A question of fit?

curious14 · April 19, 2007, 9:42am

3togo,

In answer to your first question:.maybe he’s just more comfortable around people with whom he can be himself, just like some women prefer all women campuses. I’m not saying this is the only way to be, or even the best way to be, but it is not a dishonorable preference as some have implied.

I’ll have to research the teams thing before saying much, but as I think I mentioned when we last spoke on that issue, it is my impression that this research was not about academic situations but work situations. I’ll look in to it but even if it were generally true maybe it is not true for our hypothetical applicant and a significant number of others like him.

I think in cross post I answered your second Q with post 157.

In terms of the third Q, t the idea does not require that all schools be the same the schools that adopted this approach could differ dramatically in terms of the kinds of academic emphasis that they had: science, engineering, the arts, public policy, business or general liberal arts. There would also be differences based on region and size of school, faculty student ratios, and emphasis on research vs. teaching, lots of things.

curious14 · April 19, 2007, 9:50am

Mom of 3,

I’ve dealt with the bulk of these objections more than once so I’ll pass on responding. I think about 2/3 of your objections qualify as anti-test rant, and I have dealt with that issue repeatedly. If you don’t “get” my response then you don’t “get” what I’m saying.

inverse · April 19, 2007, 9:54am

Caltech’s admission is decided mainly by faculty through its Faculty Freshman Admission Committee, which include Director of Undergraduate Admission as ex officio member. It is more like how other research universities admit their graduate student. The process is both meritocratic and individualized. Many years back, the Committee even predicted each admitted student’s grade in core math courses.

This is possible because the school is rather small and student/faculty ratio is 3 to 1. This is also necessary because the unparallel rigor of Caltech core curriculum demand that every student admitted could handle the core. For example, every student there needs to study quantum mechanics, even for one major in economics or political sciences. The quantum mechanics course is not required for engineering student at other fine college such as MIT. The strong common core allows instruction at advance level for subsequence courses and research which is critical to Caltech’s mission.

curious14 · April 19, 2007, 9:54am

Marathon man,

I don’t know about the size of tis market, I doubt whether you do either. But in regions where schools of this type are available at the HS level the demand for them is intense.

JHS · April 19, 2007, 10:04am

unbelievablem has it right: the top 1-2% of academic candidates is not the same thing as the top 1-2% of SAT scores. Everything else the colleges look at is directed at identifying the top 1-2% of academic candidates, taking into account SAT scores and a ton of other relevant evidence. If the hypothetical candidate isn’t able to confirm his SAT scores with other evidence, he isn’t in the top 1-2%, and has no right to whine about this.

The elite colleges give away very few, if any, places to kids they don’t consider in the top 1-2% (which means about 40,000 kids are eligible, far more than the combined class sizes of the Ivy League, Stanford, MIT, Cal Tech, Chicago, and the top ten LACs, which among them enroll 22,000 kids). Of course, many of those 40,000 kids may choose to go elsewhere for other reasons.

To an earlier poster: Of course many athletes have the various qualities I identified (and I thought about adding something to that effect). My observed experience is that a handful at some schools don’t necessarily fit in with the rest of the criteria.

curious14 · April 19, 2007, 10:06am

unbeliveable,

I believe that you are the one who is repeating himself, but you bring up one new point so let me talk about that.

The average test score, our only metric available to discuss this, is around 1500 in a few schools. That average includes a large number of students admitted on non-academic criteria like recruited athletes, legacies, and URM’s it also includes a substantial number of academic superstars with SAT’s in excess of 1580. Harvard, for example, had 25% of its class made up of these. So while our hypothetical student might look like has a decent chance of acceptance with his 1500 scores, and other similar academic accomplishments, really he has the proverbal snow balls chance, unless he has one of these non-academic preferences to help him get in.

marite · April 19, 2007, 10:12am

Some of these schools could sort out applicants in terms of “objective criteria” such as SATs, GPAs, AP scores and other academic benchmarks such as Intel or Olympiad medals. For others, however, the best applicants might not present such objective criteria: arts colleges typically put more emphasis on portfolios than on SAT scores. For public policy, a student with demonstrated interest in debate, student council leadership and other similar ECs would be a better candidate than one who presented high objective criteria but less interest or lower accomplishments in these fields. A mix of experiences and perspectives would also be preferable to a more uniform though stellar high school record.

For general liberal arts, a mix of criteria is also desirable. In college, unlike high school, there are classes for many different levels of ability, even when they are all “introductory.” Most students can find their own level and are not unduly hampered by those who are weaker than they in certain areas. That is not the case of high schools with their fairly rigid age-based grouping policies and their narrow range of class offerings. This is probably why the schools that are highly specialiszed, such as Caltech or RISD, are not overhwelmed with applications.

curious14 · April 19, 2007, 10:16am

JHS

I’ll ignore the anti-test rant part of your post, sicne I have dealt with that issue separately, but numerous books written by former college adcoms indicate that between 25% and 40% of slots go to students who were “tipped” in on the basis of being a recruited athlete, a legacy, or an URM.

blossom · April 19, 2007, 10:17am

ah, no curious, he has a much better chance than the proverbial snow ball, assuming that his academic accomplishments go beyond his ablility to score on a standardized test. If this robo-kid were to submit a reference from a teacher describing the most accomplished, intellectual kid he/she has ever taught, speaking specifically about his passion for the Civil War, or his ability to compare Renaissance artwork to that of Dali and Picasso with sophistication and insight, this kid would have quite a substantial chance of admissions at a top school- and if the kid doesn’t come from Great Neck or Winnetka, even better. You’d rather blame AA or recruited athletes for taking his place, when in fact, his place is being taken by a kid with a well-developed intellectual interest, and not a shallow need to be surrounded by other good test-takers. You’d rather blame the system-- so go ahead…

What you coyly refer to as non-academic factors are in fact, perceived as critical academic factors by professors and adcoms. An interest in a high IQ per se does not make an intellectual, nor does it make for a fun place to teach and learn. Has this kid ever read a book that wasn’t assigned in class? You refuse to engage on this subject… but as I’ve pointed out, a kid doesn’t need to be the Physics Olympiad champ to be an interesting person to have in a seminar. There are loads of unhooked, non legacy, non athletic, non minority kids on these campuses… but each of them has something beyond a high test score.

curious14 · April 19, 2007, 10:23am

Marite,

I don’t really care if the college uses subjective criteria rather than objective criertia, altough it seems sensible to me to use both. I just care that the criteria be about discerning academic merit and not some back door way of pushing some other agenda.

marite · April 19, 2007, 10:28am

^^That seems to be a very different argument from the one you’ve been making so far, especially when arguing over and over again that you are using the SAT as a proxy for "“objective criteria” which are what admissions decisions should be based on.
So perhaps, you can elaborate what “other agenda” you are objecting to?

curious14 · April 19, 2007, 10:31am

blossom,

Since the kid is hypothetical, I hereby endow him with the interests and recommendations that you list or similar ones. IMO, he still has less than a 5% chance of being admitted, (OK it’s greater than the snowball). I can’t prove that, I doubt anyone could prove the issue one way or the other since it does require some subjective judgements. If you believe he has closer to a 25% chance maybe your right, I don’t think so. I’m not sure there is much more to say about that.