<p>The title of this thread is “angry over the college admissions process”, but I did not start it, and a fair observer would not characterize my posts or those of collegealum314 or Lorem Ipsum (who have agreed with me to some extent) as “angry”. I try to make my posts informative. I think the selective college admissions process would be better for the country if it employed measures with higher ceilings and gave more weight to academic achievement, and the Parents forum at CC is a reasonable place for me to make such suggestions (and for others to rebut them). I’d like my children to gain admission to selective schools but am not obsessed with this. Saying that someone disagrees with you on an issue primarily out of self-interest is uncalled for. There should be less speculation about the motives of others or their emotional states.</p>
<p>Yes, I think it was the chosen term that got me, and my apologies to Mythmom if I overreacted: I have spent too many years hearing about how my sons are somehow damaged or otherwise deficient because they were rapidly accelerated and happen to be very good at taking standardized tests.</p>
<p>Perhaps a better approximation might be “interestingness.” Those with a range of diverse experiences, with an ability to draw a relationship between seemingly unrelated material, and with a willingness to step away from pre-packaged cookie-cutter opportunities and create their own just seem more interesting – in a classroom, in a debate and over dinner conversation.</p>
<p>As an example, one of my son’s classmates used his gap year to walk the Appalachian Trail. Frankly, I could care less about the kid’s stats, I’d just love to chat with him over dinner. On the chance-me thread, there was a post from a farm girl who is into ballet, weight-lifting and photography; yes, her stats were great, but I’m sure she’ll get a serious look from the adcoms just because of her unusual combination of experiences, and I don’t doubt she would add a unique dimension to classroom discussions.</p>
<p>Unfortunately, there is no such thing as an interesting index. But adcoms are people, too, and one would think that they would get bored reading the same old same old a thousand times over. Being interesting has got to be a serious hook, but since it can’t be quantified, the wishy-washy alternative explanation of “holistic admissions” may have to do.</p>
<p>I have to agree with Beliavsky that raising the max scores on the SAT and ACT might be a good thing. At the moment, there is just too much ceiling effect – we can’t distinguish between those who are academically superior but might have misread a couple questions and those who used the brute-force method of repeated-cram-and-test. </p>
<p>Because of this limitation, scores near the current top are all considered pretty much the same and other indicators are sought, such as participation in math and science competition. Unfortunately, this leads to a strong bias against students who do not attend a school that knows about such opportunities or participates in them.</p>
<p>It might also help stop the whining especially on those Asian threads about "I had a 2400 and got rejected *everywhere<a href=“i.e.,%20only%20by%20HYPSM”>/i</a> – maybe if they instead got a 2720/3000 they might actually consider a “lessor” school like UChicago or Rice. The fact of the matter is that these tests, on a question by question basis, are just too easy: the real challenge is just having everything fresh in your mind, pacing yourself, and not making silly mistakes. </p>
<p>The test as it stands is strongly biased toward right-brain learners like my sons, who store knowledge in their heads differently: facts get stored quickly into long-term memory as relationships that can be quickly accessed multiple ways. That’s why my son can walk into the PSAT 6 months after cracking a test prep guide and get a perfect score and then take a second ACT another 6 months later and repeat a perfect score. But pity the brilliant left-brain learner who is acing calculus and cannot immediately recall the quadratic formula from several years back. In the real world, one can do a 10-minute look up and review; during a standardized test, your only option is to retake the test.</p>
<p>Raising the bar would allow top students to better demonstrate all that they do know, rather than fixating on a handful of items they may have temporarily forgotten.</p>
<p>But LoremIpsum, wouldn’t raising the score ceiling simply recreate the same issue at a higher level? Kids who test well (whether because of their innate learning style or ample practice) will continue to excel toward the new “perfect,” whatever that is. But colleges will still want to craft entering classes made up of students with a variety of strengths. They have already told us that test scores are not the be-all-end-all, and in some cases are making the reporting of such scores optional. Putting MORE emphasis on a “new and improved” SAT runs counter to the goals of holistic admissions that are currently being embraced.</p>
<p>I guess I don’t see what the problem is, except for those who believe there is a small and finite number of “acceptable” choices for their children. They will continue to whine when “the system” STILL does not reward the type of test-taking superiority their kids are able to demonstrate. It seems to me that a better option for these super-high achievers would be to figure out ways to differentiate themselves from everyone else who is following the same path. Succeeding in areas beyond GPA, curriculum rigor and test scores might demonstrate a higher level of resourcefulness, creativity, and strategic thinking–traits that seem to be lacking among some otherwise very bright students.</p>
<p>Ironic that we get to right/left brain, which makes perfect sense to me, but not my MIT grad/Ivy prof neuroscientist friend.</p>
<p>more weight to academic achievement - ime, the academic achievement is there. Kid after kid with nothing less than A (maybe one B) in a rigorous curriculum. DE, online or cc higher math and science (or, to fit in these higher courses at the hs, cc to complete language or other requirements, etc.) Then, depending on major, outside internships/research or other similarly stretching experiences that rely on a kid’s ability to show up, contribute, have some impact. It’s mindboggling. Most apply with very good scores- distinguishing between a 750 and, say, a 900 isn’t the point. That may offer a finer data distiction, but we’re already talking top kids- and not picking based solely on stats.</p>
<p>I absolutely agree and occasionally post on the chance-me thread to suggest to select students that following the “path least taken” is a better way to stand out from the crowd than obsessing about academics.</p>
<p>I just wish to note that there is no ceiling effect in ECs, for example: one might compete at a local level or a national level, get amazing results in a well-worn EC or come up with some eclectic mix that the adcoms have never seen before.</p>
<p>In a mixed portfolio of achievements, which include class rigor, class rank/GPA, SAT/ACT, ECs and community service, the first 3 (class rigor, class rank/GPA, SAT/ACT) have become so compacted with top candidates, that disproportionate weight lands on ECs and community service to separate the candidates. Widening the spread on the standardize test to where a perfect score is a rarity would make it easier to balance the considerations of exceptional intellect and exceptional non-academic interests.</p>
<p>I actually wish the adcoms who talk vaguely about holistic admissions would throw a quantitative bone to those prone to thinking that way: “We assess ECs and community service work on the basis of depth, breath and uniqueness. If you are doing exactly the same thing as 1000 of your peers, you are unlikely to stand out, whatever your academic stats.”</p>
<p>If we need more fine grained academic measures, I’d rather see less grade inflation than a higher ceiling on a standardized test. I think it’s very difficult to distinguish students based on their GPAs.</p>
<p>That may be true, but it would be easier to change two standardized tests than change the trend at 30,000 individual high schools. Not to mention that the first to implement the change locally would put their own students at a serious disadvantage in nationwide college competitions.</p>
<p>The irony that I find is that kids who do well without cheating on standardized tests, study and get good grades generally are well prepared to take advantage of a hundred or more very good colleges and universities across the country. Two handfuls that are well known internationally of which a couple are extremely numbers driven (like UofM) and tend to accept largely based on numbers. There’s McGill which is a closer drive to the NE than California which rarely gets a passing glance at times. I’m hard pressed to understand what the preoccupation is with a handful of colleges when there are two handfuls that have international prestige, which in this day and age should almost count for me than national prestige.</p>
<p>Why should they adopt a common approach? Even the “common app” is not so common with each colleges supplemental questions. The only “common” part is that kids can input the parents and their information and upload an essay that everyone gets. That’s the last thing I’d want to see is colleges/unis standardize application requirements. Colleges have different personalities, different areas of strength and it behooves kids to take the time and figure that out and then thoughtfully pick colleges that will serve them best…not to take a check the box approach.</p>
How, exactly, would it be better for the country? Presumably, you think these schools would then ONLY admit the STEM students, do away with all those pesky, useless humanities departments, and produce a bunch of 'rarin to go scientists who will solve the problems of world peace, instead of the current reality where those self same STEM students end up digging ditches in the Congo for lack of HYPSM educational opportunity hereabouts?</p>
<p>I feel bad for the OP. I know people who say “my child is going to go to Princeton or Yale, we havent decided yet” as if it’s guaranteed. The threads in here helped me see that there are many things that improve ones chances but there is no such thing as a guarantee. Except for maybe a multimillion dollar donation.</p>
<p>2020 is a great score but not in the world of elite school admissions. Then it’s borderline with a hook and too low without one.</p>
<p>Rather than changing the SAT, why don’t some of the top US schools do what I believe Oxbridge does and have a real interview process, possibly one that includes things like poetry analyses for serious literature students and problem-solving challenges for STEM kids? I think that, plus having an actual conversation with a student, would help to differentiate between the bright student and the exceptional one.</p>
<p>“Harvard has been embarrassed by a recent cheating scandal involving 125 students, including several athletes. Giving weight to nonacademic criteria has both costs and benefits.”</p>
<p>Are you suggesting that the smartest kids do not cheat? Any data on that? </p>
<p>I think this is more a reflection that honor codes – despite their trendiness – may not be appropriate at schools that lack an honor code tradition (ala Haverford) and the buy-in of most students.</p>
<p>On a different note, does anyone know if Harvard has punished any of those students or are they just waiting to move on after the press dies down?</p>
<p>What would be the point of cheating if you’re at the top of the class with minimal effort? Who would you cheat off of, if everyone else is doing worse?</p>
<p>It’s not the smartest kids who cheat, but the ones with marginal A’s who are under pressure from their parents or peers to maintain perfect grades and get into the right schools and, later, the right jobs.</p>