Angry over the college admissions process

lookingforward · November 23, 2012, 1:30am

The H situation leaves doubt re: whether the students were cheating. They had typically been allowed to work with TA’s on test prep. In this case, some TA’s did support them in understanding the intent behind some confusing questions, some did not. There was already a culture of collaboration. I don’t see- yet- how we assume this is cheating in the traditional sense. We don’t know enough.

In any case, Lorem, in many situations, some kids with A’s are there because they found shortcuts, no doubt.

Canuckguy · November 23, 2012, 4:52am

If you dont understand it, perhaps it is not meant for you? Just walk away. Thats what I would do.

All that venomyou still hold a grudge simply because I refuse to be intimidated by a bully and her lieutenants? Can you not see cyber bullying is what is shutting down debate around here? Let it go. After all, this is American Thanksgiving.

Pizzagirl · November 23, 2012, 8:37am

"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.”

Oh, see, I think they already say this, loud and clear. If our 2400 SAT kids are unable to grasp this, then that’s further proof that SATs measure only one type of intelligence.

Pizzagirl · November 23, 2012, 8:50am

This conversation is reminding me of the Spinal Tap speakers that “go all the way to eleven.”

The “problem” is not that the SAT doesn’t actually go to 2500 instead of 2400.

the “problem” is that supposedly-so-smart kids --and the supposedly-so-bright parents who raised them – have concluded that anything other than HYPSM is unacceptable and a step down and just a terrible, awful outcome that just isn’t “fair.”

These supposedly bright kids /parents don’t seem to grasp that if HYPSM offers 30,000 opportunities, the rest of the top 20 offer 25,000, many other schools offer 20,000 and even most state flagships offer 15,000. And one kid can only take advantage of a handful.

No one here has argued that 2400 kids are “mere” test bubblers at all. But you know what? If you’re a 2400, you don’t get into HYPSM and you have to “settle” for Carnegie Mellon or Tufts or whatever, and you can’t or don’t take advantage of those opportunities and rock those places the way you thought you were going to at HYPSM? Then, indeed, you are just a test bubbler and HYPSM was right to reject you. All your academic smarts mean nothing if you don’t have perseverance, curiosity, and a desire to do your thing no matter what environment you are placed in. And if you lick your wounds that you didn’t get into HYPSM and act like you’re a victim, then that says a lot. “Bloom where you’re planted” is also a type of intelligence, and spare me the angst of how terrible the soil is at non HYPSM schools.

Beliavsky · November 23, 2012, 8:54am

I have read that summer internships are important for getting a job after college nowadays. Sometimes companies hire summer interns for full time jobs after graduation, having used the internship as a trial period. There will be fewer American companies recruiting summer interns at McGill than at comparable American colleges. I know little about McGill and would not rule it out, but the ability of graduates of McGill and other non-US schools to get jobs in the U.S. is something I would consider.

mythmom · November 23, 2012, 8:57am

Smart kids do cheat, but they cheat smarter. Card counting scandals are evidence of this as are hacking stories.

Does that mean smart kids cheat more? Absolutely not.

I don’t think the desire to take unsanctioned short cuts correlates to intelligence or test scores.

The Oxbridge system is lovely, but I think we just have too many kids to process.

I, too, don’t see the problem. Dartmouth, for example, is more stats driven that Yale. If your kid has a perfect score on the SAT he/she may end up at Dartmouth, not Yale. Since I think Hanover the perfect college town, I don’t think anything is lost.

Your kid may be accepted at Yale, not Harvard. For one young lady I know this seemed a real tragedy. She got over it, and loved Yale.

Another young lady I know was rejected at Princeton and Dartmouth, but accepted at Harvard.

Sorry to go on, but my point is, that in most cases, a 2400 score and great academic achievement will guarantee most studies acceptance at a desirable school. It just won’t guarantee acceptances all ALL desirable schools. This is only a problem if someone believes that acing a particular text really does mean that all doors in life should open.

Life just does not work that way.

I don’t think we want a mandarin national test here, especially since test taking is only one skill among many intellectual skills, as others have pointed out.

There are enough choices that most high achieving kids will end up with acceptances at desirable colleges.

The greater problem is how to pay for these schoosl.

sally305 · November 23, 2012, 8:59am

@Pizzagirl: Yes. We can go (and have gone) around and around on this, thread after thread, year after year, but in the end the key word–and the key frustration–to a select group of posters here is QUANTITATIVE. They want even impossible-to-quantify accomplishments to be somehow rated and ranked, so that they can figure out how to “win” on these metrics along with test scores and GPA. And it doesn’t matter that some schools already admit (and offer scholarships) on the basis of stats–they only want the TOP ones, the few they deem worthy, to accede to their demands.

But in truth there is no need for these colleges to “throw a bone” to those already obsessed with stats. HYPSM et al. already have them in their pocket. And each year the hysteria builds and the colleges benefit, both in application-fee revenue and selectivity numbers. If prospective students and their families can’t see that at some level they are being played, that’s too bad.

sally305 · November 23, 2012, 9:04am

Beliavsky, good point about McGill. I am still curious, though, about how it would be “better for the country” if selective colleges changed their admissions process along the lines you would like to see.

Pizzagirl · November 23, 2012, 9:57am

Frankly I think it might be “better for the country” if so many HYP grads didn’t see the end goal in life to be going to Wall Street and making tons of money. I for one am proud that my alumni magazine features people doing all kinds of interesting and unique things, and that my friends from college span the gamut from costume designer on Broadway to minister in Iowa, and aren’t just a collection of financiers. That’s what adds to the richness of life experience.

momofthreeboys · November 23, 2012, 10:13am

^^ ah but yes if your goal in life is measured in numbers then it stands to reason that the same mind would count success in numbers…preferably dollars.

Pizzagirl · November 23, 2012, 10:59am

To be fair, I think some of the quants of the 2400-uber-alles mindset see success in terms of making mathematical or scientific discoveries commensurate with their genius, not in making millions on WS. They just don’t comprehend that they could actually make those discoveries in many other places, not just HYPSM.

Really, when you elevate these schools, or the Ivies, or the top 20s, to some kind of intellectual nirvana below which you’ll never find a smart person worthy of your time, you’re not smart --you’re stupid.

muckdogs07 · November 23, 2012, 11:05am

Interesting take on the admissions process at Ivies and other top schools. From Malcolm Gladwell in the New Yorker 10/2005.

The endless battle over admissions in the United States proceeds on the assumption that some great moral principle is at stake in the matter of whom schools like Harvard choose to let inthat those who are denied admission by the whims of the admissions office have somehow been harmed. If you are sick and a hospital shuts its doors to you, you are harmed. But a selective school is not a hospital, and those it turns away are not sick. Élite schools, like any luxury brand, are an aesthetic experiencean exquisitely constructed fantasy of what it means to belong to an élite and they have always been mindful of what must be done to maintain that experience.

Read more: [Getting</a> In : The New Yorker](<a href=“Getting In | The New Yorker”>Getting In | The New Yorker)

muckdogs07 · November 23, 2012, 11:14am

Looking forward,

Not sure the Harvard scandal raises as much doubt as some sources have reported (perhaps with stories planted by spin doctors). Instead, it appears to be a case of plagarism in some circumstances and very close copying in others, not simply TA’s giving simiklar talking points to different students.

From Wikipedia:

A teaching fellow noticed similarities between a small number of exams during grading in May 2012.[1][4][5] Platt reported the suspected plagiarism in a letter to Administrative Board Secretary John “Jay” L. Ellison on May 14.[18] The similarities were first noticed in answers for the bonus short answer question “Describe two developments in the history of Congress that ostensibly gave individual MCs [members of Congress] in the House greater freedom and/or control but ultimately centralized power in the hands of party leadership.”[18] Some students picked the “somewhat obscure” pair of the Cannon Revolt of 1910 and Henry Clay and “all the answers use the same (incorrect) reading of the course material in arguments that are identically structured.”[18] Additional comparisons revealed possible collaboration on the other questions.[18]
The Administrative Board reviewed all exams over the summer and flagged roughly 125 for suspected collaboration.[1][4] The students constitute nearly half of the 279 students enrolled in the class and almost two percent of Harvard College’s undergraduate body.[4][5] Harris said the similarities include “answers that look quite alike to answers that appear to have been lifted in their entirety.”[17] Interviews with individual students are in progress with verdicts expected by November 2012.[6]

Beliavsky · November 23, 2012, 11:41am

I previously posted a study finding that students who did well on the SAT in 7th grade were more productive scientists than people with the same terminal degrees but not the same early SAT scores. Universities in the U.S. are largely ranked according to the research productivity of faculty. It is plausible that taking classes from the best researchers, having the opportunity to work in their labs, and being able to interact with the brightest students will boost the careers of gifted students, although the effect may not be large. I am not saying anyone should be demoralized by not getting into school X, and I hope online courses will further reduce the importance of doing so. MIT’s introductory computer science course is being offered to (gasp!) community college students.

[edX</a> to Partner with Local Community Colleges | News | The Harvard Crimson](<a href=“http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2012/11/20/edx-expands-community/]edX”>edX to Partner with Local Community Colleges | News | The Harvard Crimson)
Beginning in spring, Bunker Hill Community College in Charlestown and MassBay Community Colleges greater Boston campuses will offer a modified version of edXs Introduction to Computer Science and Programming, an online class based on MITs introductory computer science course. In-class instruction and mentoring at MassBay and Bunker Hill will supplement the online course taught by three MIT professors.

sally305 · November 23, 2012, 11:47am

Thanks, muckdogs. As usual, Malcolm Gladwell sees through the BS. I also noted this:

What so many HYPSM-fixated people fail to realize is that as consumers, they can (and should) “take their business elsewhere” if they don’t get what they want. As the study cited in the article points out (among much other evidence supporting the same idea) really smart students will do well no matter where they attend college. It’s sad that some parents have so little faith in their kids that they believe they will only succeed if they hit all the conventional milestones along the way.

Beliavsky · November 23, 2012, 11:54am

It’s not just Ivies that use racial preferences in admissions. Several state university systems do as well. Many would say that a great moral principle was at stake in Brown v. Board of Education – that students not to be barred from public schools on the basis of race. Racial preferences violate this principle.

Beliavsky · November 23, 2012, 12:36pm

Here is a different view of Gladwell.
[Malcolm Gladwell, Eclectic Detective
By STEVEN PINKER
New York Times
November 7, 2009](<a href=“http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/15/books/review/Pinker-t.html”>http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/15/books/review/Pinker-t.html</a>)
The common thread in Gladwells writing is a kind of populism, which seeks to undermine the ideals of talent, intelligence and analytical prowess in favor of luck, opportunity, experience and intuition. […] It is simply not true that a quarter*backs rank in the draft is uncorrelated with his success in the pros, that cognitive skills dont predict a teachers effectiveness, that intelligence scores are poorly related to job performance or (the major claim in Outliers) that above a minimum I.Q. of 120, higher intelligence does not bring greater intellectual achievements.

Pizzagirl · November 23, 2012, 12:42pm

“Universities in the U.S. are largely ranked according to the research productivity of faculty. It is plausible that taking classes from the best researchers, having the opportunity to work in their labs, and being able to interact with the brightest students will boost the careers of gifted students”

Sure. But those opportunities are found in many more places than just HYPSM. There IS no problem of bright students not getting into great schools. The problem is that they may or may not get into a specific subset that for some reason, they idolize and idealize.

Gladwell is right, of course. No one is “harmed” by not getting into Harvard.

mythmom · November 23, 2012, 12:49pm

No matter which side of the argument we are on, it seems clear the system isn’t broken.

If early scorers on SAT do better, well, they’re scouted and have resume lines that indicate this and schools see this. I reported the career on one such scorer (perfect score in seventh grade) and as I indicated, he was not accepted by MIT for grad school attended Carnegie Mellon) and went to Duke for undergrad for financial reasons. Now, I don’t know if these schools satisfy Ivy-fevered folks, but he got a wonderful education and is working well in his field and earning a decent living. He also married a woman who completed an MD/PhD program and has to worry at times about keeping up with her.

But his life is not substantially different from anyone else’s, not did his accomplishments either go unrecognized nor open every door for him. What’s the problem?

Pizzagirl · November 23, 2012, 1:13pm

There is no problem. It’s a holdover from people who were raised in cultures in which attending a limited set of schools guaranteed opportunity and life success and anywhere else meant the local equivalent of “do you want fries with that.” Such a system doesn’t even remotely describe the US, so there’s no problem. Or more accurately, it’s the most first world of first world problems.

There’s no unfairness if someone’s brilliant kid doesn’t get into Harvard. None.

Angry over the college admissions process

CONNECT WITH US