This was posted by @Knowsstuff in the Michigan thread and it’s very applicable here: The Committees and Decisions of College Admission… And College Football – Georgia Tech Admission Blog
I think Rick Clark should be required reading for all parents and students, regardless of what schools are on the college list.
Yes, exactly. And I personally think that is part of the criteria colleges are looking for. Team sports mean they play nice with others. Community service can show one has empathy for others. etc. Working during high school can show that they can follow direction and balance multiple tasks at once.
It’s difficult to say that the top 6% in the numerous rural and/or Title 1 school in TX are the ‘top’ residents when you look at the state as a whole, at least academically speaking. I understand why giving these students a chance is the right thing to do, but it has led Texas to spending a lot of time, effort, and money on remedial academics.
Another downside to the top x% system, is the ridiculous grade grubbing and scramble for AP and DE courses that happens at some schools. It is an extremely stressful environment for some students. Of course this system has it’s plusses, but it’s no panacea.
Or, of course, it could mean that they are knowledgeable about the admission system and are checking all the boxes. I think many, many students are in activities they do not enjoy for admissions.
I dont think Texas gets the top students in the state, but they offer to the top students atcm each school, which itself is a form of merit. And meets DEI goals
Males are absolutely being admitted to schools with stats less than that of the females. Selingo talks about this in his recent book. He confirmed that here on his AMA. Many others from the industry have also discussed this.
I agree it’s a form of merit, but you are changing up your position from above:
Now it seems you are saying Texas isn’t getting the top students, because they give on that to meet DEI targets.
How is this different from the practices of the schools you criticize?
That was why the system was first implemented in Texas. For a public school, it seems a good system to reward each high school. It does provide transparent criteria, and both geo and ethnic diversity while still being predictable. Predictable is important
I think I was defining affirmative action differently. As in giving a preference to a group of candidates over another because that group has suffered from historic discrimination. But I totally get schools trying to balance a student body and yes, absolutely know some schools are trying to balance out their classes by admitted more boys.
I understand and agree with your points. It seems we are in agreement that the Texas state system doesn’t result in the top academic students (looking at the state as a whole) attending UT Austin.
Is it affirmative action when a university tries to admit kids with a stated interest in design, architecture, art history, etc. to balance out the finance bros and the “ever since I was 6 years old I knew I wanted to be a doctor”?
Seems like balancing a student body-- so not everyone is majoring in the same two things- is part of the job of an adcom, no? And then further balancing it so that everyone is not from Horace Greeley High School or grew up in Atherton… right? Or everyone who played tennis in HS gets in but nobody who ran track or played the violin?
There is much less transparency for popular majors at UT Austin.
I mean, I was looking at affirmative action as a defined term. I wasn’t trying to state an opinion on it one way or the other, honestly. I was just trying to clarify when I said “is affirmative action by gender happening anywhere besides engineering schools with a huge disparity” it wasn’t a point I was making. I was really asking based on the definition I knew. No opinion or argument here. Totally just clarifying.
So to your question (based on mine) no its not affirmative action unless design admits are part of a historically discriminated group. But I am fine with either!
And I am a HUGE supporter of a balanced student body. I sit on my schools admissions committee and read files almost every day and balance is definitely something I consider.
Some colleges or divisions of colleges explicitly admit by major to avoid popular majors overflowing the department’s capacity to teach them. That can result in a much lower bar for admission to philosophy or physics than to computer science these days at some colleges.
It is common in CA for top students not to make it into UCLA or UCB which have a greater ratio of seats to residents than UT Austin does in TX.
Some of the kids with top grades and 1500-plus also have hooks.
I have no issue with that if that is what these schools want. But, it isn’t what they want. They understand the intellectual threshold necessary for someone to have impact that is aligned with their mission and they admit accordingly. Again we are back to using academic prowess as the main driver of admission and these schools obviously do not feel a need to prioritize that single factor to the exclusion of all others. If they felt that they weren’t getting what they wanted they would make changes and people would align. The fact that they don’t demonstrates that they are meeting their goals and priorities with the current system.
These schools are not worried about competition from anyone. They are among the most sought admissions in the world and that isn’t changing anytime soon.
It’s true that young men as a whole are struggling, but this is mainly a feature of the middle and lower economic classes. With marriage and children devalued and decreasingly common for younger people outside the upper economic class, much of the incentive to make something of yourself for young men has evaporated. Without a strong possibility of a future wife and children, many middle-class and lower young men are satisfied with playing video games, smoking weed and doing little jobs while living with a parent or something. It’s sad.
As for medical and law school, I agree with you. However, Brown is an extreme case as far as undergraduate applications. Women are highly attracted to that university, for various reasons, while men are less so.
I am not talking about competition for admissions applications (there are obviously other reasons someone might want to come to the US besides the rigor of math instruction - ask me how I know:) - I am talking about actual competition for objective, measurable results.
…You know, the Sputnik moment kind of stuff. Being satisfied with good enough didn’t always work before and may not always work again.
Sigh…come on ladies, here’s another thing to add to our to-do lists: acting as prizes for men to win, otherwise they won’t motivate themselves up off of their parents’ basement couches… What?! Still not working? Guess we better increase the prize to include a couple of kids too…