4 ms·

While this idea has potential, I don't really see it taking off. More and more colleges are being ran like businesses and the idea of spending time and money d

While this idea has potential, I don't really see it taking off. More and more colleges are being ran like businesses and the idea of spending time and money developing and running assessment centers does not make sense financially. Right now, candidates can be screened by a computer for test scores, GPAs, and key words on resumes. Alumni volunteer to interview potential students. The only paid staff are those reading essays (if they aren't graded electronically) and those making the final acceptance decision. Universities may band together to create these assessment centers to share cost and upkeep, but even then costs are going to rise because the university still has to keep the yes/no admissions gatekeepers on staff. Large universities seem to be doing fine with alumni donations and I'm not sure this method suggests enough of an increase in donations to make it a worthwhile investment for universities.

jordanpg 12y ago
This is the crux of the matter. Stated differently, why would universities want to shake up their proven business model? For vaguely defined virtues like creativity, wisdom, and well-roundedness? They are interested in the bottom line, first and foremost, and in any case are being run by executives pulled from the same executive pool that other large corporations are drawing from. The author needs to first carefully define the problem without reference to Steve Jobs or academia golden-age idealism, and then posit a roadmap away from the current business model.
- krakensden 12y ago
  > This is the crux of the matter. Stated differently, why would universities want to shake up their proven business model? For vaguely defined virtues like creativity, wisdom, and well-roundedness? Tier-2 private colleges are having a tough-ish time right now, it could be a way to differentiate and attract ambitious students- "after you've thrown your application into the goofy lottery system, why not apply here, where we take you seriously? As you can tell with this significantly less goofy admissions process!"
  - Balgair 12y ago
    Bingo. Word is out that college is a chance game for the 'right' school and even when you get in, it's rigged. You simply cannot compete with China, India, or Malaysia for spots at Stanford or UCLA. Those kids and parents can just plain out work you. My wife went to UCLA for grad school. Her students could speak English better than her, and would just out wait the professors for points on tests. Every single little thing was an argument and you'd just tire out and give it to them eventually. The cheating was a real concern as well, as the other cultures didn't really have a sense of it being 'wrong', that it was just another arbitrary rule you had to jump through. You get caught? Then you didn't cheat well enough. Also, all those kids are then either ending up back in Asia or in a cheap H1B visa spot you can't afford a mortgage or kids on. So, somewhat smart kids from Iowa will ask themselves: Why bother? I can't compete to get in, I can't compete when I am actually in there, and I can't compete when I get out. Forget this game, I'm taking my tiddly-winks and going home. And that is where the tier-2 schools really shine. Vassar, Colorado School of Mines, the Claremonts, etc really can take those kids that aren't literally-cookie-cutter-perfect-snoflakes-drill-and-kill and make them really shine. Yeah, they won't be the CEO of Hundai or GE, but they will make a damn good Lt. Major, or a VP at 7-11, or a hell of a McDonald's franchise owner, or the best darn member of a school board that is always re-elected, or a real good child abuse prosecutor. You won't make billions, but you will make 3-4 million. There really is a need here for B- students that deserve a good living. Getting rid of the darn SAT is a great way to attract them.
    - krakensden 12y ago
      Yellow Panic much?
      - Balgair 12y ago
        Seems like it huh? But it's not racism, it's population. Asia just plain has more people, that they happen to have a historical association with being seen as 'lesser' is the fault of the US here. Those people in Asia are just like the people in the US. Geniuses and idiots occur with the same probability here as there. But there are just more people there than here, so you see more of them at the top universities.
- james1071 12y ago
  These are euphemisms for 'the right sort of people'.

jordanpg 12y ago

This is the crux of the matter. Stated differently, why would universities want to shake up their proven business model? For vaguely defined virtues like creativity, wisdom, and well-roundedness? They are interested in the bottom line, first and foremost, and in any case are being run by executives pulled from the same executive pool that other large corporations are drawing from. The author needs to first carefully define the problem without reference to Steve Jobs or academia golden-age idealism, and then posit a roadmap away from the current business model.

krakensden 12y ago
> This is the crux of the matter. Stated differently, why would universities want to shake up their proven business model? For vaguely defined virtues like creativity, wisdom, and well-roundedness? Tier-2 private colleges are having a tough-ish time right now, it could be a way to differentiate and attract ambitious students- "after you've thrown your application into the goofy lottery system, why not apply here, where we take you seriously? As you can tell with this significantly less goofy admissions process!"
- Balgair 12y ago
  Bingo. Word is out that college is a chance game for the 'right' school and even when you get in, it's rigged. You simply cannot compete with China, India, or Malaysia for spots at Stanford or UCLA. Those kids and parents can just plain out work you. My wife went to UCLA for grad school. Her students could speak English better than her, and would just out wait the professors for points on tests. Every single little thing was an argument and you'd just tire out and give it to them eventually. The cheating was a real concern as well, as the other cultures didn't really have a sense of it being 'wrong', that it was just another arbitrary rule you had to jump through. You get caught? Then you didn't cheat well enough. Also, all those kids are then either ending up back in Asia or in a cheap H1B visa spot you can't afford a mortgage or kids on. So, somewhat smart kids from Iowa will ask themselves: Why bother? I can't compete to get in, I can't compete when I am actually in there, and I can't compete when I get out. Forget this game, I'm taking my tiddly-winks and going home. And that is where the tier-2 schools really shine. Vassar, Colorado School of Mines, the Claremonts, etc really can take those kids that aren't literally-cookie-cutter-perfect-snoflakes-drill-and-kill and make them really shine. Yeah, they won't be the CEO of Hundai or GE, but they will make a damn good Lt. Major, or a VP at 7-11, or a hell of a McDonald's franchise owner, or the best darn member of a school board that is always re-elected, or a real good child abuse prosecutor. You won't make billions, but you will make 3-4 million. There really is a need here for B- students that deserve a good living. Getting rid of the darn SAT is a great way to attract them.
  - krakensden 12y ago
    Yellow Panic much?
    - Balgair 12y ago
      Seems like it huh? But it's not racism, it's population. Asia just plain has more people, that they happen to have a historical association with being seen as 'lesser' is the fault of the US here. Those people in Asia are just like the people in the US. Geniuses and idiots occur with the same probability here as there. But there are just more people there than here, so you see more of them at the top universities.
james1071 12y ago
These are euphemisms for 'the right sort of people'.