<p>I understand you are making a different point, QM. Obviously this thread has gone into the death spiral that so many have. I am just observing from afar and trying to understand why acceptance of “the way things are” is so difficult for so many.</p>
<p>Okay new holistic hurdle. Let’s leave off all the kids off in the bad part of town. The first one’s to call mom and dad, crying for a ride will be assumed to lack courage, communication skills and imagination. The elite schools want leaders. If one can’t lead himself out of the bad part of town, what can he lead. This is silly, I know, but the point of the holistic process is to find courage and imagination. The qualities are important for a leader.</p>
<p>What I don’t understand is - this process is pretty easy to imagine. It’s not easy to predict, but it’s easy to imagine. So why do so many people on here need so many explanations and peeks under the tent to grasp it? </p>
<p>I guess there are different kinds of smarts. One could be a brilliant scientist, but have no clue whatsoever for any process that requires art and intuition and judgment. Maybe, then, that person isn’t really “smarter”.</p>
<p>I get how the process works (except in the one case of QMP’s friend).</p>
<p>sally305, why would it be good to accept “the way things are”? That’s the part I don’t get.</p>
<p>Because you have no power to change them. And most people, and institutions, don’t want to. As has been stated ad nauseum on countless threads on this site, there is a simple solution that allows you to “vote with your feet/pocketbook/whatever”–simply refuse to apply to schools whose admissions policies are disagreeable to you.</p>
<p>"Because you have no power to change them. And most people, and institutions, don’t want to. "</p>
<p>While I support holistic evaluation, these are probably not good reasons. If they were, then few things would have changed in human history.</p>
<p>Like James T. Kirk, I don’t accept the “no win” scenario. Unlike James T. Kirk, I don’t cheat to find a way to win.</p>
<p>Well, I would hardly compare the “tragedy” of holistic evaluation (or whatever you would call it) to other critical situations in human history. Seriously?!</p>
<p>In this case, there is no problem to be solved. Are universities worse off since they began embracing holistic admissions? Are there still non-holistic options for those who are philosophically opposed to them? There are all sorts of things in life that are “not fair.” Even a stats-only admission process is “not fair” to some people. I just don’t understand the continued stomping of feet over this.</p>
<p>^ You are assuming every established order in this world will never change.</p>
<p>What an odd statement (assumption, actually). And quite a stretch based on my comments.</p>
<p>Sure, my statement is odd to you because your perception is different from mine.</p>
<p>Obviously. I learned a long time ago not to make assumptions about others’ mindsets or motives, and never to develop sweeping conclusions based on small amounts of data.</p>
<p>sally
</p>
<p>Are you really saying to not challenge systems which many perceive are broken? Would you pose the same answer to those who are trying to implement the ACA? </p>
<p>With that approach we would still have segregation and few if any women in college…is this really your position?</p>
<p>The institutions seem not to find them broken, and there is oversight re: illegal discrimination so what’s the problem?</p>
<p>californiaaa alleged earlier on this thread that the practice of holistic admissions to top schools is connected to the fraction of American citizens among Ph.D. students in STEM fields in US universities being 50% or below, with the rest from other countries. American citizens are roughly 50% of the Ph.D. students in physics in US universities (give or take 5%), and I suspect that their representation is lower in engineering. It is probably higher in biology. </p>
<p>I don’t know whether holistic admissions are connected to this phenomenon, or not. I have also acknowledged that it is possible that if the top universities selected more students on purely academic grounds, it would wind up reducing the representation of Americans in physics and engineering Ph.D. programs, rather than increasing it. I don’t know that californiaaa has any evidence on this topic.</p>
<p>However, I think that having only 50% American citizens among the Ph.D. students in American univiersities, in STEM fields actually is a problem, for reasons that I have detailed in #349 (quite a long post). I am not a jingoist, and I think that foreign students contribute substantially to the development of science. Indeed, the majority of the Ph.D. graduates from my group are not American citizens. Nevertheless, I think that if 57% of the physics Ph.D.s awarded by American universities in a given year go to foreign students, something about the system is not operating quite right.</p>
<p>The chairman of our math department told me that they lower the admissions standards for American students (relative to foreign students) in order to keep the representation of American citizens in the Ph.D. program at about 50%.</p>
<p>OHMom: Right. No one has offered conclusive proof of a “broken” system. The “many” who seem to think it is not working seem to actually be a few frustrated parents on this site who are unhappy that they cannot have a guaranteed path to elite-school admission for their kids. Comparing this “problem” to pivotal events in world history or even to contemporary issues like making healthcare affordable to all is ridiculous.</p>
<p>I don’t think I made any of those comparisons.</p>
<p>The option that I am suggesting is hardly a guaranteed path to elite-school admission. It requires considerable intelligence on the part of the student (which no one can guarantee) combined with quite a lot of focused effort (which is difficult to guarantee within rational limits).</p>
<p>I have no personal complaints nor family complaints with the admissions process as it is. Nonetheless, I think it is sub-optimal. Is it a major problem? Probably not, though if a change did increase the number of American citizens in STEM fields, I would consider that to be all to the good. (Pizzagirl may disagree–it’s ok, we can hold different views on this.) The thing that distinguishes this situation from more pressing problems is that this is one that can be changed essentially at the stroke of a pen, at zero cost. There is almost no serious problem in the US and abroad about which that could be said.</p>
<p>Do colleges get good results from holistic admission as they wish? This remains to be proven. The only thing we know for sure is education and college admission criteria change over time.</p>
<p>The stats of accepted students have risen at most top schools over the past few decades, as far as I know. And with selectivity increasing, the qualified students who don’t get in are going to “lesser” schools and raising the caliber of their student bodies as well. So I would say yes–holistic admissions are producing positive results.</p>
<p>I am talking about the results brought back by the students who graduate from colleges. Do students get the right education, become the leaders, serve the communities and the world as the holistic admission philosophy wishes to have?</p>