It triggered (in a good way) a hilarious incident in my neighborhood when my kids were young. The fire department in my town does an annual bike helmet giveaway. It is not an entitlement program; they don’t ask your income, they don’t require proof that your kids are getting free lunch or whatever. But the “custom” in town is that if you can afford a bike helmet, once your kid is properly fitted with a brand new helmet, and a very nice and authoritative fire fighter explains to your kid why it must be worn every single time, no exceptions, scooter and skateboards included… you drop a check or $30-50 in cash in the bucket outside the firehouse where the very charismatic captain will accept your money and thank you for participating. And if you can’t afford one- you shake the captain’s hand, he thanks you for ensuring your kid’s safety and that’s that. It’s a volunteer fire organization, so most people are happy to support it.
One year a new neighbor who had lived on a block for a few months was FURIOUS that she wasn’t told about the giveaway (signs everywhere, in the local paper, huge banner outside the fire station, but ok, you missed it) and was even MORE enraged to hear that the helmets were free. Someone pointed out to her that if she went to Target or Walmart and bought a few helmets, the firefighters would happily fit her kid with the most appropriate/best fitting one and then she could return the others. That got her even MORE irate. “Why should I pay for a helmet when all of you got yours for free?” Someone pointed out that most of us didn’t get them for free-- we donated back the value of the helmet, and the “value” of the event was not the “no longer free because I paid for it” helmet, but in making our kids aware of the importance of helmets which fit properly- which she could do any day after school by dropping by the fire station to have a real, honest to goodness fire fighter talk to her kid. And then she went nuclear-- life is unfair, etc.
Meanwhile, we all knew what she had just paid for her house so the idea that a free bike helmet was so important was beyond ludicrous but we all tried to look sympathetic and yes, life isn’t fair.
I think most of the top 50 colleges in the USA could adopt the German/European system. They’d have to have some services that are required by the federal government like a Title IX officers and some disability offices, but not to the extent they have now. They could admit students totally by the numbers (SAT, GPA, zip code if they want students from all over the US) but I’d bet within a few years schools would look pretty much like they did in the 1950s, maybe with the exception of the male/female ratio - white, rich, from the NE area.
I can’t tell you how many times I’ve read on CC that the student/family is looking for diversity (including one of my own kids) and then the student’s list is the Ivies, NESCAC, small LACs, the flagship. If they really want diversity, go to an urban college with no campus housing (oh gee, like the European model!). No, they want diversity and they want it at Yale, or Georgetown, or USC. They don’t want those schools to adopt a system where they take only the top applicants who can be full pay and who all live in Mass.
The majority of people in the USA don’t want the German system. They want the 4 year sleep away camp model. That model is expensive and a lot of families can’t afford that. (see posts above that life isn’t fair). Many older (and by that I mean above 22 years old) don’t want that as they are married or have to work or don’t want to move to Grinnell Iowa. They want to go to school at night while working in the day, or they want to go online, or they have to live in Arizona because of allergies.
Good thing the US system gives them options. But hey, the German system is open to everyone too. You like that system, go there.
Urban predominantly commuter colleges are not necessarily that diverse, although they are likely to be more diverse than high schools. For example, CSULA and CSUDH are about 3/4 Pell grant (i.e. SES distribution is skewed toward the bottom half – the opposite of the highly selective privates) and about 3/4 in one of the ethnic categories.
Though there’s more to the differences than just the expense. I think most would appreciate a little more transparency and predictability in the system.
In Canada, education is run by the provinces and curriculum is set by them. The Quebec system is obviously heavily influenced by the French and the rest of Canada largely British. Students generally have to write year- end “ministerial” exams so the province can be certain school are applying the set curriculum. No surprise, the largest controversy is the “history” exam.
The system does provide good metrics as to STEM capabilities of students. When a child applies for CEGEP (pre-university), they have a pretty well established academic track record. Actually, in Quebec, you have metrics to see how a child’s high school did on the “ministerial” . The issue in the US is each state pulls in its own direction and the standardization and that ability to easily compare a student’s performance “objectively” with a peer group is difficult.
We-ell. You need five APs or the IB diploma, or a year long bridging course (at the end of which, unsurprisingly, there are tests). Unless one of the very few undergrad programs offered in the English language suits you, you need proficiency in the German language, and at least enough proficiency in any case to survive and negotiate university bureaucracy. And a huge dose of thick skinnedness, independence and adventurous spirit.
That’s why I usually warn everyone on here who wants to go or send their child to Germany “because it’s cheap”. Uh-oh.
A better “German system” open to everyone in the US would be low cost 4 year commuter colleges in big cities, offering valuable degrees (not “golf management” or “criminal justice”), accessible by public transport and open to part time students. I think Catholic universities used to fill that niche once, but they have mostly evolved towards the sleep away camp ideal.
Edited to add before we’re admonished for being off topic again: the college landscape is the one students and parents want. It didn’t evolve in a vacuum. But unlimited variety not just in what’s on offer but also in what colleges can and cannot consider in admissions makes the process super stressful for 17year olds. Bully for those who have sbinaz as a parent, tough luck for those who have the SIL….
According to Wikipedia, there are 21 Nobel Laureates who either taught at or graduated from City College in NYC. When I suggest it (or any of its affiliates- Hunter, Baruch, etc.) to a kid looking for an affordable option to “Sleepaway camp” they look at me like I’m insane.
CUNY is exactly what you are talking about. If it were as popular as some of the posters on here seem to believe the model to be- it would be turning kids away left and right. It’s in a populous city with excellent mass transit; nobody would confuse it for the “lazy river/fabulous fraternity scene” colleges, etc.
Me thinks that the model is a lot more popular in theory than in practice!!!
How many of those Nobel laureates were highly qualified Ashkenazi immigrants, products of what was, at the time, one of the best public school systems in the world, who clustered there at a time when very few other options were open to them due to racist quotas?
How many were products of City College after open admissions came into effect in 1970?
And what’s the quality of the peer group in the present, now that the highly qualified but poor do have the option to access deep pocket top tier institutions with excellent financial aid?
No, the model isn’t popular. There’s no point in advocating for it, nor am I doing so. Just offering up some aspects which might improve this process for many, without changing what students and parents love about sleep away camp colleges. I don’t think anyone loves the admissions process…
Open admissions for sure undercut the preparedness of the student body and a decrease in the rigor of instruction.
But this is a recent conversation I had with a parent:
Other Mom- “So Henry transferred out of Baruch to XYZ private college and now we’re full pay. I’m so aggravated with him”.
Blossom- “Curious why he transferred?”
Other Mom- “You can’t get a decent GPA at Baruch. Whether you’re premed, want to go to law school, MBA, or just get a job on Wall street- the FGLI’s (she used a slur) basically study all the time, work their tails off (a vulgarity) and if you have a professor who grades on a curve, it’s just not possible to do well, the classes are so hard”.
So I’m guessing that Henry was NOT willing to study hard, work his tail off, and put up with “hard classes”. I think Hunter, Baruch, Macauley are indeed hidden gems on the “somewhat German model”. But if a kid WANTS the summer camp experience and doesn’t want to “work his tail off”, it’s clearly not a fit.
Again- we on CC love “Just an education, no frills, no mesclun on the salad bar”. But the folks “out there” who have options, would be mobbing CUNY and places like it if this were the case!
Such a thing already exists in many states (e.g. the CSUs and community colleges in California), although the general issue of poor public transportation (at least partially due to lower population density than in Germany) affects how much population can be in commute range of each school. In some states where the population is highly concentrated in one metro area (e.g. Arizona and Hawaii), a flagship level university takes on this role. But there are still rural areas from where commuting to college is not practical.
However, it does seem that lots of students and their parents aspire to schools other than the ones they can commute to.
There is not a single college in the CUNY system which is not commutable by bus, subway or both. Convenient rail links to about half the campuses if you’re coming from New Jersey, CT, Long Island or Westchester and points beyond upstate. Depending on where a kid lives some campuses will be an easier commute than others though. But public transportation is not an issue in a city as dense as NYC/Five Boroughs. No need for a student parking lot!
You have made a lot of interesting posts in this thread. I don’t always agree (sometimes I do) but I always find myself re-evaluating my thoughts on things.
I hold fast to the belief that it is only possible to think the US college admissions process is broken if there is value in attending a highly selective institution. Since most colleges & universities accept just about everyone, if success in life (whatever that may be) is about the effort of the individual, then nothing is broken, because everyone can get a degree from somewhere.
Canuckdad, I am assuming you think US college admissions are broken. Am I making a correct assumption? If yes, do you think that a student receives benefits from attending a highly selective institution that they wouldn’t receive from a less selective institution?
I agree that there is a school for everyone and good schools at that. Whether something is broken or not is a judgment call and there is no right answer.
The GAO report which addressed the issues of misleading or inaccurate financial aid offers etc…is one which has implications to whomever applies. Is it so hard to tell a student, this is how much you have to pay based on the what you applied for, if you take so many credits per year etc…I also believe schools should lock in tuition for four years when a kid applies.
My issue with selective schools is they can do whatever they want because of the demand. But, stop being “petty”: price fixing financial aid offers, need blind promises when not being need blind. In other words, why give the appearance of being fo being “sketchy”
I am providing a link to something I recently came across. There is a lot to unpack here.
“My issue with selective schools is they can do whatever they want because of the demand”.
Seriously?
Yes, a high demand product, experience, perception of quality, whatever has more pricing power than one without those perceptions. You could argue that Red Roof Inn is the same as the Ritz Carlton- bed, shower, lobby. But folks out there in the real world don’t believe it’s the same- hence $79/night for a Red Roof room, and $500 and up for a Ritz room.
What exactly is the point you are trying to make? I don’t believe the hotel market is broken just because there are people willing to pay god knows what for the “brand” and the “experience” even though folks like me are happy with a bed and a functioning toilet.
Sorry if your nose is out of joint. But, please refrain from “obsessing” with my posts and taking them out of context. If you don’t believe the admissions process is broken or needs to be fixed, good for you. The selective schools have engaged in bad behavior, been called out and caught, when there was no point to it. Cheapen your brand with cheap behavior and price fixing to cheat students of financial aid money, is pretty low class.
Might I suggest that you reconsider how you describe cheating and other negative behavior? To indicate that negative behavior is symptomatic of a group of people with lower economic means is extraordinarily distasteful, untrue, and upsetting.
Reminder that this thread is about “college admissions” not “super highly selective college admissions for specific groups”. Your points seem to be limited to a very narrow segment of US college admissions (highly selective, athletic recruits, affordability for internationals) and missing the point of the overall intent of the discussion.
Is there room for improvement? Sure. Is it broken? I’ve not seen evidence that the system is broken for anyone willing to consider all options available.
Note: I’m posting as an individual not as a moderator.
