4 ms·

IMHO the biggest problem with US college admissions is that it is very subjective and dependent on hidden variables. I still don't understand why someone can a

by yumraj 8y ago

IMHO the biggest problem with US college admissions is that it is very subjective and dependent on hidden variables. I still don't understand why someone can apply with no major but has to write essays about life experiences and aspirations and what they want to do in life. And, test scores matter but not really and also different classes of people (race, gender, legacy, sports, economic) have different score scales. All this makes it very unclear and hidden causing additional stress. Why can SAT/ACT and perhaps school GPA be the sole criteria? And for sports, affirmative action,.. just have separate additional seats.

tacomonstrous 8y ago
There is a simple explanation: Academics is not the primary focus at most top schools outside of perhaps MIT, Caltech and Chicago. When it comes down to it, their goal is to develop the next generation of 'elites', and the basic MO is to get a bunch of current gen elites and surround them with a cross-section of the society, so that their education is 'well-rounded'. Edit: this comment, while obviously passing some judgment on elite schools, should not be taken as an endorsement of the parent comment. Admitting based on test scores has severe issues in a society where schooling quality and resources are so unevenly distributed.
- saint_fiasco 8y ago
  If school quality and resources are not evenly distributed, don't 'hollistic' admission policies make things worse? A poor person can study for the SATs just like the rich kids (expensive tutors don't actually raise the score very much), but there is no way they will have the same opportunities (money, time, connections) for the sort of fancy extracurriculars that rich kids do to impress admission committees.
  - tacomonstrous 8y ago
    Yes of course. My critique of the system as one meant for the fostering of elites carries the corollary that it's not a great one for underprivileged students. The actual solution is not messing around with admission criteria, but rather tackling the unequal distribution of opportunity at the primary and secondary school level.
- loblollyboy 8y ago
  If I were a school I would just recruit people based on their instagram, selecting for physical attractiveness, psychopathic tendencies, creativity, narcissism and/or special skills/talents.
  - 4ntonius8lock 8y ago
    They already do. It's just more subtle and complex... but they do review social media. And narcissism and psychopathy is going to bring you big points. Those things let you get the things they want to see (school president, etc)
skybrian 8y ago
If you had a big exam that everything depended on (like in some countries), it would be clearer, but there would still be plenty of stress.
- cblum 8y ago
  University admission exams are very stressful, but they put everyone in a position where they know they have the same shot at getting admitted.
  - krastanov 8y ago
    However, it exacerbates other problems. As I mentioned in a sibling comment, "Objective" testing in a country without safety nets, like the US, would enable (more) class discrimination. Here is a surprising example of that in France (where I observed that first hand) http://phdcomics.com/comics.php?n=1292 http://phdcomics.com/comics.php?n=1292
    - cblum 8y ago
      Theirs is a system that “funnels” people without giving them much choice. I can see the issue in that. But how about this: an objective test that anyone can take however many times they want, as long as they have a high school diploma. That’s essentially the Brazilian system. There are arguments to be made about well off kids still getting an advantage because their parents can afford prep schools, but the government counters (at least partially) that by introducing quotas for certain disadvantaged groups. I have many misgivings about many things in Brazil, but I do think the university admissions process down there is the fairest I’ve seen in my life.
leetcrew 8y ago
> Why can SAT/ACT and perhaps school GPA be the sole criteria? And for sports, affirmative action,.. just have separate additional seats. scholastic aptitude is a very important part of admissions criteria, but it's not the only thing colleges care about. for example, they also care about things like extracurriculars because these indicate that a student is more likely to participate in campus organizations. you personally might not care about orgs and sports teams (I certainly didn't) but some of the students they want to attract do. there needs to be a critical mass of sports and orgs people to make these things viable.
- crispyambulance 8y ago
  Yes, this is right. For one thing, it simply isn't possible to have truly "objective" criteria for admissions. If it were only based on standardized test scores, the bulk of the students that got in to the most elite schools would be ones who went to elite private high schools and perhaps had extra highly-paid tutoring or those who enjoyed the obsessive life-long dedication of a tiger-mom. That would skew the population to students from a narrow demographic along with a very small number of unicorns. Forget about late-bloomers, promising students that went to crappy high-schools, forget about making up for decades of exclusionary practices. And after all that, guess what, the children of the uber-rich would STILL get in because a pile of money big enough to pay for a building will ALWAYS bend reality. The most elite schools will always have their admissions under a magnifying glass, but there's a lot of excellent universities out there which offer a superb education and don't have outrageous admissions requirements. A student who got top-scores and excellent grades can still go to their pick of a large number of these other fine schools if they get rejected from Harvard/Yale/Princeton/Stanford/MIT/Caltech because of losing out to some intangible criteria.
  - cbm-vic-20 8y ago
    > A student who got top-scores and excellent grades can still go to their pick of a large number of these other fine schools if they get rejected from Harvard/Yale/Princeton/Stanford/MIT/Caltech because of losing out to some intangible criteria. That's me! I was rejected from one of those schools and ended up at a "tier 2" school, and have been very successful. IOW, getting rejected from a "tier 1" school isn't a big deal, and a student may be better off at a "lesser" school.
cblum 8y ago
I’ve tried bringing up this point with multiple people and always get shot down. When I compare the American system to my home country’s system, which based on thorough, objective testing, people tell me the US system is better in terms of determining if someone is “college material.” IMO the extremely subjective nature of it only enables discrimination.
- krastanov 8y ago
  "Objective" testing in a country without safety nets, like the US, would enable (more) class discrimination. Here is a surprising example of that in France (where I observed that first hand) http://phdcomics.com/comics.php?n=1292 http://phdcomics.com/comics.php?n=1292
bitwize 8y ago
> I still don't understand why someone can apply with no major but has to write essays about life experiences and aspirations and what they want to do in life. Because of what corporate HR calls "cultural fit". Harvard is not looking necessarily for top students or even students with the most potential. It's looking for "Harvard men". While there is some well-grounded suspicion that corporate HR cultural fit is a mask for discrimination, we know this was the case with university admissions. MIT is an academic powerhouse because it was willing to take the influx of smart Jewish kids that applied to Harvard after WWII and didn't get in because they were Jewish.
4ntonius8lock 8y ago
Because getting into US college is all about compliance, commitment and leverage. This is the ideal person for an ivy league: - Parents moved to an expensive zip code so kid gets into good schools - Parents and kids deal with lots of bureaucracies. Clubs, pastimes and volunteering... which are all specifically designed to get you into college. These places don't motivate critical thinking. They REQUIRE constant observance of rules and compliance to the rule makers. - Massive student loans for the majority The whole idea is that if someone graduates as a reporter, that person might voluntarily choose to not talk about things like, how we started a war of aggression to further our economic interest. This goes also for the engineer working on the latest westernization of some random object/system. Colleges don't want the best and the brightest. They want the best and the brightest... who are compliant and who have lots invested in the 'system'... commitment leads to leverage. They want 'team players'. They also want to give as much advantage as they can to the existing elites. So... they require things that require money. That way they can say, 'we aren't turning away the best and brightest'... we are just turning away people who are smarter in favor of 'team players' who went to school practice, and ballet, and the model UN, and etc... which are of course out of reach for the average US family.
kaitai 8y ago
What I think you and a lot of fellow commenters are missing is the history of higher education in the US. In many countries in Europe, universities were established by the state and the state promotes its values through admission criteria. The imperial Chinese civil service exam system started in 650, and so they have also been working with the idea of outside examination for educational advancement for a long time (longer than Europe). In the US, a solid majority of colleges -- including the Ivies -- were established first as religious institutions. Harvard and Yale were established to educate clergy (first) and also civil servants maybe. All these colleges in the Midwest that collectively provide a substantial portion of college education: established by religious groups, often along ethnic lines. Bible colleges were the first colleges in America. At their founding, these colleges were not interested in just educating the 'smartest'. They were founded to pass on values within certain communities. Protestant colleges and Catholic colleges were not interchangeable. Lutheran colleges and Presbyterian colleges were not interchangeable. Swedish Lutheran and Norwegian Lutheran colleges are not quite interchangeable! While many of these colleges have left religion in their pasts, others have not. I taught for two years at a Lutheran college and interviewed at a Catholic college for a tenure-track position, and have spent time at two R1 land-grant institutions. All these institutions have explicitly different goals. Using the SAT/ACT and GPA to admit students to a Lutheran institution that still has a service every day and starts events with prayer just doesn't work for anyone, while the land-grant institution has a particular focus on economic and academic development for the geographic region.

by yumraj 8y ago

tacomonstrous 8y ago

There is a simple explanation: Academics is not the primary focus at most top schools outside of perhaps MIT, Caltech and Chicago. When it comes down to it, their goal is to develop the next generation of 'elites', and the basic MO is to get a bunch of current gen elites and surround them with a cross-section of the society, so that their education is 'well-rounded'. Edit: this comment, while obviously passing some judgment on elite schools, should not be taken as an endorsement of the parent comment. Admitting based on test scores has severe issues in a society where schooling quality and resources are so unevenly distributed.

saint_fiasco 8y ago
If school quality and resources are not evenly distributed, don't 'hollistic' admission policies make things worse? A poor person can study for the SATs just like the rich kids (expensive tutors don't actually raise the score very much), but there is no way they will have the same opportunities (money, time, connections) for the sort of fancy extracurriculars that rich kids do to impress admission committees.
- tacomonstrous 8y ago
  Yes of course. My critique of the system as one meant for the fostering of elites carries the corollary that it's not a great one for underprivileged students. The actual solution is not messing around with admission criteria, but rather tackling the unequal distribution of opportunity at the primary and secondary school level.
loblollyboy 8y ago
If I were a school I would just recruit people based on their instagram, selecting for physical attractiveness, psychopathic tendencies, creativity, narcissism and/or special skills/talents.
- 4ntonius8lock 8y ago
  They already do. It's just more subtle and complex... but they do review social media. And narcissism and psychopathy is going to bring you big points. Those things let you get the things they want to see (school president, etc)

skybrian 8y ago

If you had a big exam that everything depended on (like in some countries), it would be clearer, but there would still be plenty of stress.

cblum 8y ago
University admission exams are very stressful, but they put everyone in a position where they know they have the same shot at getting admitted.
- krastanov 8y ago
  However, it exacerbates other problems. As I mentioned in a sibling comment, "Objective" testing in a country without safety nets, like the US, would enable (more) class discrimination. Here is a surprising example of that in France (where I observed that first hand) http://phdcomics.com/comics.php?n=1292 http://phdcomics.com/comics.php?n=1292
  - cblum 8y ago
    Theirs is a system that “funnels” people without giving them much choice. I can see the issue in that. But how about this: an objective test that anyone can take however many times they want, as long as they have a high school diploma. That’s essentially the Brazilian system. There are arguments to be made about well off kids still getting an advantage because their parents can afford prep schools, but the government counters (at least partially) that by introducing quotas for certain disadvantaged groups. I have many misgivings about many things in Brazil, but I do think the university admissions process down there is the fairest I’ve seen in my life.

leetcrew 8y ago

> Why can SAT/ACT and perhaps school GPA be the sole criteria? And for sports, affirmative action,.. just have separate additional seats. scholastic aptitude is a very important part of admissions criteria, but it's not the only thing colleges care about. for example, they also care about things like extracurriculars because these indicate that a student is more likely to participate in campus organizations. you personally might not care about orgs and sports teams (I certainly didn't) but some of the students they want to attract do. there needs to be a critical mass of sports and orgs people to make these things viable.

crispyambulance 8y ago
Yes, this is right. For one thing, it simply isn't possible to have truly "objective" criteria for admissions. If it were only based on standardized test scores, the bulk of the students that got in to the most elite schools would be ones who went to elite private high schools and perhaps had extra highly-paid tutoring or those who enjoyed the obsessive life-long dedication of a tiger-mom. That would skew the population to students from a narrow demographic along with a very small number of unicorns. Forget about late-bloomers, promising students that went to crappy high-schools, forget about making up for decades of exclusionary practices. And after all that, guess what, the children of the uber-rich would STILL get in because a pile of money big enough to pay for a building will ALWAYS bend reality. The most elite schools will always have their admissions under a magnifying glass, but there's a lot of excellent universities out there which offer a superb education and don't have outrageous admissions requirements. A student who got top-scores and excellent grades can still go to their pick of a large number of these other fine schools if they get rejected from Harvard/Yale/Princeton/Stanford/MIT/Caltech because of losing out to some intangible criteria.
- cbm-vic-20 8y ago
  > A student who got top-scores and excellent grades can still go to their pick of a large number of these other fine schools if they get rejected from Harvard/Yale/Princeton/Stanford/MIT/Caltech because of losing out to some intangible criteria. That's me! I was rejected from one of those schools and ended up at a "tier 2" school, and have been very successful. IOW, getting rejected from a "tier 1" school isn't a big deal, and a student may be better off at a "lesser" school.

cblum 8y ago

I’ve tried bringing up this point with multiple people and always get shot down. When I compare the American system to my home country’s system, which based on thorough, objective testing, people tell me the US system is better in terms of determining if someone is “college material.” IMO the extremely subjective nature of it only enables discrimination.

krastanov 8y ago
"Objective" testing in a country without safety nets, like the US, would enable (more) class discrimination. Here is a surprising example of that in France (where I observed that first hand) http://phdcomics.com/comics.php?n=1292 http://phdcomics.com/comics.php?n=1292

bitwize 8y ago

> I still don't understand why someone can apply with no major but has to write essays about life experiences and aspirations and what they want to do in life. Because of what corporate HR calls "cultural fit". Harvard is not looking necessarily for top students or even students with the most potential. It's looking for "Harvard men". While there is some well-grounded suspicion that corporate HR cultural fit is a mask for discrimination, we know this was the case with university admissions. MIT is an academic powerhouse because it was willing to take the influx of smart Jewish kids that applied to Harvard after WWII and didn't get in because they were Jewish.

4ntonius8lock 8y ago

Because getting into US college is all about compliance, commitment and leverage. This is the ideal person for an ivy league: - Parents moved to an expensive zip code so kid gets into good schools - Parents and kids deal with lots of bureaucracies. Clubs, pastimes and volunteering... which are all specifically designed to get you into college. These places don't motivate critical thinking. They REQUIRE constant observance of rules and compliance to the rule makers. - Massive student loans for the majority The whole idea is that if someone graduates as a reporter, that person might voluntarily choose to not talk about things like, how we started a war of aggression to further our economic interest. This goes also for the engineer working on the latest westernization of some random object/system. Colleges don't want the best and the brightest. They want the best and the brightest... who are compliant and who have lots invested in the 'system'... commitment leads to leverage. They want 'team players'. They also want to give as much advantage as they can to the existing elites. So... they require things that require money. That way they can say, 'we aren't turning away the best and brightest'... we are just turning away people who are smarter in favor of 'team players' who went to school practice, and ballet, and the model UN, and etc... which are of course out of reach for the average US family.

kaitai 8y ago

What I think you and a lot of fellow commenters are missing is the history of higher education in the US. In many countries in Europe, universities were established by the state and the state promotes its values through admission criteria. The imperial Chinese civil service exam system started in 650, and so they have also been working with the idea of outside examination for educational advancement for a long time (longer than Europe). In the US, a solid majority of colleges -- including the Ivies -- were established first as religious institutions. Harvard and Yale were established to educate clergy (first) and also civil servants maybe. All these colleges in the Midwest that collectively provide a substantial portion of college education: established by religious groups, often along ethnic lines. Bible colleges were the first colleges in America. At their founding, these colleges were not interested in just educating the 'smartest'. They were founded to pass on values within certain communities. Protestant colleges and Catholic colleges were not interchangeable. Lutheran colleges and Presbyterian colleges were not interchangeable. Swedish Lutheran and Norwegian Lutheran colleges are not quite interchangeable! While many of these colleges have left religion in their pasts, others have not. I taught for two years at a Lutheran college and interviewed at a Catholic college for a tenure-track position, and have spent time at two R1 land-grant institutions. All these institutions have explicitly different goals. Using the SAT/ACT and GPA to admit students to a Lutheran institution that still has a service every day and starts events with prayer just doesn't work for anyone, while the land-grant institution has a particular focus on economic and academic development for the geographic region.