<p>I’d keep the system used for the ‘most selective’ colleges. These colleges have been successful in education their students and have been rewarded in turn. Other schools are as successful in their system. </p>
<p>the caution 1: too much homogeneity eventually leads to feeble-mindedness. We have seen this too often. </p>
<p>the caution 2: too much diversity eventually leads to experts but not very practicable.</p>
<p>I’d start with my kids and those of my friends, relatives, and associates. Then I’d take for kids from families just like mine.
Of course, I’d always take kids from families with lots of money or connections.</p>
<p>Oh, wait. That has already been tried, hasn’t it?</p>
<p>I’d adapt the admission processes at [Olin</a> College of Engineering](<a href=“http://www.olin.edu%5DOlin”>http://www.olin.edu) and [url=<a href=“http://www.caltech.edu%5DCaltech%5B/url”>http://www.caltech.edu]Caltech[/url</a>] for “my” new school.</p>
<p>I personally wouldn’t be comfortable with a start up the size suggested. I’d start small and slowly grow the class as kinks in the organization were worked out. I wouldn’t even bring a class in for at least three years.</p>
<p>Hire Cheers as provost and implement Cheers’ plans. ;)</p>
<p>How 'bout an experiment with “outcome-based” admissions, along the lines of Watson Fellowships. Admit the 1500 students, who, in the opinion of the adcom, will do the most with their degrees to effect positive change in the world.</p>
<p>I’d give top priority to the Antioch orphans.</p>
<p>Wow! Lot’s of great ideas here, I should have included in my original outcome that the school is a strictly academic institution with no sports teams or ROTC organizations. </p>
<p>I must admit I like the first suggestion I received from Cheers best.</p>
<p>I like 07Dad’s ideas! </p>
<p>Here’s my take: All students must fence, all four years. I’ll even hire some Russian/Polish/Italian/French coaches. No other sports (who needs any more?) </p>
<p>Academics: I would accept 60% homeschoolers (and 10% of them would be “unschoolers”). Of the rest, I would accept 30% from families with 6 or more children. Those kids get along with anyone. The final 10% would be from the 2nd 10% of their high school class; those kids are always overshadowed, yet they are generally decent students with interesting lives. And, they are not always bragging about their “skills and magic.”</p>
<p>I like combining Cheers idea with MarathonMan’s. I think it would be good to prioritize admitting Pell Grant recipients who are predicted to use their degrees to make a positive change in the world. I also think that some seats --20%-- should be reserved for middle and well off students who are predicted to make a positive change in the world. They would be the URMs of this school. I think that all of the students would benefit by being exposed to people from a variety of SES backgrounds, and that also would help all do more later to make a positive difference in the world.</p>
<p>I also think that wealthy students who were accepted under such a program would on their own decide to make some kind of major financial contribution to the program. The students accepted under such a program would be accepted because of their record of commitment to making the world a better place. They wouldn’t be the type to accept a free ride without giving something to financially help the college.</p>
<p>I can imagine, for instance, that Bill and Melinda Gates might find such a college an atractive one for their kids to attend, and if their kids follow in their families’ philanthropic footsteps, the kids might be excellent ones to admit. Can’t imagine that such a family would allow their kids to go to that college without the family also making some kind of major financial contribution. </p>
<p>Wouldn’t it be wonderful if we really could create such a college!</p>
<p>How does one predict who “makes a positive change in the world?” And, who decides what is “positive?”</p>
<p>I might exclude the uber-wealthy on the condition that they already have places to go where they can make their positive changes. It is the middle-middle and lower-middle classes who are often refused the hand-up in life. Let the wealthy find and fund their own; they already do so.</p>
<p>When it comes to making a positive change in the world, I would be looking for students who already have done something to make a difference in their schools or communities through some kind of service that the student themselves took leadership in. It wouldn’t need to be a big project, but should be something indicating that the student genuinely cares about other people. Although many students who post on CC apparently think it’s easy to fake such things, it really is not. I think that the admissions commitee also could consist of people who have made a positive difference in the world and therefore would probably be able to recognize students with the same inclination.</p>
<p>The reason that I think that the ultra wealthy should have the chance to participate in such a school is that they could learn a lot by getting to know people from a variety of socioeconomic backgrounds, and the reverse also is true. </p>
<p>One can have a good heart and want to fund projects, but not have a realistic idea of what could be helpful. One also may not know about the strengths and challenges facing people of other income levels. I have been appalled by some of the ways that some people from well off backgrounds have tried to help poor people in my community. Their proejcts have been well meaning, but also have been ill conceived and condescending. People tend to learn about the strengths and challenges of others friendships, and in our society, usually there is no opportunity for the very poor and very wealthy to connect on an equal footing. In fact, there aren’t those many friendships at all that cross socioeconomic lines.</p>
<p>In the college that the OP proposed, no one’s income would keep them from living in a certain dorm, taking certain classes or studying abroad, presumably students would be able to interact more across socioeconomic classes than they can at any other college in the U.S. </p>
<p>As my younger S gets ready to go to college, I’ve been surprised to see how much one’s income determines things like what dorm one will be in and what classes one can take. For instance, S ruled out taking two freshmen seminar offerings because they would require extra fees related to travel. He also ruled out a very interesting sounding housing arrangement (a diversity house) because it would cost more than $3,000 a year more than other facilities. </p>
<p>We are solidly middle class. I can only imagine what things low income students would have to eliminate from their college experiences.</p>
<p>I would look for the best minds, not necessarilly the kids out doing tons of service projects. The job of kids is to build their knowledge base and critical thinking, not be saving the world yet. In fact, I find the kids at my son’s high school who are constantly appointing themselves the president of “Save Darfur” drives or “AIDs Awareness” walks to be generally the most selfish kids in the school. Let kids first devote themselves to scholarship and thus truly prepare themselves to make an impact on the world. Much of the volunteer mania strikes me as patronizing and full of hubris.</p>