Admissions based on tests usually is heavily skewed towards quant kids. A system based solely on tests would bias against humanities kids. It also wouldn't factor in well-roundedness and people skills.

I live in NYC. I think the SHSAT process is good and shouldn't be messed with. But I wouldn't let my kid within a mile of Stuy. He is smart enough to go there. And there are plenty of great, relatively normal kids there. But there are way too many whose whole purpose in life was preparing for that test and have little else going for them. Bronx Science is slightly better.

I would not send my kid to the college version of this. Because in most lines of work, people skills and non-quantitative problem solving skills matter.

I do not know how you solve for this. The current system is far from perfect.

One solution is to revert the SAT to the old scoring model where high scores meant something. Then have schools that focus almost solely on test scores. But have plenty of schools that are more like the current model where test scores matter but a lot else also does. Then see where kids choose to go, where companies choose to hire, etc.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You can’t include ECs or other activities for true meritocracy.

Can we still have the math Olympiad?

Not if you want a pure meritocracy.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Colleges look for future leaders, that concept is vastly different from Olympiad winners. Olympia competition is limited to math, physics, chemistry, biology, information science. Limiting seats to Olympia winners is an extremely weird idea. The majority of math Olympia winners end up at Jane Street and Citadel. Do we want that for our society as a whole? Naw.

I think, if anything, we should exclude these Olympia people from the top colleges. They are free to attend state universities and such.

That’s one of the most stupid comment I’ve read on this forum.

Are you afraid they ruin the curve at your kid’s Ivy?

Doing well in those competitions or other stem competitions for that matter, builds critical thinking and resilience, plus that they have a higher IQ than most kids.

What would you do to test the other 50% of the campus that aren't in these specific testable majors?

There are only a few hundred campers each year, can’t even fill a liberal art college.

Then just have JS set up JSU to collect those, a pipeline better than Bucknell.

Palantir already has gotten started by giving internships to students committed to not going to college. It'd honestly be amazing for everyone if these kinds of people skipped out on education.

What do they have internships in? What are "these kinds of people" - palantir=exceptional?

These are kids that already have 5+ years of skills that they learned on their own. Hate to make the reference…but they are the DOGE types of kids.

No, the DOGE kids have no experience. Certainly none relevant to their positions.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Colleges look for future leaders, that concept is vastly different from Olympiad winners. Olympia competition is limited to math, physics, chemistry, biology, information science. Limiting seats to Olympia winners is an extremely weird idea. The majority of math Olympia winners end up at Jane Street and Citadel. Do we want that for our society as a whole? Naw.

I think, if anything, we should exclude these Olympia people from the top colleges. They are free to attend state universities and such.

That’s one of the most stupid comment I’ve read on this forum.

Are you afraid they ruin the curve at your kid’s Ivy?

Doing well in those competitions or other stem competitions for that matter, builds critical thinking and resilience, plus that they have a higher IQ than most kids.

What would you do to test the other 50% of the campus that aren't in these specific testable majors?

There are only a few hundred campers each year, can’t even fill a liberal art college.

I think it's enough for the maths/physics/chem majors at MIT and the Ivies, and other schools can make offers to those who did well on the Olympiad but didn't make camp. To use math as an example, there are around 500 new math majors matriculating each year to T20 privates, which is right around the number of USAMO qualifiers.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Colleges look for future leaders, that concept is vastly different from Olympiad winners. Olympia competition is limited to math, physics, chemistry, biology, information science. Limiting seats to Olympia winners is an extremely weird idea. The majority of math Olympia winners end up at Jane Street and Citadel. Do we want that for our society as a whole? Naw.

I think, if anything, we should exclude these Olympia people from the top colleges. They are free to attend state universities and such.

Yeah, if you’re a camper in high school, JS or Citadel will take you no matter which colleges you attend.

I thought we didn't want these kids going to JS and Citadel? So why put them in an environment where it's their only realistic exit? At least at a top university they'll be able to do a PhD and academically challenge themselves if they wish. Many state schools, on the other hand, do not allow skipping prerequisites and doing things like take real analysis first semester.

Anonymous wrote:Colleges look for future leaders, that concept is vastly different from Olympiad winners. Olympia competition is limited to math, physics, chemistry, biology, information science. Limiting seats to Olympia winners is an extremely weird idea. The majority of math Olympia winners end up at Jane Street and Citadel. Do we want that for our society as a whole? Naw.

I think, if anything, we should exclude these Olympia people from the top colleges. They are free to attend state universities and such.

Olympiad winners in math end up doing PhDs in math and being successful in academia at a much higher rate than math majors in general. I agree that requiring English majors to be Olympiad medalists makes no sense, but it makes a lot more sense for math majors.

Anonymous wrote:A meritocratic process wouldn't be about too many people vying for too few seats but rather a way to provide quality education based on aptitude and aspirations whatever they are. This would rightly feel like socialism.

Meritocracy is a myth in the U.S.

History bears this out for those who choose not to ignore it.

And the top colleges are providing quality education as it currently stands.

It is a meritocracy today.

Maybe not based on YOUR criteria, but it is.

DD is not an athlete but loves have a high powered football team at her school. Says the guys are super fit and super fun.

Anonymous wrote:Also regarding sports recruiting and academic standards, I'm specifically referring to elite schools where the recruiting sports lose the school money and don't really contribute to its prestige. If you think sports teams are a necessary part of these institutions, fine, but so are the orchestras, moot courts, model un, and many other groups within these universities, none of whose potential participants get an extra special route to admissions.

Gimme a break. At least the recruited athletes are usually evaluated multiple times by college coaches to ensure they are at the caliber needed for their sport.
So their athletic skill is real, as opposed to many of the non-athletes who have their not-for-profits set up and run by mommy and daddy in the name of the kid, or the coveted summer internship or job that was negotiated by daddy at the country club with his golfing partner. Or the kids whose parents send them to attend pricey math and science prep classes since age 4 to get a leg up on the “olympiads”.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Colleges look for future leaders, that concept is vastly different from Olympiad winners. Olympia competition is limited to math, physics, chemistry, biology, information science. Limiting seats to Olympia winners is an extremely weird idea. The majority of math Olympia winners end up at Jane Street and Citadel. Do we want that for our society as a whole? Naw.

I think, if anything, we should exclude these Olympia people from the top colleges. They are free to attend state universities and such.

That’s one of the most stupid comment I’ve read on this forum.

Are you afraid they ruin the curve at your kid’s Ivy?

Doing well in those competitions or other stem competitions for that matter, builds critical thinking and resilience, plus that they have a higher IQ than most kids.

What would you do to test the other 50% of the campus that aren't in these specific testable majors?

There are only a few hundred campers each year, can’t even fill a liberal art college.

Then just have JS set up JSU to collect those, a pipeline better than Bucknell.

Palantir already has gotten started by giving internships to students committed to not going to college. It'd honestly be amazing for everyone if these kinds of people skipped out on education.

They belong there.

They don't want it. They'd be best trained in private industry, doing the challenging problems that peak their interests, rather than boring problem sets and getting an education that they don't care for.

Agree. They are not good match with ivies.

Some of them stuck in complex relationships with fictional figures until their late 20s. Not a good image

A meritocratic process wouldn't be about too many people vying for too few seats but rather a way to provide quality education based on aptitude and aspirations whatever they are. This would rightly feel like socialism.

Anonymous wrote:I agree with more focus on standardized tests, but combined with adjustment for background. We're not rich or especially connected, but still among my kids parents and grandparents, we have 7 grad degrees and 3 Ivy degrees. If they had an 1500+ SAT score, that is way less impressive than a 1300 from a child of high school dropouts. And grades matter, but that 1300 kid might be at a school where straight As just mean you can read and write and show up to class, so admissions officers can't get much information from grades alone.

The interesting thing about this is that the research shows that SAT scores predict college performance pretty much independently of background. I.e. a poor kid with a 1300 performs on average the same as a rich kid that got a 1300.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How many single sitting SAT 1600's are achieved each year?

With super scoring , there is less pressure on the first sitting. If only one sitting was allowed, kids would just take it later and do a zillion practice tests before it.

This! If only one sitting, private tutoring business will profit like hell. Everyone has enormous pressure to perform in that one sitting, and they will prep and prep.

Most kids in my DC's school do not prep at all to take the first sitting as a practice/baseline setting. Compared to the cost for private tutoring, registration fees for SAT is relatively very small. It's nothing. Current system is conducive to encouraging self study.

So they are using the actual test as a practice test? I went to school eons ago in another country where we did a standardised test. Everyone got a few sessions in school to explain how it worked, try practice tests, etc then we took the test once. In this day and age, how hard could it be to design an online system that provides practice opportunities?

Students are not any kind of "ocracy" in school.