See the initial post-broken can be however one defines it, whether cost, stress, outcome, or any other factor.
Highly regarded consultants stressing how crucial a personal brand is ( with CC support!) may not confuse you but it is certain to confuse others.
Yes. I have mixed feelings about that. I can see many legitimate arguments and perspectives. But also, something that is unlikely to change.
I guess it depends on what they have to say. If they are misleading kids into thinking it is more important than academics, then yes.
I see schools with large numbers of equally impressive academic applicants. whether that is at the high end of selectiveness or the school thatās <40%. If the conversation is about how to use E.C.'s to stand out, then I would not call that broken.
I am evaluating the cost of the current process-the toll in time, expense, stress, mental health, cynicism-more than the outcome.
Even if the exact same kids are admitted, to me, that process takes an unnecessary and excessive toll.
Maybe. I can see places where people go overboard on things that are of little consequence. I am not sure how much of that is really on the colleges and how much is how people are interpreting things.
If the alternative is a system that relies solely on test scores, count me out. That, to me, would be broken. It would invariably favor students from upper income, students with college-educated parents, and students from well-resourced schools.
If the colleges have high freshman retention rates and high job placement rates, itās difficult for me to say the system is broken even if some superstar kid and his parents had some moments of anxiety.
I beg to differ. Schools reject kids with 4.0 UW and 1600 all the time while some kids with 1350 and less than 4.0 get in.
I did advise my own kid not to dwell on the grade and test score because there is no guarantee even with 1600 on the SAT that heād get in everywhere he applied. I rather he use that time on something he enjoys.
I am sure there are outliers. There are legacy, athletes, etc. As much as people argue this, nobody is providing evidence that it is a significant issue or that those ālesserā admitted kids arenāt still successful at those schools.
My friendās son had a ridiculous GPA with the highest rigor the school offered. He got a 36 on the ACT in one sitting at the beginning of his junior year. He didnāt get Harvard and another Ivy. He did get some terrific acceptances. They knew nothing was guaranteed. There are MANY kids with that 36 or 35.
You advised your son well. If he is still in the process of admission, best of luck to him.
I have a kid who is currently studying STEM at Oxford and this is absolutely true. They make it very clear that extra-curricular activities donāt count for admission, except those related to your intended field of study.
Most Oxford ācoursesā (majors) are narrow and go quite deep, although there are also interesting STEM + philosophy combinations and, of course, PPE. My D22ās program offers a business, a communication and foreign language courses as non-STEM electives which is far from the liberal arts education found in the US. This works for some but not others.
My D22 would probably enjoy taking a broader set of classes. As that is not an option, I think she compensates by pursuing non-STEM activities, such as joining a foreign language club and writing for a student-run newspaper. Maybe this doesnāt count but she also surrounds herself with classmates studying a broad range of subjects - Classics, PPE, law, history, English, etc in addition to STEM students.
Students cheat on tests in college courses, but we still find value in those exams.
Also, there is likely a lot of ācheatingā when it comes to ECs, essays, etc.
So the point is that colleges, as a whole, do not have high retention rates, graduation rates, or good job placement.
Most people agree that the subjective parts of the application ( extracurriculars, sports, letters, esays) are much easier to manipulate and more highly dependent upon parental income than scores.
I think you hit the crux of this. Some schools are more liberal arts and some are not (especially STEM schools). Just because we prefer one over the other doesnāt mean ALL schools should work that way. And the admissions for the schools will not work the same way.
Right before my oldest started applying to college, I spoke to a Mom whose son was going to Stevens Institute of Technology. She raved about how he could focus on business and technology and not waste time on humanities and history and classes like that. I was honestly taken aback because I have always valued a well-rounded education.
I am glad there are options for kids like hers. I am also glad my comp sci kid has some liberal arts requirements. He has to take ethics as part of his program, and I am pleased he sees the value in that.
I donāt know this for sure, but if his school selected someone with lesser test scores who presented as more well-rounded because it is a LAC, so be it.
As a whole is different from looking at the correlation between highly selective and retention rates.
But the stress, expense, and cost trickle down to many, many students not at highly selective schools-just glance at the thread for GPA 3.0 parents
Thank you for your post. I appreciate your perspective.
While its admissions are not 100% meritocratic, Oxford is probably the closest thing like that we have to reference. A substantial fear of posters on this board (and in the very thread) is that, if you admit based solely on tests, you will end up with a student body of robots, with no external interests in the arts, athletics, etc. Is this your childās impression of Oxford?
Yesā¦and that is where you and I may agree on the ābrokenā part if not agree on the cause or the remedy.
I donāt think we can, or should, enforce a limit on applications. I would advise people be more deliberate. There does seem to be this trend of racking up acceptances like trophies. I donāt think people should be applying to schools they have ZERO intention of going to. I see that quite a bit with UF. Some kids know they donāt want to go there, but they want to be accepted like itās a bragging right or a notch on their belt. But I cannot blame the colleges for that.
Might as well say it. Some posters are concerned relying on scores will have certain demographic results they donāt want
And that holistic admissions were literally invented to deal with that exact āproblemā is a mere coincidence.
That is not my concern at all. I truly believe there are things of value beyond test scores. I also believe test scores CAN favor already privileged students who can afford test prep and multiple attempts. I also know SOME kids are extremely bright and will test well, but for a host of other reasons may not do well in college.
You mean like saying Asian Males are boring? There I said it.
Yeah agreed. Not to mention the rampant grade inflation. If you look at my prior post in CC Iāve gone through the same arguments. Point is, itās not possible to measure college application or define merits by purely one aspect in the elite or selective colleges. The number of applications. The seemingly large number of academic equally qualified applications.
It is not sports tryout or performing art auditionsā¦ (Even with tryout or auditions, there are subjective aspects with it, such as team fitā¦)
Essentially, it is almost function as a lottery system for those selective schools now.