<p>I always find discussions about a tougher test or a more objective one interesting. Except for the Ivy League admissions, I think that the College Board’s SAT attracts the most criticisms. In a way, with all its shortcomings, it appears that the SAT should have been easily replaced by a competitive product. All we have to do is look at what the geniuses in Iowa City developed to understand that this is not about to happen tomorrow! </p>
<p>Then, what should we use as a tougher test? Should we look at the GRE or GMAT? Or should we have a PLSAT (combine PSAT and LSAT for acronym.) How different and more objective would they be? Should we look at the ever-so-lacking AP examinations? Should we look at the SAT Subject Tests?</p>
<p>As an example, does one really believe the SAT Math Level 2 yields “more gifted students” than the SAT Reasoning test? Considering how coachable the Subject Test is and how much it reflects the simple mastery of a TI graphic calculator, one should wonder about such claim. Of course, we always could look at the score distribution and arrive at the same conclusion. </p>
<p>Lastly, despite the requirement for a time-controlled writing test, I hope you will consider that this is again creating MORE gamesmanship than objectivity. As an example, the original Writing test (SATII) was known for how easy it was to ace through preparation. Asking a few students who found their way (and the money) to a very famous SAT tutor in Newton, MA would tell you how easy it was to memorize the essay in advance and regurgitate “winning” paragraphs. </p>
<p>In the end, the “tougher” the test, the easier it will be for people with resources to emerge as winners in that race. Harder tests will not reward the truly “gifted” but will reward the one with the most. For an illustration, take a look at the abject gamesmanship circus in the world of the Intel competition! :)</p>
<p>I guess I’m psychologically strange. I feel compelled to criticize an admissions system in which my kid did really well, and my younger one may very well also do quite well in. </p>
<p>Survivor guilt? Maybe something like it. Or Woody Allen’s saying about any club that would have you as a member.</p>
<p>Now must go bring my poor hs senior a cup of tea as she tries to write her application essays.</p>
<p>My kid goes to Yale. The kids there are oozing merit and academic distinction. Anybody who knows the first thing about the student bodies at Ivy schools knows that Steele’s statement is nonsense–indeed, unless he himself is woefully ignorant, he knows that it’s a lie.</p>
<p>“The URMs at my kid’s college were smart as the dickens. That is WHY I don’t think they should be practicing holistic admissions. They don’t need to.”</p>
<p>But those URMs got in during an era of affirmative action in admissions, so who’s to say they don’t need to? They’re smart as the dickens, but it’s entirely possible that their HS grades and test scores weren’t as good as the overall admit pool. That’s a huge part of the theory behind AA – that our tests and high schools aren’t very good at measuring the intellectual talent of URMs, so you need to go beyond the numbers to find all the sharpest ones. </p>
<p>We can’t know which of the individuals would have gotten in without AA, but we can know for sure that the population of URMs at that school would be smaller.</p>
<p>I just cannot get behind a) the assumption that the Ivy League is a group of schools that is somehow magically elevated above all others, such that “attending the Ivy League” is a goal (as opposed to “attending an excellent, challenging, elite school”), and b) the assumption that one’s kid is entitled to a spot in schools which have sub 10% rates. I’m sorry you were disappointed, proudmom, but what did you expect? What made your son entitled to a spot at any of these fine schools? I went through the process thinking my kids were entitled to <em>nothing.</em> Absolutely nothing. The chips would fall where they may, we’d play our cards where we could, and it wasn’t fair or unfair, it was just life and you don’t always get what you want sometimes. So he wanted Ivy badly, ever since he was a little boy. So what? So do thousands of other kids - and why should the Ivies care? And why on earth would you raise a kid to think about “Ivy” as opposed to about “top schools”?</p>
<p>"He should have played a sport really well (Division 1 level). Then he would have gotten in. "</p>
<p>He did two sports, cross country and track. Not stellar but never gave up. 4 years in both. Finally made “all conference” in cross country his senior year.</p>
<p>Guess I should have told him he could lay off the studying and that 4.5 GPA could be sacrificed for more running , huh?</p>
<p>Sewhappy, we tend to give a critical look to things we care about. The rest we ignore!</p>
<p>As I wrote before, it so happens that admissions at the Ivy League and a few highly-sought schools generate the most spirited discussions. After all, there is little “fun” in debating the unfair admission at Penn State or the lack of intellectualism at UMass! </p>
<p>The biggest problem is that none of us can do much about the fact that there are more than 200,000 applications for fewer than 20,000 seats. Even the “winners” can see that a level of unfairness must have been at play among the 180,000 who did not get the fat envelope. </p>
<p>The second big problem is that none of us has a better solution.</p>
<p>Or maybe it just wasn’t to be. You’ll forgive me for suggesting that Pomona is not “sloppy seconds” to be accepted with a sigh and a “well, I suppose, if I HAVE to.” It’s a fine school in and of itself, you know.</p>
<p>“After all, there is little “fun” in debating the unfair admission at Penn State or the lack of intellectualism at UMass!”</p>
<p>Michigan’s policies, at least, went all the way to the Supreme Court, and there’s still lots of argument about the case.</p>
<p>The arguments about state flagships are different, but they’re just as meaty. Merit aid to attract students who could afford to pay anyway, in-state vs. out-of-state preferences, etc., are big issues within many states. They’re just not a focus of this board.</p>
<p>You actually made a better argument why they should NOT abandon holistic admissions: They don’t need to.</p>
<p>They are currently practicing holistic admissions and the result is they enroll kids who are smart as the dickens. Looks like their holistic admissions program has been a smashing success.</p>
<p>“kid is an upper middle class white kid. Those I mentioned are not. They are all either kids of color, 2nd veneration of foreign born parents, or kids of the uber wealthy with names/pedigrees that are nationally recognized.”</p>
<p>Whiskey. Tango. Foxtrot. </p>
<p>My DW was born in Hungary (to death camp survivor parents, no less). I do not recall ANY app having questions about parents place of birth. I have never heard that this was a hook.</p>
<p>OTOH it might explain the considerable number of middle class Asian kids from DD’s high school who made it into one or more Ivys. But I suspect thats not it.</p>
Mind boggling. It’s not just the ridiculous sense of entitlement OP inculcated into her precious flower, but the fact that not getting into particular colleges would be seen as family tragedy.</p>
<p>ProudMomofS - That’s a tough story, and you have my sympathy. But your son will do fine, and he’s learned an important life lesson at an early age. Whatever the merits of holistic admissions and the nontransparent preference systems, it’s easy to forget that there are actual deserving people who become losers under these policies.</p>
<p>Hanna is right about state flagship admissions also being topics for “meaty” discussion . We’re in Virginia and every year there are lots of disappointed and/or disgruntled parents and students who don’t get into UVa. William and Mary and Virginia Tech are also sought after admissions that can cause discussion.</p>
<p>In the upper middle class white area where I live, it is common knowledge that the only upper middle class white kids who get into HYPS are:</p>
<p>1) Tippy-top students who are Division 1 athletes;
2) Tippy-top students who are legacies; and
3) Tippy-top student who score 2400 (we had one of those).</p>
<p>I’m surprised ProudMom didn’t know this if she has been gunning for her son’s admission all his life.</p>
<p>I don’t get the need of some posters here to lay into ProudMom. I’d feel pretty bad, too. I may be feeling that way in a few months with my second one, although i can tell her that my son who went to Harvard is urging his little sister to apply to Pomona, which he says he kind of wishes he had gone to instead of where he did. Better weather and he likes what his friend who went there says about it. Friend is going to Stanford for grad school, btw.</p>
<p>It does all work out. There is room at the top for all the worthy kids. But I do hate this admissions process. So glad I only have two kids.</p>
though I appreciate your point there)</p>