4 ms·

Would different test-based or merit-based metrics radically change the result? After all, isn't the purpose of a holistic approach to college admissions basica

Would different test-based or merit-based metrics radically change the result? After all, isn't the purpose of a holistic approach to college admissions basically to make the criterion not one of any measurement of quality merit, but of belonging to the right demographic mix that the college seeks to attain? Further, why should colleges try to correct for lack of opportunity? Their job is to educate people, and not everyone is apt for higher education. Admitting a student with poor mathematical abilities into a rigorous engineering program is just setting that student up for failure, not recompensing him for opportunities lost or squandered earlier.

jedberg 4y ago
> Further, why should colleges try to correct for lack of opportunity? Public schools should do it because they are part of the education system that needs correction. Private schools arguably are still part of the public education system since they all get Federal dollars, and thus the same argument applies. If they're getting tax dollars, that makes them a public good, and therefore they should be doing things that help all people, not just some people.
- yterdy 4y ago
  Additionally, if we are to expect that much of our political, economic, and technical elite are to pass through these institutions - and, further, that such institutions will trade explicitly on their ability to produce this elite - then there is an inherent public interest in the character of their operations. It's simply a matter of accountability.
danheskett 4y ago
You've accidental confused achievement and ability. A student who goes to a poor school who offers zero AP classes will always achieve lower weighted GPAs than students who go to wealthy schools that offer many AP classes. No amount of individual achievement will overcome that mathematical disadvatnage. Racism comes into when, because of racism, it just so happens that schools who are well funded and can give that advantage are overwhelmingly white, and schools who are are poorly funded and cannot give that advantage are overwhelmingly non-white. Suggesting that a student who is "placed above his or her station" into an elite program is setup for failure is a favorite of a few SCOTUS Justices, but in fact is not supported by evidence. Graduation and other metrics of success are not strongly correlated to past attainment, primarily because most programs have already had to deal with achievement inequities, and the most successful programs already have mechanisms to even out unequal prior achievement. Virtually all programs that have elite programs already have a substantial apparatus dedicated to filling achievement gaps between incoming students. The larger question of "what is the purpose of college" and "is it to educate people" is bigger than this thread, but shouldn't be overlooked. For schools that are publicly funded in whole or part, there should be a larger mission than sending young adults through an educational meat grinder. The public mission of public universities should absolutely have a social justice component. There is absolutely no doubt that we could design an education system which, at an early age, divides and tracks students towards a successful and high level of attainment. By ruthlessly focusing resources on those children with the best chances of success, and minimizing resources expended on those with lower changes of success, the system could produce many multiples of positive outcomes than we do now, but at the cost of many more left with almost no attainment. Our present distribution of resources, in the US, is haphazardly assembled and produces a balance of outcomes, but is by no means optimized for any particular set of outcomes.

jedberg 4y ago

> Further, why should colleges try to correct for lack of opportunity? Public schools should do it because they are part of the education system that needs correction. Private schools arguably are still part of the public education system since they all get Federal dollars, and thus the same argument applies. If they're getting tax dollars, that makes them a public good, and therefore they should be doing things that help all people, not just some people.

yterdy 4y ago
Additionally, if we are to expect that much of our political, economic, and technical elite are to pass through these institutions - and, further, that such institutions will trade explicitly on their ability to produce this elite - then there is an inherent public interest in the character of their operations. It's simply a matter of accountability.

danheskett 4y ago

You've accidental confused achievement and ability. A student who goes to a poor school who offers zero AP classes will always achieve lower weighted GPAs than students who go to wealthy schools that offer many AP classes. No amount of individual achievement will overcome that mathematical disadvatnage. Racism comes into when, because of racism, it just so happens that schools who are well funded and can give that advantage are overwhelmingly white, and schools who are are poorly funded and cannot give that advantage are overwhelmingly non-white. Suggesting that a student who is "placed above his or her station" into an elite program is setup for failure is a favorite of a few SCOTUS Justices, but in fact is not supported by evidence. Graduation and other metrics of success are not strongly correlated to past attainment, primarily because most programs have already had to deal with achievement inequities, and the most successful programs already have mechanisms to even out unequal prior achievement. Virtually all programs that have elite programs already have a substantial apparatus dedicated to filling achievement gaps between incoming students. The larger question of "what is the purpose of college" and "is it to educate people" is bigger than this thread, but shouldn't be overlooked. For schools that are publicly funded in whole or part, there should be a larger mission than sending young adults through an educational meat grinder. The public mission of public universities should absolutely have a social justice component. There is absolutely no doubt that we could design an education system which, at an early age, divides and tracks students towards a successful and high level of attainment. By ruthlessly focusing resources on those children with the best chances of success, and minimizing resources expended on those with lower changes of success, the system could produce many multiples of positive outcomes than we do now, but at the cost of many more left with almost no attainment. Our present distribution of resources, in the US, is haphazardly assembled and produces a balance of outcomes, but is by no means optimized for any particular set of outcomes.