<p>I found the following from a summary of the book “The Rising Curve”:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Now how can I believe a book when they completely don’t understand what Flynn Effect is. Flynn Effect is the secular increase in raw scores, not the convergence of black/white (do Asian not matter anymore?) scores. The disparity persists even though scores have increased. I don’t feel like discussing the Flynn Effect b/c even professionals don’t understand it, but it doesn’t invovle all aspects of intelligence testing. And the most g-loaded tests seem largely immune to it (at least since the 1980’s). Actually, I think the effect has largely tapered since the 1980’s. </p>
<p>According to Charles Murray (I could provide a link), the black-white gap is constant right around one standard deviation. Independent from intelligence testing, achievement or academic testing has shown a convergence. Of course, blacks have been less persecuted and privy to the same educational opportunities, so that’s not a shock.</p>
<p>Clyde, you might find it interesting to visit the University of Oxford’s web site.
Their admissions criteria are clear, straightforward, and plain for all to see.</p>
<p>For students from the USA, the criteria apparently amount to a set of minimum scores on the SAT or AP exams. 2100 combined SAT1, a few high scores on the SAT2s or APs, and you are in (or so it seems). Please let us know if you find anything about how they handle legacies, athletes, URMs, “passion”, celebrities, or “development” applicants for admission.</p>
<p>Why do so many posters keep complaining about “less qualified” applicants succeeding when the schools themselves specify the “qualities” they are measuring as including many things besides SATs and GPAs??? If Harvard specifically states that the school evaluates ECs, advantages of background, diversity of background, etc-- How can one possibly say that the students selected for those qualities are less qualified? How can the holistic process these schools use still be a surprise to posters fixated on their kids test scores?</p>
<p>Re: Oxford admissions policies. The criteria listed unfortunately do not guarantee admissions there–otherwise, there would be a great option, with no drama. American applicants (generally) must have an interview at a British Consulate in the U.S. British applicants have interviews in Oxford. Either Oxford or Cambridge has videos of a few interviews on the web site, for mathematics and chemistry (and perhaps other areas).</p>
<p>Also, for some of the proposed fields of study, there are supplementary Oxford or Cambridge examinations that must be taken–take a look at the Oxford web site. As I recall, at Cambridge, mathematics and history both have supplemental exams, and other areas may, as well. </p>
<p>Their admissions are essentially, if not exclusively, academically focused, however. In my opinion, if it can be arranged, an interview in Oxford tends to be advantageous (relative to a Consulate interview), for a well-focused American applicant, because it is limited to the proposed field of study, and it is held by two dons in that field.</p>
<p>Other British universities (with the exception of Cambridge and the University of London) have basically score-driven admissions, and could actually be great choices for anyone who qualifies. This may hold for some Canadian universities as well.</p>
<p>So why bother with grades and test scores, then? Why have all of the honor societies and national merit awards? If its all just an exercise to come up with the most interesting cast for an MTV reality show, then don’t create false hopes in kids who work their butts off to meet the objective criteria.</p>
<p>It is true that blacks have on average less resources, but it’s a myth that this “succeeding in socio-economic hardship” or better EC’s is what grants them admission despite low scores. First, Ivies admit mostly recent African immigrants and middle to upper class blacks, not the lower class blacks that you’re referring to (see recent Harvard controversy from Louis Gates I think). Second, while colleges might mention economic status offhand, it’s clear they barely take that into consideration. If so, the poorest whites and Asians would take almost all the spots given currently to affirmative action blacks, as they score slightly better than the richest blacks. So, you have one conclusion: blacks, while scoring lower than whites/Asians on average on tests and grades, score higher on average on unquantifiable metrics such as EC’s, social skills, and moral character. Of course this is absurd, so the only rational conclusion is that the relative standard is lower for blacks who admitted through affirmative action.</p>
<p>clyde, I think the question might be “who created this false hope?”, IMO You should find them and kick their :eek:. They did not understand the process at all and shouldn’t have set the kid up for a fall.</p>
<p>There is a fairly simple way to avoid a process y’all obviously despise…vote with your feet and apply elsewhere. There are many schools that are less holistic in admissions.</p>
<p>CTTC- they are not ‘lower standards’ they are standards that have many different facets.</p>
<p>For example, if for the position of say, fashion model, designers generally require the model to be at least 5’10" and have an interesting, unusual face, claiming that your daughter is the most “qualified” because she is 6’5" and her face doesn’t matter is silly. Elite schools set a floor for GPA and SAT, beyond that, being “interesting” counts just as much. “interesting” takes many forms-- athletetic ability, musical ability, unusual background, racial or gender diversity, unique ecs, etc.</p>
<p>This is really a no-win argument. If there were a top US school that had a simple stats-driven formula, these boards would be full of threads bashing stats-grubbing Asians.</p>
<p>I’m sorry, I thought we were talking about institutions of higher learning that gave out grades and diplomas based on classroom performance. BTW, I have no problem with merit bumps for athletes, musicians, etc. They’ve earned that recognition. And I don’t have a problem with “interesting” as a way to differentiate between kids with similar objective criteria. But I don’t think its right to reject an objectively highly qualified kid in favor of a less objectively qualified but “more interesting” kid?</p>
<p>Why not? The school says that everyone above these basic academic qualifications is likely to succeed here, so we choose to build a class made up of interesting students using a holistic process that values many types of diversity. What is wrong with that? Why is it not “right”?
edit- post refers to clyde’s</p>
<p>Clyde, I don’t think the elite colleges are grading based on how “interesting” the applicant is, I am pretty sure they are still grading class work and handing out diplomas based on the admitted student’s perfomance.</p>
<p>Some of us did an exercise some time back talking about what a “stats-only” college might look like. I think it would lose all kinds of diversity, including ethnic and geographic, and would exclude a lot of kids who are highly accomplished in non-academic pursuits. But as I thought at the time, there might be a market for a school like that.</p>