<p>interesting thread. your system definately would be a HUGE improvement over the current crock of bs we have today. holistic admissions really means no criteria. and why does the school need to build a specific student body? why should some kid A get in over kid B because kid A plays the tuba? it’s nonsense. college is for academics. community service requirements are bs bc they defeat the whole purpose of service. community service requirements are incentives, making the acts a job, not service. also, America is #1 bc of people from foreign nations who have come and contributed their superior skills. could you imagine a workforce with just native-born americans? our standard of living would plummet.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No matter the reason for doing community service, most (if not all) are selfish reasons.
“I’m doing it for my college app!”
“I’m doing it because I feel better when I help others!”
“I’m doing it because I like it’s rewarding!”</p>
<p>Yep. All three are selfish. So what? Someone (or something) still gets helped out in the end, the reason for it not having an impact on the results.
And I don’t believe it makes it a job. That whole not-getting-paid thing sort of nips it in the butt.</p>
<p>These req’s aren’t used to say that kid B gets into college because he plays the tuba and does community service. Their used because everyone applying has the same stats (gpa, sat, whatever), and how else would you judge? If kid a and kid b have the exact profile, yet kid b’s ec’s are more impressive, wouldn’t it stand to reason that kid b get in over kid a?</p>
<p>burnedout21: you have to understand that for the VAST number of freshman slots, something akin to the OPs suggestion ALREADY takes place. However, CC tends to focus on the so-called top 30-type schools. While you might decry their “holistic” admissions methods and their crazy idea of crafting together an entering class that fulfills a vision, the fact is that society as a whole has found value in this practice because it’s society that’s granted them their prestige and is enamored with their aura.</p>
<p>You can’t say: “I want SOLELY points-based or meritrocrious admissions for the top univeristies”. The fact is the universities that practice this – AREN’T generally in the top 30. The ones who practice holistic admissions – everyone is clambering to get into them (because they have the “crafted” student body)-- and not the others. Can’t have your cake and eat it too unfortunately.</p>
<p>Rgrds, t26e4</p>
<p>I like your admissions system. It is quite interesting.</p>
<p>burnedout21 –</p>
<p>You are not alone in your views of the current nonsense going on in college admissions. It’s become ridiculous. We need a “rigid points system” based on test scores (SAT, AP, SATIIs, and AP exams). Only fair way.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The problem here isn’t the availability of tests, it’s the availability of classes. My school, for example, offers all the tests but fourteen classes. This year, I self-studied two AP tests, but it was probably significantly more difficult that if I had waited to take the classes.</p>
<p>As fo essays, more colleges should follow UChicago’s example. There should be two or three essays, with one of them weighted more than the other(s). The one(s) that is/are weighted less should be about (a) normal topic(s), but the one that’s weighted more should be about something more creative or weird, so that it really can’t be coached that well. I personally support two essays instead of UChicago’s three, but that’s a minor difference. I also believe that essays as a whole should be weighted about the amount they are now.</p>
<p>one is better off doing it like they do in china/korea/japan where millions of kids take the exact same test on all the subjects in one day basically - a grueling 9 hour marathon of sorts - and then basically establishing a cut off point and saying rank 1-100 go to School Number One, rank 101 - 200 go to School “number Two” and so forth. such a system, however imperfect, would be far more “perfect” than the system you propose here. </p>
<p>having said that i agree with the poster above about UChicago’s example with essays. their quirky essay postings that try not to be generic and having different weighting is i think a good way to sift out those who may have been “coached”. it also weeds out those who may not be as serous applying to chicago too, i guess</p>
<p>I view the system in countries like China and, to an extent, India as fundamentally flawed. I you didn’t get enough sleep last night because you were too nervous about the test, you were very sick the day of the test, heavy traffic made you late, or you’re just not a good test-taker, you may not go to the college you wanted to, or you may not end up going at all. The upside, of course, is that it’s objective and measures the merits of each applicant on many different topics, but the possibility of one’s entire future being decided on one day is kind of scary.</p>
<p>I think the question is putting the cart before the horse. First you need to come up with what would be the perfect university. So, when you envision this perfect university, what kind of student body do you envision. Now, structure an admissions process that gets you that student body. </p>
<p>The Ivies have been around forever, and have had enough time to think about this. Though they still fine tune all their processes, including their admission process, I think they are pretty satisfied their process comes up with the student body they want.</p>
<p>I think the OPs process would come up with an intelligent student body. It would not come up with a student body that would work for the elite schools of today, but it might come up with the right student body for the hypothetical university the OP has in mind.</p>
<p>wow that formula is the biggest piece of bull ive ever read. the SAT as 60% hahaha</p>