<p>EK4,</p>
<p>This isn’t about numbers that’s just the easiest way to talk about it. Lot’s of folks measure academic merit in somewhat different and legitimate ways: none of which include athletic prowess, parental status, or race and ethnicity. It is about a system that has been warped by various traditions and political pressures. State universities are every bit as subject to these pressures, if not more so, than are private colleges and universities.</p>
<p>Okay, so what the hypothetical student wants is a school where a certain SAT is required for admission(1400 or higher, say, so that the average would be close to 1500?) and in addition to that requirement, excellent grades? No other criteria?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Doubt it. With only something like 250 first year students, it’s probably one of the more individualized admissions processes in the country.</p>
<p>Let’s try to put some perspective on this. For one sitting test scores at 1500 or above : 15,182 kids out of @1.5 million, the ACT equivalent to a 1520 or above (34-36) adds another 6,271 out of 1.2 million. (So much for the ACT being easier.) And we know some kids are on both lists. Sure , I understand multiple sittings but still…that ain’t a lot of kids.</p>
<p>I think the best fit for hypothetical student is Hypothetical U.</p>
<p>The best thing that ever happened to the american system of higher education was the introduction of the SAT’s. But that is not what I am arguing about here. Why is that so difficult to understand? The reason I framed the question in that fashion is that there is no other objective basis for framing it. I could use IQ tests if we administered them. I could use AP scores if the system was more universal, ditto on SATII’s. GPA’s, class rank, and quality of essays are all interesting and valid mesures, in context. But it is impossible to talk about this question, in this environment without some kind of objective measure of merit and SAT scores are all I have to work with. Does that mean it is all I, or our hypothetical student, cares about? NO! NO! NO! It is just an extremely direct way of framing the question.</p>
<p>Thats right, Curm, it’s a very small number of kids, and many of them probably don’t want what I’m talking about. But for those who do it would be nice if there were some options.</p>
<p>intersted dad,</p>
<p>There is nothing inconsistent with individualized and meritocratic. There is an inconsistency if one of the criteria is where daddy went to school.</p>
<p>“What’s left are a few really good athletes and a few really rich kids, but they are an eyedropperful except at a few very small LACs that care a lot about sports.”</p>
<p>JHM your post makes it sound like you believe that all the qualities possessed by a strong not-athlete candidate and excellent athletic ability are mutually exclusive. Do you really think that most athletes lack academic, leadership and character qualities? Do you honestly believe these kids are admitted based solely on their sport?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s what we’ve been trying to tell you.</p>
<p>BTW, if you don’t want a school that gives legacy preferences, don’t apply to those. It’s a free market. There are schools with policies and priorities for just about everyone.</p>
<p>Something like this has probably been said before in this thread, but it’s 10 pages long so whatever.</p>
<p>Curious seems to be arguing that our higher education system should be based purely on academic/intellectual qualifications, like pretty much every other one in the world. No sports/ECs/whatever. I see how that would make sense, but colleges don’t see it the same way. There was an article in the New Yorker (I think?) within the last year or two about the history of Ivy League admissions. It cited a study done a few decades ago in which the career paths of students from a certain magnet elementary school were traced. The school based admissions purely on high test scores, so these were some of the smartest kids in the area. But decades later, they really weren’t all that successful, at least not as much as would be expected. The point was, intelligence really determines a fairly small part of success. A moderately smart student with wonderful social skills will probably be much more successful than a top 1% with nothing else else going for him. Colleges wanted, and still do what, applicants that will ultimately be successful and they’ve found that pure intelligence isn’t the best way to determine that. I think it’s a good system.</p>
<p>Interested Dad, </p>
<p>Would you mind explaining these two posts of yours. They seem totally inconsistent.</p>
<p>"Quote:“they do seem pretty meritocratic in the admissions process”.
Your response: “Doubt it. With only something like 250 first year students, it’s probably one of the more individualized admissions processes in the country.” from post 143.</p>
<p>Quote:“There is nothing inconsistent with individualized and meritocratic.”
Your response: “That’s what we’ve been trying to tell you”. from post 150</p>
<p>“There are schools with policies and priorities for just about everyone.”</p>
<p>Yes, except for top 1% students with a preference for being surrounded by other top 1% & 2% students. My point is that the schools where these students exist in large numbers give away so many places based on non-academic criteria that our hypothetical candidate has, at best, a slim shot at being admitted and therefore generally attends schools where he is in the top quartile. Some of you may hate our hypothetical kid’s preference. That is your right, I don’t care. But the preference is not immoral, illogical, or any more arrogant than an athelete that likes being around other strong athletes, or a women who wants to attend and all womens college, or those who prefer HBC’s. </p>
<p>And can we please dispense with the anti-test rants, this is not about the use of statndardized tests to measure acadmic merit, that is just an easy way to frame the question.</p>
<p>adf8,</p>
<p>This is off topic. But it is interesting. Let’s take two kids, one of the ones you mentioned who went to this HS for very smart kids another, less intelligent kid, who went to say a New England prep school that his father attended. Our first kid ends up at his state U top couple of % of students there. The other kid is also a legacy at Yale. After graduation our very bright kid enters the job market. He does well. But if he’s interested in finance, for example, he is definitely not a typical candidate for investment banking, the highest paying subfield. Our second candidate’s dad introduces him to some buddies on Wall Street and, in a field that is more about connections than intelligence, he does well. </p>
<p>My point of this little story is that there are lots of things that determine success in life. Some are fair and meritocratic, some are not, and that’s life. I personally think it’s a shame that our system of higher education operates to make the world less fair rather than more so. The great irony here is that someone, like yourself, comes along and cites the fact that the second student does better than the first financially as a defense for keeping the current system.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>But schools that enroll the top 1-2% students have SO MANY such students apply that they NEED other critieria to distinguish people by.</p>
<p>Weskid,</p>
<p>Why not just dig deeper into the acadmic merit of these kids and evaluate all of those wonderful non-test aspects of academic merit that many of the posters have mentioned: passion for literature or science as illustrated in writting or research. Why jump to non acadmic things like atheletic ability, parental status, race and ethnicity.</p>
<p>well Curious … I’m trying to avoid this thread but it’s too interesting. You’re very good cross examining but since you brought up this topic it seems you should provide your positions. I have 2 main questions for you.</p>
<p>First, your hypothetical student has a preference to be with all top 1%/2% students … please explain why? I assume because there is a belief it will lead to a more intellectually interesting envronment. A couple times you have been presented with the idea that grouping “the smartest” together does not lead to the best group results and “the smartest” do not necessarily suceed the most. The group dynamic I discussed was team performance on academic type exercizes … as a team provides answers to a test. Research has shown grouping “the smartest” together does NOT do the best job at rooting out the best answers and that teams wth more variety of styles, skills, and experiencs do a better job taking tests as teams (research Belbin if you want some of this info). The first time I mentioned this you were not swayed … fair enough … beyond my personal experience I referenced research backing my position. Would you please provide some evidence beyond your opinion that picking purely “the smartest” kids yields a superior learning environment?</p>
<p>I’m not sure I understand how you would like admissions decisions to be made. First, let’s assume an overall academic measurement could be constructed that truly did measure intellectual potential, curiousity, and drive … let’s say the academic index met these goals. Are you advocating the school should just line up the applicants on this index and take the highest ranked applicants while not checking any other attributes such as sex, where they live, race, ECs, etc? OK, what about when there are still too many kids in the top rank? Should the school pull names out of a hat? Or can they use other criteria to break ties? Can attributes like sex, race, ability to bury a jumper be used to break ties? The academic index groups students into tiers so there would be lots of ties … are you promoting a similar system or one that tries to precisely rank applicants #1 through #23,444? If so, would you always take an applicant rated as a 99.72 over an applicant rated as a 99.71 even if the second student would provide soemthing truly unique to the campus?</p>
<p>Actully there is a third question. Do you believe different schools currently have different personalities? If schools picked strictly by an academic rating what would the personalisty of the school be? Stanford, Caltech, Swarthmore, and Princeton are all top tier schools by virtually anyone’s measurement and are VERY different places … and I think that is ABSOLUTELY GREAT. If these 4 schools all switched there selection process to your method wouldn’t they all accept the same students? And over time lose some of the individuality of each of the schools?</p>
<p>I think we see this hypothetical kid who will only be “happy” being surrournded by top 1% test takers as missing the boat. Being a good test taker is no predictor of future success which is the ultimate goal of the US university system. Being a good test taker is not necessarily a predictor of intellectual thought. I think most of the parents here would like the hypothetical kid and parents to understand that the most successful people are holistic as are many perceived intellectuals. Most of us “get” what you’re saying, most of us don’t agree with your thinking. Also you are defining “intellectual” way too narrowly. You could have someone of great intellectual thought who can’t “do math”, may have “test scores” less than your hypothetical 1500 and be a great thinker. This is what we are saying. You can not quantify “intellectual thought”. Frankly most people that we would say are intellectual are stimulated by all things around them, not just necessarily stimulated by quantitatively “smart” people. It’s really mixing metaphores to substitute smart for intellectual. ACT tests theoretically are measuring “what you’ve learned” so to me they don’t measure intelletual capability. SAT scores are touted as being tests of “reasoning”, again maybe reasoning ability is closer to intellectual capacity , but not a measure of intellectual capability. I have a young one #3 with a very high IQ but he’s dyslexic, he’s never, ever, going to get 1500 ever. Does that make him not intelligent enough to stimulate your hypothetical student? The tests scores can be artificially be manipulated by test taking classes, multiple sittings, etc. Does this mean the kid in Odekoda at a rural school who might take the test once and scores 1400 is not intelligent enough to stimulate your hypothetical student? We’re not saying you are flat out wrong on every level with what you’re asking, we are saying your argument is flawed. We are saying the system in the US is inclusive and not exclusive. We are saying that the US educational system is fundamentally about preparing students to be successful in the world and we are saying that success in life has a tenuous at best relationship to test taking ability and is far more holistic. Personally, I’m concerned if a younog person really believes that life is so simplistic because that young person is in for a very rude awakening somewhere down the road when someone the hypothetical kid perceives as “less intelligent” receives a job or a promotion or a reward of some nature. The guy/girl who holds the most patents does not necessarily become the CEO. Finally, history has proved over and over again that great intellectual thought comes unexpectedly and not through a prescribed path so to assume that if all 1% test takers were together they would collectively electrify the intelligensia is really quite silly.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The question rhetorical, but I’ll take the bait anyway. Simple economics: there just wouldn’t be many takers for such a school. The brilliant lacrosse player wants to play with kids on her level; the violinist wants to play in an orchestra that’s significantly better than his HS experience; the actors want to be in productions with actors who are their peers, not only academically, but dramatically; the “merely 1350-SAT” Latina has insights into issues of class and privledge that others don’t bring to the table . . . . and on and on. </p>
<p>The number of students who are looking for the type of fit that your hypothetical student is looking for is just too small to spawn even a niche market at the level of an entire college. But such a student could certainly find a “niche” as part of a subculture of intellectually oriented students at any of several dozen selective colleges and universities.</p>
<p>curious – there are several problems with your underlying premises – they’ve been pointed out to you repeatedly – you refuse to deal with it.</p>
<p>you keep saying this isn’t about test scores – that using those scores was just a way of describing what you are talking about – yet you want to supposedly identify the top 1% of students academically – you suppose the existence of some measure to arrive at that. but there simply isn’t one – except for sat’s and gpa’s which you seem to concede are flawed.</p>
<p>you argue that at the few schools where your hypothetical student would be average, the schools are using other criteria so that he can’t have a decent shot at admissions. yet low and behold, they have a student population at which he would be only average. so somehow what they’re doing must be working – they are creating a student body he deems worthy. so all those other criteria can’t be doing that awful a job at throwing off the mix. your student’s only gripe is that HE may not get to be admitted to the school he deems worthy of him. well, they’ve done a good job assembling what he deems a worthy cohort – maybe he needs to start thinking they know what they are doing.</p>
<p>you moan that such students end up at schools where they are in the top quartile – there you go again using sat’s to define that by the way – but this supposedly isn’t about sat’s.</p>
<p>you assume that your student, whose background we don’t know, should be deemed more academically worthy than a kid who may have lower stats but perhaps had to overcome something to get them – but wait a minute – this isn’t supposedly about stats – only shear academic merit. but taking into account factors that may show just how hard someone worked to get their stats somehow isn’t appropriate to assess pure academic merit?</p>
<p>your arguments are circular and illogical – when those shortcomings are pointed out to you, you try to claim we’ve missed your premise or simply keep repeating yourself. all i can say is that if that is the same time of intellectual reasoning and ability that your hypothetical student possesses, it would be no surprise that he fails to gain admissions to the type of school he seeks.</p>