<p>
</p>
<p>Speaking of --ahem - perspiration, I posted percentages much earlier on this thread (for the top U.C’s) Hard work will answer your question. ;)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I want students with merit, as long as merit is defined and the definition is not changed at whim. That’s how athletics work.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That, of course, is the prerogative of the non Tiger parents, or the colleges. My question is, why is that prerogative better than the prerogative of the Tiger parents?</p>
<p>
I suppose it enabled them to be good test-takers. Maybe competent piano-players, too. Is it a good model for producing the next Edison or Einstein? I don’t know.</p>
<p>In any case, I don’t much believe in either social engineering OR a so-called merit system based on grades and scores alone. By all means, recruit hard in diverse high schools. By all means use grades and scores as a first-pass filter. After that, why not follow the British practice of letting the college faculty recommend the best of all qualified applicants? Let Classics professors interview students to decide which of them have genuine antiquarian passion. Let Biology professors sit down with applicants, ask some off-the-wall question about fish morphology, and see who rises to the challenge. The current “holistic” system tries to infer character traits from participation in all sorts of extracurricular activities and life experiences. Why not try instead to infer academically relevant character traits from performance in situations that mimic the activity of real life in a high-quality classroom?</p>
<p>The reason Americans would not accept such a system is because it isn’t entirely consistent with public expectations about the diverse social, moral, and intellectual purposes of higher education.</p>
<p>IP-
I find your whole approach to this refreshingly honest. I agree with much of what you say, but do feel that there is a cultural issue here. I hate to generalize in an absolute sense about Americans or the US education system, but I am doing so in contrast to your descriptions of how you approach education. Of course, my comments are my opinion.</p>
<p>The USA is a very individualistic society. While this is a generalization (about how Americans are skeptical of generalizations!), it is tied to our history, the acceptance of diversity and the importance of freedom for “all” that the US encompasses. Given a choice, US citizens do not like to be numbers or stacked up as comparisons to each other; instead, America is based on the somewhat romantic notion that everybody has something to offer, that we all start diamonds (and emeralds and rubies, and opals and sapphires and…) in the rough, and that while education is very important, other experiences can also polish a gem.
(This is a touch-feely post- sorry to all you FABULOUS and CRUCIAL statisticians and debaters out there, whom I need and respect so much! please bear with me)</p>
<p>The melting pot that is the US does not want or expect everyone to turn out the same, either. Just that every stone be respected, and ideally have equal opportunity to get a polish of some sort.</p>
<p>A very standardized education-system, a universally-held definition of meritocracy- these would very hard to achieve these in our happily pluralistic society. (who knows- it could happen if the US hits some sort of serious bottom…)</p>
<p>Some citizens DO care a great deal about education and academic achievement; some care a great deal about MATERIAL achievement: others care for artistic achievement; some value athletic prowess; some want political power… obviously many overlap. America is just so diverse about all this, for better or worse. A true libertarian will say it should be an individual’s CHOICE. This is an extreme, but is a reflection of much of US culture. Again, arguably a positive in some ways, and a negative in others.</p>
<p>Your open-ness about your opinion that Asians are treated differently is brilliant because it is not based on racial superiority, but cultural practices (which are relatively successful in the academic arena!), that even erode over generations within the US.</p>
<p>However, the US, being a melting pot, IS in a position to absorb some of these great lessons only IF Asians are outspoken about how they achieve great results (and maybe do not get treated the same as everyone else), and with themselves about how important this is or is not in the US culture. </p>
<p>I want to thank you for engaging so honestly and logically and doggedly in this important debate. Be careful of being too close-minded to the various cross-currents you are running into, though.</p>
<p>“Holistic admissions” is a wonderfully appealing solution to cut-throat competition for something elite in the US culture- it honors the individual. It tries to shade an individual in relation to his/her opportunities and looks for an idea of how that person genuinely and authentically ticks as an individual. It essays to create diversity within its population, while attempting to be meritocratic along numerous lines at once.</p>
<p>To me, however, using certain “races” as a significant way to learn an individual is a slippery slope towards groupism… To me it violates some important principles of freedom and individuality. And possibly reinforces negative stereotypes. It is about whether the game in an effort to be fair is actually being unfair to those it is trying favor.</p>
<p>Another thing, it is not really part of the American culture to gravitate to conform or mold oneself to a system in order to be successful, to race to one destination. The culture, starting with the schools themselves, does not really see education as a game to excel at, a bunch of rules to follow and things to best others at. I am not trying to say you feel this way, but there is a tone verging on that in your sense of these things. Education is partly that in the US, but it is also a place to learn about oneself and the world, and place to develop tools of creativity and self-expression, and knowledge of others. The US culture has an attachment to the notion of individual authenticity, that a system to be gamed the best way to achieve that, while expression of one’s true individuality (and the freedom to do so) is of the highest value.</p>
<p>Anyway, please keep continuing to contribute to the US melting pot with your ideas and the practices. Just keep your mind open to others, too- I am learning much from you! I really believe that you are seriously contributing to a better mutual understanding of the how educational competition can be approached.</p>
<p>Be optimistic that the US culture can absorb a little more “tiger” to the benefit of ALL its varied citizens!!! I am!!! More hard work, more willingness by children and teens to follow a lead might be a good idea. Adding that to the cocktail would not negate some of the other stuff we value so highly, IMO.</p>
<p>p.s. “equal” is not the same as “fair” is not the same as the “same”.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I have to confess, learning three languages is far harder in the USA than in Europe or Asia. I picked up 3 languages because people around me spoke 3 languages. My kid has picked up 3 languages for the same reason. He never had to study. However, there is very little diversity of languages in the USA, as assimilation rules.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>We are not on the same page, bovertine. I was answering texaspg who said the following:</p>
<p>Come over to parents of 2012 thread and check out all the horror stories of people upset about their kids math scores in SAT and how much better their other scores are (some are off by 200 points - less than their reading scores).</p>
<p>Believe it or not, we are in agreement.;)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You are completely missing my point here. I did not say or imply that the elites cannot tell the difference. I am saying they want to make it appear as though there is no difference, and the SAT in its present form is helping them to achieve that aim. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The poor immigrants from Mexico and Central America have AA on their side; but what do the ones from Asia get? </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The difficult trick is to make it look unintentional.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>IP, I thought I added something like “Great for URMs” and opined it would be the Asians that might not be too darn satisfied with the increased competition for fewer spots. </p>
<p>Perhaps, I should go back and see what I wrote. This thread is moving fast with multiple QAs. Hard to keep and do some work at the same time. :)</p>
<p>PS I checked and this what I wrote</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes. You understand exactly what I am saying. Many of these students, if I may add, are also legacies, or athletes in obscure sports and the like- as though they dont have enough advantages already. Thank you for your honesty.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I thought this story did a really good job of addressing the athletics analogy that seems to have come up a lot on this thread, specifically the part about cross-county - <a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/massachusetts-institute-technology/205635-problem-looking-stats-alone.html[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/massachusetts-institute-technology/205635-problem-looking-stats-alone.html</a></p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I wouldn’t know where you live, but there are certainly several regions and states in this country that, in their own opinion, have reached some sort of serious bottom. I also strongly disagree that a standardized system works against individualism. If so, then no States should have educational standards, but they do. </p>
<p>Standards are a different issue than methods or approaches. It’s in our approaches that we like to be individuals, as Americans, and standards do not threaten that. </p>
<p>Xiggi earlier alluded to the recentering of the SAT as (essentially) an accommodation. Such has been the way with official educational standards as well. When standards continue to be adjusted downward, to accommodate to (often) the lowest common denominator (especially when the denominator can barely get lower), then they become something to ridicule. Naturally it doesn’t prevent a fine public or a fine private school from exceeding those standards by a country mile, but it enables underperformance on a grand scale when & where underperformance has become a systemic public problem – by district, by state, etc.</p>
<p>For a long time I have favored a Regents kind of exam to replace the pathetic “exit exams” of certain locations. (Which truly are jokes.) The current in-state exams (other than the high school exit exams), which claim to evaluate grade-level standards, are annual exams which are (again) geared to the minimum mastery of already-low standards. They are designed so that most everyone will pass. I have proctored these on all levels. I know what I’m talking about. </p>
<p>I don’t agree with IP that “AP” kinds of exams should necessarily be the answer, but I would be willing to entertain the idea of subject tests not unlike the A-level ones in the UK, which assume mastery of standards which have been made explicit. There is a danger that many people (including professionals) will resist this as an attempt to ensure a ‘teaching to the test.’ I guess my responses to that anticipated concern are three:</p>
<p>(1) Facts are not always bad. Frankly, Americans, including the youngest among us, are weak on facts.
(2) In order to think critically, facts are helpful.
(3) Subject tests would not have to be the only measure of mastery. They would merely be an essential element. I’m a huge fan of applied learning and creative thinking, and assessments for that. I doubt that most districts would stand for a wholesale replacement of all educational approaches with a subject or a fact-based curriculum. I think it would become a both/and. Further, subject tests can additionally measure application of knowledge, if designed well.</p>
<p>epiphany- you are speaking to the choir on all this to me. I was contrasting our system vs the way it is elsewhere in other cultures. I was not participating in the debate of what is better or worse by taking sides.
Sorry if my words were misunderstood. By standardization, I was think of systems like in France or Japan: all over the world, the same things are being taught in the same way on a given day (or that is the goal!) in French and Japanese schools.
Many Americans believe in or presume the right to choice as a personal liberty here in the US, and that variety provides a kind of necessary competition, and some fear having the government option as the only option, all of which is part of American culture.</p>
<p>My post was quite ironic- I think our system actually could benefit from adding a lot of the “Asian” techniques you and also IP allude to, such as memorization, test-taking skills per se…</p>
<p>I do not have any idea what in my post made you go off on “teaching to the test” and “facts”, though. These were not at all what I was referring to, one way or another.</p>
<p>Use of standardized testing to me is in no way a sign of a standardized educational system.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Why do you feel some need to personalize this? I wasn’t speaking about you. Did you not read what surrounded the remark about teaching to the test?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>“Go off”? That was rude.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I agree, although I’m not sure what prompted the comment. But naturally standardized educational systems do integrate testing within them, as an assessment tool.</p>
<p>Performersmom, Thank you for the kind words. I understand very well why colleges do what they do, but that makes me feel rather helpless. The admissions decision, then, becomes a popularity contest of sorts. It is still a contest, mind you. Just one where there is no place for objectivity, and one has to be able to please an anonymous group of individuals with their own bias, and without any transparency either. It is like trading in snake oil to me. That’s what I don’t like, depending on the kindness of strangers.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Wow! That post was an eye opener. If that’s the standard, then I for sure would never have been admitted to MIT, even though both in undergraduate and graduate I went to places comparable, or better. Even today I wouldn’t pass muster, having never taken any risk in my life, having never been creative, and not particularly hard working.</p>
<p>Frankly, I cannot imagine the effort a 17 year old would have to put in to meet those standards. I even doubt if those standards can be met in the first place. Original research by age 17? Risk taking by age 17? Somehow I have trouble believing the post.</p>
<p>Xiggi, I think we are talking past each other here. I asked you why you dislike my system, not whether Asians won’t like it (which you really don’t know, you can only speak for yourself). I think you are avoiding the issue. However, performersmom explained very well why a solely objective test will not work in the USA. That’s an honest answer that I may not like, but have to grudgingly agree with.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Frankly, I don’t think there is any method to producing the next Edison or Einstein. So to me that is really irrelevant, though I do hear it often from people who hate the tiger parenting practice. I always ask them if they or someone else they know have produced an Einstein yet.</p>
<p>^ That’s right, but it’s not clear that Tiger Mothering is even a very good method for producing the next generation of inspiring college professors. </p>
<p>From the little I know about secondary and higher education in Japan, HS students spend a few years preparing for “exam hell”, then once they are accepted to a respectable college, they tend to coast for the next few years. Now, maybe that isn’t true of Asians in general. The Chinese students I’ve seen in America seem to work consistently hard throughout college and grad school. However, I cannot recall more than maybe one or two (at 5 colleges & grad schools over the years) who seemed to be very engaged in classroom discussion or extracurricular life.</p>
<p>Yeshiva education is another interesting model. European Jews enlivened American intellectual life (in both the sciences and the arts) for a couple of generations. A few decades ago, my alma mater (a T10 research university) had no problem letting Jewish undergraduate undergraduate enrollment rise to ~30-40%. Today, if Asians aren’t cracking a 15-20% ceiling at similar schools, maybe it has less to do with race and social engineering than some people would like to think. Tiger Mothering perhaps just isn’t as good as Jewish Mothering at preparing the kinds of applicants American adcoms really want to see.</p>
<p>I do agree that selective college admissions should be merit-based, but I think we need continuous care in defining “merit”. I like the idea of using better tests than the SAT (like the AMC exam) to help identify truly gifted students. However, given the current state of the art in standardized testing, some subjective elements (essays, interviews, etc.) may be necessary to create the kind of classroom dynamic American colleges favor.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>IP, I think you’ve been quite open and clear and fair about your thoughts and suggestions … but I also think you do not get what top college in the US are looking for.</p>
<p>One possible analogy. Are you involved in the hiring at your job? Does your company receive resumes, rank order them, and make offers off the resumes or does it bring people on site and interview them? Does this process ever yield results that doesn’t match what was expected after reading the resumes? In my experience it often does … and I believe colleges are trying to work in a similar fashion … they are not accepting the numbers on the page but the whole person and trying to find the most interesting and highest potential students. I have heard your definition of merit for acceptance to top schools … there can me more than one definition … and to me at the core of your complaint is an underlying different definition of merit.</p>
<p>I’ve had the humbling experience of interviewing for my alma mater (Cornell) and certainly have experienced being wowed by the applicants and having 80+% of the applicant being qualified to attend Cornell and every year felt bad about all the great students who did not get in. In addition. each year I met 1 or 2 applicants that were past wow and probably past WOW and there was almost no correlation to where they would have stood on ranked resume list. if anything they would not be on the absolute top of a ranked resume list … they were too busy doing amazing things and not concerned about the 1-2-3 Bs on their transcript and or their mere 730 on the CR section of the SAT … but they clearly had “it” and definately should have been accepted.</p>
<p>IP, I also am an analytical person and prefer things that can be structured and organized in a transparent and fair way. However while I wouldn’t go for it your proposed system it sounds OK at the first read … however trying to implement it would be a herculean task and fraught with the same issues of fairness about which you complain in the current system.</p>
<p>Each school could conceivably come up with a method to rank order the quantitative portions of an application (even though I do not believe that the schools believe that level of precision is either accurate or helpful; hence the use of AI bands and not a AI precise score). Even this has issues … I would assume schools make some adjustment for english scores for kids who move to the US from other countries … do they need to creat different adjustments for every country, if the parents also speak language, the level of education of the parents, how long the student has been in the US, how strong the HS is to help the student adjust, etc … just this one adjustment has a million scenario that creating some form of an adjustment would either be too simplistic to be fair or way too complicated to implement.</p>
<p>The bigger issue to me is trying to quantify ECs … while numbers could be assigned to a large degree the numbers assigned would be arbitrary … and would fall into the same trap as shown above. Is being an INTEL medalist more impressive if it is the only EC or is being an INTEL finalist while also being all all-state athlete and musican? </p>
<p>Here are three real students I know how would your EX point system “fairly” rank these three students? They are all athletes … not good enough to be recruited … but sports are their major EC.
- Student #1) Soccer player … 2 year captain … all-league player as a senior … led team deepest into state playoffs ever … very effective focussed jock.
- Student #2) Soccer player … varsity player; sometimes starts and sometimes is one of the first players off the bench. Also referees kid’s soccer games … also volunteers as a youth soccer coach … also started a charity (with frends and a sibling(s?)) to donate used soccer equipment to a third world country and I believe at this point has provided thousands of used balls, cleats, and uniforms to poor kids.
- Student #3) Tennis player … captain … never plays in a match because she is not good enough … coach says she is the best captain she has ever had in 20+ years of coaching.</p>
<p>How in the world can those three experiences being converted into a number to be used for rank ordering? Even if a school thought they could to try to be fair to all the possible EC activities out there would be a overwhelming task.</p>