Difficulty varies by major and university, of course.

Tuition is free in some European countries, but you're responsible for your room and board.

I've taught in European universities. They are not that hard and students are not that responsible. Many never attend classes because they are cheap and they are not that invested and thus "drop out."

Isn’t that part of the point? The ones who aren’t meant to be there drop out, but the benefit is everyone has an equal chance from the beginning.

Everyone has an equal chance at the beginning if HS. Work for 4 years and see where you land. If a kid doesn't take the chance, in VA, they still have a second chance by going to NOVA for 2 years. The fact your kid didn’t do well in HS and doesn’t like the terms of the 2nd chance does not mean we should destroy one of the top 5 state college systems in the nation.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Allow anyone with minimum requirements to be admitted. Then make the coursework rigorous enough where it’s meaningful and you have to work hard to pass. Otherwise you get kicked out.

This is the French/German/Dutch way, and it’s the most fair way to avoid the advantaged/disadvantaged divide and gaming of the admissions system.

It works for Texas, UT Austin isn't any less prestigious as a result

UT Austin is insanely selective; what the hell are you talking about? I’m guessing you mean the top “X%” of your class thing but that is still very difficult

Anonymous wrote:Allow anyone with minimum requirements to be admitted. Then make the coursework rigorous enough where it’s meaningful and you have to work hard to pass. Otherwise you get kicked out.

This is the French/German/Dutch way, and it’s the most fair way to avoid the advantaged/disadvantaged divide and gaming of the admissions system.

Regardless of admissions process, schools should be about creating ways for success, not “weeding out.” I don’t mean everyone should pass and succeed, just that providing opportunities, instead of “sink-or-swim” provides opportunities for kid’s life paths to not be decided at 18yo.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In order for a European model to work here, we would need federal not local control of schools and their standards, beginning at kindergarten. That will not happen in the US - our model is too States-centric for that. In Europe, national not local standards prevail. It’s akin to the social compact in many European countries regarding pensions and health care - they “work” (although Americans who are used to private health insurance would possibly not like the standards of care) because certain truisms are at play: everyone is employed, and works until age 65. You have to start at the ground up, not layer on top.

You cannot just lump all of Europe together. Each has its own different way of doing things. Yes in education just like in health insurance. It just leads to statements that are wrong and misleading.

But still the European model spits out kids into trade schools at elementary school,, middle school, and high school. They go into viable trades and learn lucrative livings. Only the elite are left for Oxbirdge, U of Dublin, etc. I don't think our system of pushing ill-prepared, depressed and unhappy kids into expensive SLACs is in any ways superior.

Poor, unprepared students are not attending LACs or SLACs.

OMG do you not read the college forums? Failure to thrive? Kids not leaving their dorm at college? Poor grades? Drugs, sex, and other issues? The stuff of entitlement that libs want to claim? We've created an entire class of BA grads who do not know what to do with themselves after they graduate because they should have never been in college in the first place. My DS and DD know at least seven of them from college! pick up a copy of college confidential and read! our nation wasn't sending 90% of its graduates to college 40 years ao. What happened?

Why do you assume poor?

Anonymous wrote:Allow anyone with minimum requirements to be admitted. Then make the coursework rigorous enough where it’s meaningful and you have to work hard to pass. Otherwise you get kicked out.

This is the French/German/Dutch way, and it’s the most fair way to avoid the advantaged/disadvantaged divide and gaming of the admissions system.

It works for Texas, UT Austin isn't any less prestigious as a result

Anonymous wrote:Virginia effectively already has schools with near-open admission. Choose one and go from there.

+1. I don’t understand OP’s point. I’m sorry your kid didn’t get into their first choice school directly out of HS. In a genuine, non-snarky way. Emotions run high around college admissions, and you can lose sight of the fact that your VA kid still has very good options. The solution isn’t to take high caliber schools away from everyone else. It’s to recognize that even if you tank in HS:

(1) There is still an excellent chance that there is a great state of VA college your kid can attend— just a tier down from what you hoped. So, not UVA/WM and instead, instead (VCU! CNU, MWU, GMU, Longwood for undergrad. Excel at one of these and focus on grad schools. OR

(2) if your kid is on the WM WL, spring admission is new to them and is working very well. WL kids who really want WM should strongly consider OR

(3) Realize VA HAS A PLAN that is nearly identical to what you are proposing: go to UVA Wise or Blanday WM or NVCC (which has open admission) and take the intro classes there (can be one year with APs and summer school); make the cutoff GPA; go directly to WM or UVA. I saw over 100 transfers into WM this sprin.

So, just consider NVCC be UVA at Fairfax or WM Fairfax Center. Kids who make decent grades there are guaranteed the ability to graduate from the main campus. UVA/WM diploma looks and feels identical to those w/ kids who started on the Main campus.

So, a 3.0W HS kid with no SAT, ACTs or APs has the chances to graduate in years with a WM/UVA degree. What more do you want?

This is why we have community college, OP.

Anonymous wrote:Allow anyone with minimum requirements to be admitted. Then make the coursework rigorous enough where it’s meaningful and you have to work hard to pass. Otherwise you get kicked out.

This is the French/German/Dutch way, and it’s the most fair way to avoid the advantaged/disadvantaged divide and gaming of the admissions system.

No.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In order for a European model to work here, we would need federal not local control of schools and their standards, beginning at kindergarten. That will not happen in the US - our model is too States-centric for that. In Europe, national not local standards prevail. It’s akin to the social compact in many European countries regarding pensions and health care - they “work” (although Americans who are used to private health insurance would possibly not like the standards of care) because certain truisms are at play: everyone is employed, and works until age 65. You have to start at the ground up, not layer on top.

You cannot just lump all of Europe together. Each has its own different way of doing things. Yes in education just like in health insurance. It just leads to statements that are wrong and misleading.

But still the European model spits out kids into trade schools at elementary school,, middle school, and high school. They go into viable trades and learn lucrative livings. Only the elite are left for Oxbirdge, U of Dublin, etc. I don't think our system of pushing ill-prepared, depressed and unhappy kids into expensive SLACs is in any ways superior.

Poor, unprepared students are not attending LACs or SLACs.

OMG do you not read the college forums? Failure to thrive? Kids not leaving their dorm at college? Poor grades? Drugs, sex, and other issues? The stuff of entitlement that libs want to claim? We've created an entire class of BA grads who do not know what to do with themselves after they graduate because they should have never been in college in the first place. My DS and DD know at least seven of them from college! pick up a copy of college confidential and read! our nation wasn't sending 90% of its graduates to college 40 years ao. What happened?

You need a college degree to work as a receptionist or any job that puts food on the table. And before you bring up “but the trades…” historically trades unions have exclusively accepted Irish Catholic men. I could certainly see why a woman wouldn’t want to work in an all-male environment.