<p>China’s admission system is even more straightforward. One test decides it all. Most other countries, OP, have admissions systems closer to yours than HYPS and CO. But then again, America’s number 1. So what does that say?</p>
<p>I like the idea of the time machine. But sadly you have to get the experience of being rejected over and over again before you can get accepted. But that happens in a parallel universe, so, whatever! </p>
<p>China also has different needs than the US as far as admissions systems go. Based on my knowledge of China (from a couple of book), a “holistic” approach to admissions would be too vulnerable to corruption and grade-inflation, giving the wealthy an insurmountable advantage. But in the US, someone can do pretty well in life without getting into the absolute best school. So while grade inflation does occur, its not as rampant as one might think because the standardized tests are in place.</p>
<p>How about this:</p>
<p>Instead of high school, we spend four years just studying for the SAT six hours a day. That way, we could measure work ethic and innate intelligence all in one!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That would explain why SAT Test Prep classes are populated mostly by poor underrepresented minorities raised in the worst parts of big cities and brought up by single mothers, right?</p>
<p>And some schools don’t even have AP testing, so I guess those kids can all be rejected, unless you institute expensive mandatory AP testing.</p>
<p>
It’s a bit extreme, isn’t it?</p>
<p>Thats’s like doing away with high school. </p>
<p>And how do you verify extracurricular without backing from the school councilor? Also given there are only a handful of Intel Siemen winners each year, how do the other 99.99% of non-winners prove their cases ? What if your committement is genuinely helping others, not out to win awards?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s the first thing I thought of when I read the first post… how do you compare applicants that have taken AP tests, when one school may offer 30 AP classes, another 10, another 3, and another 0?</p>
<p>I kind of like it. But I think students would have to take (on average) substantially more AP’s and SAT II’s than they do now. I also think that with this addtional test data it would be ok to keep using GPA’s becasue they would be fully normed by the test results for the particuar high school. I like eliminating the application essays since they are so easily ghost written or coached.</p>
<p>As far as the class being boring I think people would be surprised by how interesting students selected this way might be.</p>
<p>If widely adopted we would end up with college athletic teams that actually reflected the total student body. Of course, if a single school did it they would face humiliation on the playing fields.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>To play devil’s advocate…
Wouldn’t taking more ap’s than usual just completely void the first year of college? At that rate, we may as well just chop off the fourth (or whatever) year of schooling.
And at that point, it may lead to some students being excluded from college who really shouldn’t be, such as John Doe who couldn’t handle AP course work until 12th grade (or never), as he wasn’t mature enough for the work just yet. However, given time (ie until college), he may have been one of the top of his class at H/Y/P/wherever but had never been given the opportunity.</p>
<p>I’m for adopting a rigid points-based system. Test scores worth so many points,classes and rigorous schedule another set of points, a score for EC/personal traits, and essays are scored. So in the end, admission is based on total of those scores. The advantage is adcom wouldnt be overly taken by personal essay which like the poster above said canbe easily ghosted,or coached, bears no resemblance to the real person.</p>
<p>Finally, this should be a suggested system for scoring applicants but kept internally. Because a school has the full right to assemble a freshman class of individuals. </p>
<p>It may seemed like Im saying contradicting things but I am just proposing a method of scoring and deciding based on rigid score groups so no one group is the deciding factor over another. The weighing of these groups should still be up to the school and kept as internal policy subject to changes.</p>
<p>RE: Johnson181’s comment about the John Doe ( post #30)</p>
<p>Its refreshing what you said about voiding 1st year of college. High school students are teenagers. They should have time to do teenager things. To put more AP’s and tests on them will take away from what little time they have during high school.</p>
<p>However I disagree your John Doe example. Someone who have not developed good study skills and strong discipline suddenly rises to the top of class at HYP (he or she wouldnt get in in the first place unless his family is wealthy donor). You can’t build a system based on rare exceptions.</p>
<p>I believe there is no such thing as a perfect admissions system, simply because everyone has different ideas of what makes someone “worthy” of being in college. </p>
<p>I honestly believe that the admissions system right now provides for a wide variety in the student body while attempting to holistically take everything into consideration, and while it may not be perfect, it is as close to it as possible.</p>
<p>This is an interesting thread. Frankly, thanks to you al6200. It’s really a good vehicle for us to examine what we like/don’t like about the whole system (not just your hypothetical one).</p>
<p>I would say to your comment about the kid from the less-privileged backgroud: if he/she has excellent academic potential, the savvy adcom will know that the 20 hrs /week at Walmart or the Dry Cleaners – or the hours spent babysitting the several siblings – an attempt is made to take all of it into account.</p>
<p>I’m personally an advocate of the point system, while it can easily be flawed by a faulty distribution of emphasis. I also agree with some of the above posters in that the essays have no place in admissions anymore.</p>
<p>I totally support moving to a much more transparent system that put the emphasis on the SAT/ACT/SATII/APs and transcripts. And if we end up with mostly Asians at the elite schools, so be it. I’m not Asian but I do honor work ethic and true achievement.</p>
<p>Well, firstly, to make the AP system work we need to do 2 basic things: </p>
<ol>
<li> Make AP coursework the norm and expectation. College level work is sometimes challenging but it is also much more exciting and rewarding.<br></li>
<li> Make it possible for students to apply for AP tests outside of their own school system, so even a student from a school with no offered APs will be able to apply and take how ever many AP tests they wish, without being hindered by the quality of their high school.<br></li>
</ol>
<p>I don’t think it would be bad to chop off the first year of schooling. In fact, it might be nice since it would allow students a free year’s worth of classes to pursue extra interests like writing, mathematics, etc. to supplement their main coursework, making for more well-rounded students. </p>
<p>As for some kids being “late-bloomers”, this system doesn’t perform any worse then the current GPA/EC/SAT system we have any place. If a kid today can’t handle challenging course-work, their GPAs will look pretty awful, and their SATs might look bad (but not as bad as their GPA). So I don’t see how standardization. </p>
<p>One problem with my hypothetical system that I have yet to work out is the problem of subjects that can’t easily be tested. For example, what about proving or disproving mathematical proofs, or working on large projects? An AP Test can’t measure how well a student works in groups, or how social that person is. Even though group skills can’t be measured, they’re still an invaluable part of working in the real world. </p>
<p>And what about writing advanced computer programs or term papers on important subjects? The foundation skills of writing can be measured on AP tests or SATs, but the test never looks at whether the student can put it all together, and can work with other people to get something done. </p>
<p>I can’t really think of an admissions method that rewards students completing large projects and team work but doesn’t just give success away to the richest students with the most connections. For example, if colleges asked engineering students to put forward a portfolio, the wealthiest children would be able to put forward an incredible variety of work, because they have great resources to make very impressive projects. And they have the connections to get lots of extra help. </p>
<p>One could say “use GPA”. But the problem with that is that GPA isn’t standardized, and inevitably it leads to teachers not really pushing their students, and students not really taking risks, since all that matters in the next quiz or homework. </p>
<p>I guess in light of that, I think it would be a neat system if the federal government provided a large base fund to every high school, so that all students complete a project by the end of their senior year in a given high school “concentration”. The idea of students obsessed about college admissions spending all their time building robots and solving problems instead of finding the best essay topic is music to my ears. But then again, there’s the problem of the rich students from the elite privates using their connections to get trained professionals, and buy their way to a winning project.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Who’s to say that he/she would be the exception? If AP’s were suddenly thrust down our throats to increase admissions chances, then chances are there would be AP’s starting in 9th grade (besides ones like World or Art that some schools offer). Although a good chunk of 9th graders can handle a few AP courses freshman year (I’d wager to guess that most of us on CC could), most couldn’t.
And that most would get left behind, such as those who don’t have the opportunity to take AP Calc now simply because they weren’t placed into an advanced math track back in 7th grade. Seems kind of crazy to judge a senior’s ability to handle math based on their 7th grade self…</p>
<p>
Not a bad idea, but they do this now anyway. The problem being is that they most likely wouldn’t have the chance to take the class that would help them pass the test.</p>
<p>As to the chopping off of a year of school?
Personally, I like it- but colleges wouldn’t. Most students probably wouldn’t stick around and pay the 4th year of tuition (for financial and other reasons) if they didn’t have to.</p>
<p>I think that the perfect college admissions system would be one where a handful of people who are concerned for the school’s best interest, for hypothetical purposes lets call them admissions committees, got together and went through the profiles of students, their “applications”, and maybe interviewed them to get to know them better, got some recommendations from their teachers and guidance counselors to get the whole picture, and then decided to build the class as a whole based on what would make the school the best environment possible. That way people couldn’t complain when they weren’t admitted because they simply didn’t fit into the mold that the school had. </p>
<p>BUT i have a feeling that somebody else already thought of this…</p>
<p>but on a more positive note, i would want the admissions process to be a little bit more personal to get more of a holistic view of a student, as it would also help the university. But what i don’t like about the other people’s plans is that it goes along the completely wrong line of thinking that if you are the best student, a school is obligated to accepted. Would it be wise of them to? maybe. But do they have to? no. </p>
<p>When you build a student body your obligation is to the group as a whole not to the individual student.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>lmao. 10chars.</p>