Not sure how an assessment of character would be done. I am very unimpressed by what passes for “character” in the views of the adults who work in the HS 's I am familiar with. Smile at the right people, kiss up etc. Occasionally they get it right, but more often than not…no.
I’m familiar with Gladwell’s work. I’ve read " Outliers". I might be hanging in the wrong crowds, but I know too many folks who were “late bloomers” to believe these types are necessarily outliers or even that unusual.
The only way to ensure you select more “late bloomers” is to go more holistic in admissions, and we ALL know what happens here on CC when Johnny with a 2400 doesn’t get in and Susie down the block with a 2200 gets in. No one here goes “oh that’s wonderful, Susie’s a late bloomer.”
Apparently I have more confidence in people than FallGirl does. Just saying… 
Good point pg, but the late bloomers I had in mind were those with good academic stats, just not the eye popping EC’s or LORs. The smart kids who are under the radar with the adults in the school.
Would it be a good idea to encourage students to take IQ/EQ tests as a part of the standardized tests package? The IQ test isn’t something you can study for and (albeit definitely with its faults) is meant to measure raw intelligence; wouldn’t this provide colleges with another method to sort out the Does from the Zoes? And the EQ test can help colleges determine which students care about interpersonal relationships and perhaps making a positive impact on the community - a large part of the Harvard report was how top students don’t care about caring enough.
I definitely don’t think these tests should be weighed very heavily (again, they have many of their faults, and raw intelligence definitely isn’t everything), but don’t these two tests give colleges the ability to find more caring and naturally intellectual students?
And this is coming from a Zoe.
I don’t think there are a lot of mistakes being made by admissions. The stars coming out of our school are getting in to at least one of the tippy top schools. The admits I have seen are all fantastic kids and I have yet to be wondering what admissions saw in someone.
@BostonBrotha
Not necessary. Actual teacher observations of student potential tends to be more reliable than IQ measurements anyway, and especially because the observations have a context. It’s the context that the colleges are more interested in. Further, high IQ students tend to be producers simply by virtue of their ability & curiosity, separate from any “calculated” ambition.
Harvard may be able to assess current academic and social success and the potential for ongoing success, but assessing character? How on earth can any school truly assess character? I don’t think high school teachers and GC’s can either, except in rare cases when they’ve witnessed a situation unfold before their eyes and saw the student’s response. By definition, one aspect of character hinges on what one does when no one else is looking. Teachers often don’t know who cheats and who doesn’t. They aren’t good at judging whether a student is deliberately flattering them or is genuine. Who teachers think is the greatest, peers may detest because they see through them.
I am a fan of elite schools, but the belief that the students at Harvard are of a higher character is nonsense. They are smarter, and harder-working, so to the extent that being diligent and responsible shows character, then I’ll grant you a distinction. But the other components of character, such as honesty, integrity, concern for their fellow man…? No, the admissions committee doesn’t know any of that. My kids have rubbed elbows with fantastic people at their schools, but they have also rubbed elbows with drug users and dealers, academic cheaters, cheaters in romantic relationships, shoplifters, liars, and quite a few emotionally unstable individuals.
Please, no more tests.
Why is it assumed that H et al just want to admit the very smartest, and that between two students, the “smarter” (as measured by GPA, SATs, IQ testing, whatever) should “win”? They want the people they want from among a very smart pool. Smartness is an ante to get into the game. It’s not the game itself.
I still think the problem is not with the schools – it’s with the parents whose egos are so on the line and who are so naive that they actually (and stupidly) think that their bright kid is going to Magically Go Places from HYPSM that he wouldn’t get to from a slightly lower tier school. It’s just completely ridiculous. Who are we kidding? Drive down the streets in any affluent suburb, anywhere. The majority of those families didn’t get their wealth from HYPSM et al. There are SO many ways to become financially / economically successful in this country - the handful of professions where those specific degrees are vital is so terribly small as to be inconsequential.
Actually, given the high proportion of kids who change majors in college, it makes sense to me not to consider intended major.
(My history? Electrical engineering→biochemical engineering→professional writing→American studies→liberal arts (general)→linguistics, with grad school and a career in the latter.)
Maybe this was intended for another thread?
I ask that because I don’t see anyone here mentioning anything about the proportion of wealth that elite college grads have (except one person).
I ask that because I don’t see anyone here averring that future wealth or financial/economic success is the sole or primary metric for evaluating the college experience (except one person)
How about if we stipulate that there are a lot of colleges where kids can learn a lot, have fun, and prepare themselves for successful lives—as each of them may define success.
…and go back to discussing the roles of ECs, LORs, GPAs, character, and standardized tests in college admissions
I do believe character can be assessed and I certainly believe exceptional character is most often obvious. Any experienced admissions officer is going to be able to sort through the genuine from the contrived quite reliably.
Can’t agree more, GreatKid.
I wish I had the confidence in the people in the HS’s. Sorry to say my actual experiences in this regard have been VERY negative.
I agree with Fallgirl that deep character assessments are far above the paygrade of most adcoms. Even occupations where such assessments are critical and performed at a much more deep invasive level such as the CIA/FBI or assessing someone’s suitability to be a military officer…especially one from a FSA end up with duds. Aldrich Ames, Robert Hanssen, General Petreus, Major Paula Broadwell anyone??
*Both West Point graduates involved in misappropriation and handling of highly classified documents along with having an affair with each other.
Not perfectly, but “quite reliably”. I am curious for those who are cynical or less than trusting of the admissions process at elites, what do you suggest to improve upon what is being done?
Greatkid, I like Dartmouth’s requirement that the student submit a LOR from a peer. Kids don’t have a vested interest in the success of their classmates, other than a general desire to be nice to a friend. They don’t have years of professional experience phrasing their comments in the best way to cover over a deficiency or promote a kid who isn’t easy to promote. In contrast, school staff do have a vested interest and are rewarded for their students’ elite admissions. In fact, we all know that GC’s, teachers and administrators take credit when kids get into top schools. One way is by publishing an annual list of their admissions results. D’s GC sent an e-mail to the principal saying, “I got GFG’s D into Harvard!” I beg to differ that he had much to do with it, but he certainly thought he did.
I also happen to like recs from non-teachers and people outside of school. Sure, these LOR can be gamed also, but someone like an employer is going to see things that a teacher won’t.
They are schools. I would base admission on academic qualifications. Among the qualified, maybe a random lottery.
But how would they get the athletes, musicians, artists, student leaders, etc. They would. For example; the school district I live in (around 15 or so HS) has an annual banquet honoring top students. The selection process is very simple - top 5% of the class or NMSF. Both of my kids have qualified. All attendees are given a booklet with a profile of every single student honored. Guess what? There are athletes from all sports, singers, dancers, band kids. Student government officers, Class presidents, journalists, kids who are active in almost any kind of activity you can imagine. And this is random other than the academic credentials.
The only way this is not representative is sadly SES. But the colleges could take that into account.
Just a thought.