5 ms·

This thread is filled with people arguing false dichotomies: "test scores" vs. "fancy extra-curriculars" or "rich experiences" vs. "working class experiences."

by agar 5y ago

This thread is filled with people arguing false dichotomies: "test scores" vs. "fancy extra-curriculars" or "rich experiences" vs. "working class experiences." I recently saw one child into college, and have another on the way. I've spoken to many admissions officers, counselors, and similar folks making admissions choices for public and private universities. To a one, they all claim to be looking for two things: (1) students who will succeed at their university, and (2) a diverse range of students to avoid a monoculture. This means they try to look at the "whole student." For some students, that means academics and test scores to show academic prowess. For others, it's working summers to pay for their college to show it's a personally meaningful step for them. For others, it's being a primary caregiver to siblings or parents while still meeting college requirements to show grit and determination. For others, it's demonstrating consistent progress in pursuing a passion (e.g., volunteering or music or art) with a trajectory that continues through college. Admission officers say they want a student body comprised of all of the above, and that's how they get the diverse range of students to create a dynamic learning environment. Some of the least interesting students are "box checkers" who have a bunch of disconnected extra-curriculars that don't show passion, direction, or a proclivity towards success. If a student defines "success" as "getting into college," then what will they do once they get there? Probably flounder. Test scores can be a useful data point towards determining collegiate success, but it certainly won't be the only one used. Nor will extra-curriculars or any other single factor. The single biggest piece of advice for any applying student: create a narrative that shows how your activities (whatever they are) demonstrate why you will be a successful student that achieves your major-related goals. Your grades, scores, work life, home life, interests, and personal experiences should all be connected to show you are thoughtful, motivated, driven, and have your shit together. Do that, and you'll have the best chance of success at most admissions offices.

hacym 5y ago
High level public institutions get tens of thousands of applicants. I can almost assure you that what you’re describing is a wonderland that doesn’t exist in all but the smallest schools that can take time to review applicants on the whole. Most schools can barely weed through the applicants based on standardized measures (GPA, SAT/ACT, coursework). The feel good stuff likely only shines in essays, but very little prestige is going to be given to someone that wrote about working a summer job to pay for school, even if that’s unfortunate for the student.
yes_really 5y ago
> Some of the least interesting students are "box checkers" who have a bunch of disconnected extra-curriculars that don't show passion, direction, or a proclivity towards success. If a student defines "success" as "getting into college," then what will they do once they get there? Probably flounder. Yet if a student defines "success" as "playing a musical instrument really well" you'll think that he is well-rounded and deserves to get admitted.
- csa 5y ago
  > Yet if a student defines "success" as "playing a musical instrument really well" you'll think that he is well-rounded and deserves to get admitted. East Asian female at my high school. - 1st chair violin in the city youth orchestra - perfect grades - very high SAT scores - no sports - took or tested out of all of the classes in our high school except advanced and AP German… in three years - admitted into MIT after her junior year - IIRC, she had some volunteer activities in a science research lab, but nothing significant like being an author on a research paper. She seemed to be well-rounded enough.
devwastaken 5y ago
They're saying the lines they're paid to say the same as an oil exec is paid for theirs. There is a significant amount of profit being made in higher education, yet look at your statements right there - they're looking for people whom are willing to slave themselves. It's discriminatory and a massive waste of resources. We have to do away with these institutions to build something that actually meets the needs of today. But given government is involved i doubt it ever will.
- agar 5y ago
  A student who pays tuition for 4 or 5 years is more profitable than one who drops out (or transfers) after a year. Their interests are (generally) aligned with their statements, in that they want to find people who will be a good fit for the school and want to stay there. That means academically and also culturally. As an aside, my kid got into several schools and was rejected by several others. She chose a small private campus you've probably never heard of that was a perfect fit - and she has thrived like I can't believe. They also gave her a scholarship that made the cost lower than almost anywhere else, including public/state universities. The real tragedy is people who only look at top 10 schools and feel they're a failure if they don't get in. There really is a school for everyone. And I'm not sure what "government" has to do with it, most universities are either private or run by independent boards of regents or trustees.
tqi 5y ago
> Some of the least interesting students are "box checkers" who have a bunch of disconnected extra-curriculars that don't show passion, direction, or a proclivity towards success. If a student defines "success" as "getting into college," then what will they do once they get there? Probably flounder. This comment really rubbed me the wrong way. Sorry these "box checkers" worked too hard to follow the rules of the game as described to them by their teachers? Your assertion that they "probably flounder" is completely devoid of any evidence, and just reflect your own idiotic biases. People who think like you were the ones giving Asian kids systematically lower "personality scores," dismissing them as "grinds" without a shred of evidence.
- BeFlatXIII 5y ago
  Counterpoint: box-checkers are no fun to have as classmates.
  - Jimbonius 5y ago
  - quibono 5y ago
    Counterpoint: universities are supposed to provide education (which doesn't mean fun isn't allowed but surely that's not the priority here)
    - caddemon 5y ago
      A room full of box checkers is also worse for education. I want to have classmates that are willing to question the teacher, classmates that will spend time thinking beyond a class instead of cramming every trivial detail for an A+, classmates that will choose their classes based on what sounds interesting to them and not only what would look best on their resume. These schools don't systematically reject all box checkers, it's just that there are so damn many of them the admit rate is going to be very low for box checkers if you want a class with diverse perspectives. I also don't think it's a binary property, and to some extent is a product of how one spins their application. This is definitely a downside of the current system. But there are fundamental, educational reasons to not want your entire class consisting of students that poured every waking hour of high school into gaming the college app.
civilized 5y ago
> I recently saw one child into college, and have another on the way. I've spoken to many admissions officers, counselors, and similar folks making admissions choices for public and private universities. > To a one, they all claim to be looking for two things: (1) students who will succeed at their university, and (2) a diverse range of students to avoid a monoculture. > This means they try to look at the "whole student." In the 1920s, "look at the whole student" meant "exclude Jews". In fact, the whole modern "holistic" admissions process was brought into being to exclude Jews [1]. And the "holism" of the process was instrumental to creating the desired racial bias, as "holism" affords tremendous room for subtle biases to entrench themselves. This persists today in Harvard's "personal rating" bias against Asians, which launders anti-Asian bias out to the wider society that rates those students. I do not think that admissions officers are hellbent on racial exclusion today, but I also do not think that admissions officers can be trusted to describe the full nature and biases of their processes. [1] https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/dobbin/files/2007_asq_karabel.pdf https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/dobbin/files/2007_asq_kara...
femiagbabiaka 5y ago
This was a pretty compelling argument to get rid of the current rigamarole of the college admissions process. Is the purpose to get an education or to audition for a reality show? Why are we making 17 year olds craft a narrative about their life and judging their worthiness based on that?

by agar 5y ago

hacym 5y ago

High level public institutions get tens of thousands of applicants. I can almost assure you that what you’re describing is a wonderland that doesn’t exist in all but the smallest schools that can take time to review applicants on the whole. Most schools can barely weed through the applicants based on standardized measures (GPA, SAT/ACT, coursework). The feel good stuff likely only shines in essays, but very little prestige is going to be given to someone that wrote about working a summer job to pay for school, even if that’s unfortunate for the student.

yes_really 5y ago

csa 5y ago
> Yet if a student defines "success" as "playing a musical instrument really well" you'll think that he is well-rounded and deserves to get admitted. East Asian female at my high school. - 1st chair violin in the city youth orchestra - perfect grades - very high SAT scores - no sports - took or tested out of all of the classes in our high school except advanced and AP German… in three years - admitted into MIT after her junior year - IIRC, she had some volunteer activities in a science research lab, but nothing significant like being an author on a research paper. She seemed to be well-rounded enough.

devwastaken 5y ago

They're saying the lines they're paid to say the same as an oil exec is paid for theirs. There is a significant amount of profit being made in higher education, yet look at your statements right there - they're looking for people whom are willing to slave themselves. It's discriminatory and a massive waste of resources. We have to do away with these institutions to build something that actually meets the needs of today. But given government is involved i doubt it ever will.

agar 5y ago
A student who pays tuition for 4 or 5 years is more profitable than one who drops out (or transfers) after a year. Their interests are (generally) aligned with their statements, in that they want to find people who will be a good fit for the school and want to stay there. That means academically and also culturally. As an aside, my kid got into several schools and was rejected by several others. She chose a small private campus you've probably never heard of that was a perfect fit - and she has thrived like I can't believe. They also gave her a scholarship that made the cost lower than almost anywhere else, including public/state universities. The real tragedy is people who only look at top 10 schools and feel they're a failure if they don't get in. There really is a school for everyone. And I'm not sure what "government" has to do with it, most universities are either private or run by independent boards of regents or trustees.

tqi 5y ago

> Some of the least interesting students are "box checkers" who have a bunch of disconnected extra-curriculars that don't show passion, direction, or a proclivity towards success. If a student defines "success" as "getting into college," then what will they do once they get there? Probably flounder. This comment really rubbed me the wrong way. Sorry these "box checkers" worked too hard to follow the rules of the game as described to them by their teachers? Your assertion that they "probably flounder" is completely devoid of any evidence, and just reflect your own idiotic biases. People who think like you were the ones giving Asian kids systematically lower "personality scores," dismissing them as "grinds" without a shred of evidence.

BeFlatXIII 5y ago
Counterpoint: box-checkers are no fun to have as classmates.
- Jimbonius 5y ago
- quibono 5y ago
  Counterpoint: universities are supposed to provide education (which doesn't mean fun isn't allowed but surely that's not the priority here)
  - caddemon 5y ago
    A room full of box checkers is also worse for education. I want to have classmates that are willing to question the teacher, classmates that will spend time thinking beyond a class instead of cramming every trivial detail for an A+, classmates that will choose their classes based on what sounds interesting to them and not only what would look best on their resume. These schools don't systematically reject all box checkers, it's just that there are so damn many of them the admit rate is going to be very low for box checkers if you want a class with diverse perspectives. I also don't think it's a binary property, and to some extent is a product of how one spins their application. This is definitely a downside of the current system. But there are fundamental, educational reasons to not want your entire class consisting of students that poured every waking hour of high school into gaming the college app.

civilized 5y ago

> I recently saw one child into college, and have another on the way. I've spoken to many admissions officers, counselors, and similar folks making admissions choices for public and private universities. > To a one, they all claim to be looking for two things: (1) students who will succeed at their university, and (2) a diverse range of students to avoid a monoculture. > This means they try to look at the "whole student." In the 1920s, "look at the whole student" meant "exclude Jews". In fact, the whole modern "holistic" admissions process was brought into being to exclude Jews [1]. And the "holism" of the process was instrumental to creating the desired racial bias, as "holism" affords tremendous room for subtle biases to entrench themselves. This persists today in Harvard's "personal rating" bias against Asians, which launders anti-Asian bias out to the wider society that rates those students. I do not think that admissions officers are hellbent on racial exclusion today, but I also do not think that admissions officers can be trusted to describe the full nature and biases of their processes. [1] https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/dobbin/files/2007_asq_karabel.pdf https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/dobbin/files/2007_asq_kara...

femiagbabiaka 5y ago

This was a pretty compelling argument to get rid of the current rigamarole of the college admissions process. Is the purpose to get an education or to audition for a reality show? Why are we making 17 year olds craft a narrative about their life and judging their worthiness based on that?