<p>But dietz, seriously–it is really impossible to prove that there was only ONE reason a person got picked over another and that that reason was something the employer legally couldn’t use as a differentiating point.</p>
<p>Is that what this really is about for you–the “victim class” of the white male?</p>
<p>Is there any organization that is looking for 1,000 college-educated people in a single year? (Not intended to be contentious–just genuinely interested, and not thinking it likely)</p>
<p>Re: #456</p>
<p>Did a quick check on the web sites of two nearby private schools.</p>
<p>The elite high school labels several of its courses as AP, but also offers post-AP more advanced courses (multivariable calculus, organic chemistry, etc.). It looks like they go way beyond AP, but are not opposed to students picking up an AP score along the way.</p>
<p>The non-elite Catholic high school offers a typical (similar to decent public schools) number of AP courses as its most advanced courses.</p>
<p>Certainly, the two schools have different ideas of how far advanced their most advanced students are.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Oh, don’t be silly. They can discriminate for or against tuba players, regardless of race, gender, age, disability, or sexual orientation. They can legally discriminate against left-handed people, or people who part their hair on the right, or people with nasally voices, or people with poor social skills, or people who come across as arrogant, or people without a sense of humor, or people with too much of a sense of humor such that they appear not to be serious. They can discriminate for a million and one reasons, so long as their criteria do not include the applicant’s race, gender, age, etc. (and by the way, in the employment context, age discrimination is generally prohibited only when it involves people over 40, so they can discriminate against someone for being too young), and that means they can decline to hire a woman, an African-American, LGBT applicants, etc., so long as that protected status isn’t the REASON they aren’t hired.</p>
<p>
Peace Corps</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Not a single year, but close, is Google’s opening up an entire new office in Ann Arbor to serve as headquarters for its Ad Words division around 2007. I believe they hired 1,000 total, mostly college grads, 150 in the first tranche, then another 850.</p>
<p>[Inside</a> Google’s Michigan Office - - - Informationweek](<a href=“http://www.informationweek.com/inside-googles-michigan-office/202600809]Inside”>http://www.informationweek.com/inside-googles-michigan-office/202600809)</p>
<p>
Maybe after first taking a trip to Gretna Green.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, I am happy that your sample of two might confirm your opinion on the subject. Even if my own sample of two might be quite different, I remain convinced that schools that have the luxury of establishing their curriculum without having to address the whims of a constituency that calls for more AP and more segregation among the “classes” do NOT see the AP as the “all in all” solution. They go beyond it through deeper instruction, and allow the students to decide if is worth to arrange to sit for an AP in that wasted two weeks of education. </p>
<p>The result is that they present a stable of candidates to the top schools, and rely on the past experience of the adcoms with such students to “overlook” the absence of the usual panoply of multiple AP presented by the misguided AP trophy hunter. </p>
<p>Fwiw, it might be good to remember what the number of AP is for the … successful Stanford applicant. The (very low) number at the school that has now become the most selective in the nation might be quite surprising in a world of 10 to 15 APers!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>While the term organization might be ill-defining, there is a good chance that the US government accomplishes that in most years.</p>
<p>Some government hiring involves exam-based screening as the first step–e.g, the Foreign Service. Other civil service appointments involve score-based hiring, and they will tell you your score–at least, that was true when I was looking for a summer job between undergrad and grad school. Maybe not any more? I am not sure at what level of the civil service the score-based hiring stops–if they still do it.</p>
<p>I’m really not advocating score-based admissions. I just don’t think it’s a complete anathema, though. I think you are as likely to find full human beings among the top-scorers as in any other range. This is true in my area. Perhaps it is not true elsewhere.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>A handful of CSUs have admit rates near 20% but most are much less selective. I’m not seeing masses of talented students clamoring to get into them as they are to the top Us and LACs (which appear to me to be almost 100% holistic-admissions schools).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>…and you’d be hard pressed to find one that doesn’t look at applicants holistically.</p>
<p>Have you considered that this process you abhor is precisely what makes them desirable and thus selective?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>In the aggregate, don’t you think that Fortune 50 companies that employ umpteen thousands of people are certainly hiring more than 1,000 college-educated people in a single year? Maybe not all en masse for the same type of job, but yeah, certainly.</p>
<p>What do you think goes on with internships? Same deal - they interview and yes, there may be a baseline level of “smart” required, but from there it gets into personality, fit, leadership, assertiveness, pleasantness, ability to work with others, and all kinds of other holistic measures. </p>
<p>Why some of you think that college admission is such the exception to the rule, it’s beyond me. I can only conclude none of you ever hired people.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Put another way - if, tomorrow, Harvard said - we have new criteria - we’re going to rack and stack SAT scores and admit all the 2400’s, all the 2390’s, etc. down the line – their desirability in the marketplace would drop. Because American culture isn’t about 2400 > 2390 > 2380 and so forth. It seems that some would like to graft other cultures onto the US. Nothing wrong with that desire, but it’s of note that it’s the American universities smart kids worldwide clamor to attend – not the universities produced in those other cultures.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The 10 or 15 AP test students are extreme outliers:
<a href=“http://media.collegeboard.com/digitalServices/pdf/research/number_of_exams_per_student_2012.pdf[/url]”>http://media.collegeboard.com/digitalServices/pdf/research/number_of_exams_per_student_2012.pdf</a></p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Exactly my point. The people who argue against holistic admissions at Harvard or, in this case, Berkeley, would likely not want to attend those same institutions if holistic admissions were replaced with stats-based admissions.</p>
<p>Oh the irony :)</p>
<p>Sally:
</p>
<p>Well…um…it’s about participating in an anonymous online forum on a topic where people will never agree. It is about holding a minority (and unpopular) opinion and having the guts to voice it. It is about waiting for the predictable psychological evaluation by other anonymous posters as to the ‘issue’ affecting my life. </p>
<p>It’s about having fun ;)</p>
<p>Oh, maybe they’d believe all those highest stats peers are more interesting, influential, receptive and desirable. That superior pool of friends, peers and future partners.</p>
<p>Honestly, dietz, I thought I was the minority and unpopular opinion.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Good point. At last count, IBM employed 436,000 people, most of them college grads. Given normal attrition rates, they certainly must have hired more than 1,000 college grads last year, albeit at dispersed locations and for a range of positions.</p>
<p>Also, whenever there’s a change in administrations in Washington, a huge number of political appointments are made, including some 500 cabinet- and sub-cabinet-level positions subject to Senate confirmation (i.e., cabinet secretaries and their deputy, under, and assistant secretaries); hundreds of White house staff; hundreds more in the Senior Executive Service; and thousands of additional “Schedule C” employees (in policymaking or confidential positions exempt from civil service hiring and promotion rules, e.g., the heads of various agencies’ regional offices). No one is even quite sure how many such jobs there are, but lots of estimates are around 6,000. They won’t all be filled in a single year, but in the first year of a president’s term it’s certainly well over 1,000. The vast majority are college grads.</p>