S/O #2 on Article on potential change of emphasis in college admissions - NYT

[Janice in NJ]

The original thread linked to an article in the NYT; it referenced a soon-to-be-released report by the Harvard Graduate School of Education.

 

Well, it was released:

 

Turning the Tide

http://mcc.gse.harvard.edu/files/gse-mcc/files/20160120_mcc_ttt_execsummary_interactive.pdf?m=1453303460

 

Thoughts?

Janice

 

Enjoy your little people

Enjoy your journey

 

[Janice in NJ]

I'll start. 

 

Follow-up article in Washington Post: 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/parenting/wp/2016/01/20/to-get-into-college-harvard-report-advocates-for-kindness-instead-of-overachieving/

 

The title says it all, To get into college, Harvard report advocates for kindness instead of overachieving. 

If Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Columbia, Stanford, etc decide to enroll students based on their kindness, then kids will start focusing on kindness. Period. 

 

1. Reduce stress by limiting course loads and extra curricular activities. 

So, Harvard, only accept kids who take four or five classes a year. And only accept kids who have two meaningful activities. Just refuse to read the applications of the overachievers.

 

2. Value the different ways students make contributions to their families and communities.

So, Yale, only accept kids who plan menus, shop, and cook for their families. Princeton, only accept kids who have learned to care for younger siblings and grandparents and the elderly in the neighborhood. Of course you are going to have to let their grandparents write their letters of recommendations - unless their AP Chem teacher happens to have an elderly parent living next door to the student. 

 

ETC... 

 

This all sounds really nice, but I'm a skeptic. #4 is my favorite: Alleviate Test Pressure. The only way to do this is to get rid of the test. In a world fascinated by big data, I find this laughable. Really? Seriously. Just do it, Harvard. Just refuse to accept the scores, Princeton. This isn't hard. Just do it, guys! Really, put the College Board out of business. 

 

Why isn't this happening? Test scores are numbers which provide cutoffs that make processing applicants possible. A quick calculation: According to the College Board, 35K kids applied to Harvard. If there were no test scores and every application had to be READ, that would be very expensive. Say it only takes 10 minutes to read an application. It would take 5,833 hours to read through applications for the FIRST TIME. What if you pay your staff $10/hr? So let's assume the net cost to the college is $15/hr (employees cost more than their salaries).  That means the first read (done by minimum wage employees - didn't I read somewhere that the minimum wage in MA was $10/hr??) would cost Harvard $87,500. (This doesn't even deal with how you would FIND and train minimum wage workers to do this once a year for a month. What a MESS!!)

Why do that when a software program will wipe out half the folks who don't need a look. Bam! You just saved $43,750+ and a TON of bother by doing a quick "sort" on the data. And no one is looking, and no one will know.

 

So imagine a world where no one has a number attached to their file. Expensive! Messy!

 

And besides, are these the values you plan to promote while students are studying at your institutions?

Columbia University, are you helping your students find activities, classes and volunteer experiences that are meaningful to them, but that do not create undue stress? What is undue stress anyway? Really? Are you looking for kindness on campus or do you reward the kids who can get the questions right on the test? You don't really value kindness!!!!! I can't think of ONE class that had points for kindness factored in! 

 

sigh

 

This book is very enlightening - the problems persist even in graduate school admissions.  

Inside Graduate Admissions: Merit, Diversity, and Faculty Gatekeeping: Julie R. Posselt: 9780674088696: Amazon.com: Books

http://www.amazon.com/Inside-Graduate-Admissions-Diversity-Gatekeeping/dp/0674088697/ref=tmm_hrd_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=&sr=

 

Peace,

Janice

 

Enjoy your little people

Enjoy your journey

 

 

 

 

Edited January 30, 2016 by Janice in NJ

[Gwen in VA]

The idea of colleges only looking at six AP scores sounds wonderful.....

 

Until you start thinking about how those six AP scores are selected.

 

1) Will the College Board actually limit the number of AP tests a students can take? (Of course not!)

2) Will the student only be able to submit six scores? Or will colleges still be impressed by Johnny's twelve AP's, even if they technically only "look" at six?

3) If Johnny can only submit six scores, does he get to select his six top scores? If so, there will still be pressure to take as many AP classes/exams as it takes until somehow Johnny ends up with six 5's.

4) If Johnny can only submit six scores, will he have to submit his six most recent scores? What about that math genius who took AP Calculus his freshman year? His score can't be submitted?

 

And what about that kid who genuinely thrives on challenge and loves academics and would love to take more than six AP's? Not every student who takes more than six AP's does it purely to please admissions counselors; some students want to take those kind of challenging classes!

 

Ultimately there are only so many spots at tippy-top colleges. No amount of playing with the admissions system will change the fact that only a few percent of students who apply will be accepted.

 

Edited January 30, 2016 by Gwen in VA

[Lilaclady]

I just watched a video on this yesterday. They profiled a guy who was working hard doing all the right things to get into Harvard and a junior girl who had gone through a lot with her mom dying when she was 11.

 

I think they should certainly weigh students that have gone through difficult situations. My problem is how do you quantify that and what about students whose parents did not die or have cancer.

 

I just think a lot of this sounds good but I am not sure how they will go about assessing it.

I think that limiting the no of colleges students can apply to like 8 will go some way to lessening all the madness.

[Janice in NJ]

OK. I have another idea. If you're running a lottery, you could just admit to running a lottery. 

 

For example, Harvard accepts about 2,000 kids. So they could run five lotteries with 400 slots. (You can only pick one category)

 

1. If your test scores are over 750, you can enter one.

2. If your test scores are over 700 and you are poor or a minority or ____, you can enter the second.

3. If your parents can afford to pay full freight or if your mom is a senator or something, and your test score is over ___ (# doesn't matter), you can enter the third lottery.

4. If you have been really kind, you can enter the 4th.

5. And if you don't qualify for any of the other ones, but you think it might be cool to go to Harvard, you can enter the final lottery.

 

... or substitute GPA or whatever. It's a lottery; the metric is irrelevant.

 

Bam. Class of 2020. At least this way, the kids would understand that they are rolling dice; the rejection wouldn't mean much, and they could get back to the business of living.

 

Peace,

Janice

 

Enjoy your little people

Enjoy your journey

 

 

Edited January 31, 2016 by Janice in NJ

[Barb_]

OK. I have another idea. If you're running a lottery, you could just admit to running a lottery.

 

For example, Harvard accepts about 2,000 kids. So they could run five lotteries with 400 slots. (You can only pick one category)

 

1. If your test scores are over 750, you can enter one.

2. If your test scores are over 700 and you are poor or a minority or ____, you can enter the second.

3. If your parents can afford to pay full freight or if your mom is a senator or something, and your test score is over ___ (# doesn't matter), you can enter the third lottery.

4. If you have been really kind, you can enter the 4th.

5. And if you don't qualify for any of the other ones, but you think it might be cool to go to Harvard, you can enter the final lottery.

 

... or substitute GPA or whatever. It's a lottery; the metric is irrelevant.

 

Bam. Class of 2020. At least this way, the kids would understand that they are rolling dice; the rejection wouldn't mean much, and they could get back to the business of living.

 

Peace,

Janice

 

Enjoy your little people

Enjoy your journey

I'm not sure how tongue in cheek you meant this to be, but I literally lol'led

[Gwen in VA]

http://www.newyorker.com/culture/cultural-comment/the-poisonous-reach-of-the-college-admissions-process?mbid=social_twitter

 

I thought this article was a brilliant reply that catches many of our concerns --

 

For the last thirty years the machinery of college admissions has solved the administrative problem created by America’s surfeit of smart and eager high-school students by inventing new, pedagogically empty ways for them to compete with one another, laying out new grounds on which they might fight one another. This solution is now its own expanding web of problems, to which the system it came from is currently hatching an ambitious new set of solutions.

[JumpedIntoTheDeepEndFirst]

http://www.newyorker.com/culture/cultural-comment/the-poisonous-reach-of-the-college-admissions-process?mbid=social_twitter

 

I thought this article was a brilliant reply that catches many of our concerns --

 

For the last thirty years the machinery of college admissions has solved the administrative problem created by America’s surfeit of smart and eager high-school students by inventing new, pedagogically empty ways for them to compete with one another, laying out new grounds on which they might fight one another. This solution is now its own expanding web of problems, to which the system it came from is currently hatching an ambitious new set of solutions.

Thank you for linking-what a great article.

 

I cannot help but think, as the author eludes to, that filling a portfolio (even if just with sports or extracurricular activities) beginning in 9th grade is extending the angst and worry of applications to a younger set of students.  And, again as the author points out, this allows the school of your dreams to better mold you as it imposes the usual set of unwritten expectations over all four years of high school and all aspects of your life are open to inclusion.  

 

Of course I also think this is a giant packaging move.  Applications ask and then judge academic scores and extracurricular activities (to include sports, clubs, volunteer work, etc.) from 9th through 12th grade.  Now you just present the information to them much earlier and in a "portfolio" rather than having to remember it come application season in 12th grade.  I think these schools have always been will to look at writing samples, artistic samples, and recordings of performances by artists and athletes.  I don't think it is any new information just a new system with new reporting methods.  I just don't happen to think those reporting methods ease any pressure on prospective applicants, they just make the top tier schools seem caring.  In other words, I don't think MIT is going to turn down Intel Science Talent Search winners with perfect SAT scores for kids who post lots on Instagram or blog about their volunteer work.

[Sebastian (a lady)]

My ds hates asking for letters of recommendation. He thinks it makes him a jerk to ask people to write a letter about him. You can imagine how eager he is to write an essay detailing his community work.

 

This isn't a question of not doing community work or not being involved or caring or kind. He just hates "bragging about it."

 

This reminds me of King Lear where over the top extravagant declarations bested quiet restrained action.

 

The portfolio locker idea in my mind draws even younger kids into the college space race. It will spread anxiety to lower grades. I cannot see how it improves access to colleges. The kids of schools and families who are on top of things will be the ones using it. Kids who don't know to take the SAT because no one tells them aren't likely to stumble into this application system.

[Sebastian (a lady)]

I will add that I see a real issue in the idea that someone will be judging which community service is worthy enough.

 

Is the time spent helping the friends of the library because we love books and made friends with the folks in the group worth more or less than volunteering to shelve books because the civics class required volunteer hours? (Our library system would have no spots for volunteering in the two months before volunteer documentation was due, then all kinds of needs unmet starting the day after.)

 

Is going early to church each week to run the soundbooth equipment an example of faithful service outside self or something to discount because it serves a group the student is part of?

 

Is collecting clothing for immigrant children worthy? What about collecting clothes for the local crisis pregnancy center?

 

Is it evidence of caring to organize a rally against racial bias? What about organizing students to support a pro life event?

 

The potential for mischief seems high to me.

[TammyS]

My ds hates asking for letters of recommendation. He thinks it makes him a jerk to ask people to write a letter about him. You can imagine how eager he is to write an essay detailing his community work.

 

This isn't a question of not doing community work or not being involved or caring or kind. He just hates "bragging about it."

 

 

 

My son is a lot like this, too.  He was recently involved in helping to clean up from a Skipjack (historic sailing/fishing vessel, you can look it up if you are into that sort of thing) restoration at the local harbor (this is literally 3 miles from my house, and a huge part of community life around here).  When they were done for the day, a woman came up to him, and said, "I'm happy to sign your community service documents".  He literally had no idea what she was talking about.  When I explained it to him, he was like, "well that's just dumb".

 

[Janice in NJ]

Hi Tammy,

 

Yes, my kids were surprised when they found out that some of their favorite activities were populated by kids who were using the activity to check a box. I remember the day my daughter was scowling at me in disgust that kids were being coerced into doing the thing that she loved - one of the highlights of her week. She said it made the whole thing feel dirty. I really felt bad for her.

 

Peace,

Janice

 

Enjoy your little people

Enjoy your journey

[Muttichen]

OK. I have another idea. If you're running a lottery, you could just admit to running a lottery. 

 

For example, Harvard accepts about 2,000 kids. So they could run five lotteries with 400 slots. (You can only pick one category)

 

1. If your test scores are over 750, you can enter one.

2. If your test scores are over 700 and you are poor or a minority or ____, you can enter the second.

3. If your parents can afford to pay full freight or if your mom is a senator or something, and your test score is over ___ (# doesn't matter), you can enter the third lottery.

4. If you have been really kind, you can enter the 4th.

5. And if you don't qualify for any of the other ones, but you think it might be cool to go to Harvard, you can enter the final lottery.

 

... or substitute GPA or whatever. It's a lottery; the metric is irrelevant.

 

Bam. Class of 2020. At least this way, the kids would understand that they are rolling dice; the rejection wouldn't mean much, and they could get back to the business of living.

 

Peace,

Janice

 

Enjoy your little people

Enjoy your journey

 

Maybe you are joking, but I get really tired of hearing that admission to top schools is a lottery.  Yes, it's a long-shot; yes, the odds are against you, but calling it a "lottery" discounts the hard work and achievements of the kids who get in.  Three out of five of my kids were admitted to Princeton.  That's a rate of 60 percent.  Is that a lottery?

 

The kids that are getting in have accomplishments far beyond stellar SAT scores and GPAs.  They have done amazing things -- independent research, community service, whatever, that makes them stand out from all the other kids with great stats.

[Tsuga]

It just reinforces my belief that the #1 thing I can do for my kids is save up cold hard cash so they can apply to 10 state schools and get in flipping somewhere, screw the game.

 

 

 

Three out of five of my kids were admitted to Princeton.  That's a rate of 60 percent.  Is that a lottery?

 

Hashtag humblebrag. Your kids are awesome. You are a great parent. You win. There, now that you have had your moment (my children aren't even in the upper grades of elementary, so this isn't sour grapes), let's talk about reality for most people who work just as hard.

 

Some families have a 0/10. To them, it feels like a lottery. In some cases, a kid with the same scores as yours doesn't get in.

 

You can say that it wasn't a lottery because yours got in, but a LOT of children who do amazing things don't get in and admissions officers know it and have stated as much publicly.

 

https://www.insidehighered.com/views/2009/03/24/admissions-lottery

 

Really. It is. Talent lets you play, but it's still a game.

 

[MarkT]

We have not seen the amazing students gain admittance since our high school ditched IB/AP. Since then, its URMs...and middle class at that. No sport, no community service beyond what NHS did, no job, no achievement at the county or higher level in their ec, nothing in the 700s on the SAT or SAT2, just Regents level classes (which is the highest level offered here) with no accel. All are transfers in to the area just for 8th grade up and seem to be playing the zip code game as well. The amazing students are going to honors programs at private colleges after taking DE or self studying AP.

That is sad. My nephew goes to a tiny HS in upstate NY and they offer plenty of AP classes.

[wapiti]

Ordinarily, the lottery reference would be to the fact that some (unknown) number of the rejected applicants also had the entire package of SATs, GPA, and amazing accomplishments.  With regard to the article, non-academic accomplishments are subjective measures, but that's all admissions has to go on once the academic cut has been made.

 

IMO (not that admissions cares what I think :)), a move away from test scores would be a mistake, though perhaps the quality of the information that test scores can bring to the table has declined too far.

 

This may be exacerbated by the changes to the SAT with less differentiation at the top.  This is just a little rant of mine, but the new SAT seems to be the final nail in the coffin of what started out as an ability test.  Now fully an achievement test that's heavy on language and reading speed even in the math section, bright kids at bad schools, diamonds in the rough, may be shut out.  If the CC comments on the new PSAT are any indication of what the new SAT will be, prep - or at least some familiarity with the test and its language and/or common core and/or being very well-read* - will be more important than ever.  Back in the dark ages when I took the test, that wasn't the case.

 

I shouldn't complain, because if my kids could just get their reading speed up, I could see them getting scores in the top group, whatever that is.  But, I also know they have some intelligence that won't be visible from such scores - that will remain hidden, regardless of what grades and accomplishments they have in high school.

 

Thinking out loud, I'm really glad that dd14's math club coach encouraged her to take the AMC10 this month and hopefully again next year.  I don't know whether she'll end up applying to a college that cares about such things, but as other test scores become irrelevant, I can imagine that the few aware admissions offices might find such information useful.

 

 

*ETA, while being well-read also would have helped on that decades-old SAT, I don't think I was any more well-read than my peers at my high school, and yet I was pretty good at guessing on the analogies and such.

Edited February 2, 2016 by wapiti

[Tsuga]

Ordinarily, the lottery reference would be to the fact that some (unknown) number of the rejected applicants also had the entire package of SATs, GPA, and amazing accomplishments. With regard to the article, non-academic accomplishments are subjective measures, but that's all admissions has to go on once the academic cut has been made.

 

IMO (not that admissions cares what I think :)), a move away from test scores would be a mistake, though perhaps the quality of the information that test scores can bring to the table has declined too far.

 

This may be exacerbated by the changes to the SAT with less differentiation at the top. This is just a little rant of mine, but the new SAT seems to be the final nail in the coffin of what started out as an ability test. Now fully an achievement test that's heavy on language and reading speed even in the math section, bright kids at bad schools, diamonds in the rough, may be shut out. If the CC comments on the new PSAT are any indication of what the new SAT will be, prep - or at least some familiarity with the test and its language and/or common core - will be more important than ever. Back in the dark ages when I took the test, that wasn't the case.

 

I shouldn't complain, because if my kids could just get their reading speed up, I could see them getting scores in the top group, whatever that is. But, I also know they have some intelligence that won't be visible from such scores - that will remain hidden, regardless of what grades and accomplishments they have in high school.

 

Thinking out loud, I'm really glad that dd14's math club coach encouraged her to take the AMC10 this month and hopefully again next year. I don't know whether she'll end up applying to a college that cares about such things, but as other test scores become irrelevant, I can imagine that the few aware admissions offices might find such information useful.

If only mine could improve their attention. If only, if only. We are all geniuses "except that this one thing" keeps us from higher scores. If only he could relax and be creative in problem solving. If only she could read faster. If only fine motor skills, if only intuitive reading between the lines, mindful practice...

 

I agree with you about test scores. It's the most objective part of the whole thing, and the only reason we developed the other parts of the process was to keep Jews out. (And later, Asians.)

 

On the West Coast there is no affirmative action allowed but we still manage near representative proportions in our top public schools. So I think we should keep striving.

[Sebastian (a lady)]

Maybe you are joking, but I get really tired of hearing that admission to top schools is a lottery.  Yes, it's a long-shot; yes, the odds are against you, but calling it a "lottery" discounts the hard work and achievements of the kids who get in.  Three out of five of my kids were admitted to Princeton.  That's a rate of 60 percent.  Is that a lottery?

 

The kids that are getting in have accomplishments far beyond stellar SAT scores and GPAs.  They have done amazing things -- independent research, community service, whatever, that makes them stand out from all the other kids with great stats.

 

I can understand how the lottery description would grate.  

 

When I have used that term here and elsewhere, it isn't to say that students who are accepted to highly selective schools are not hard workers or that they do not have high achievements.  It is to say that there are a great many students who have similar records of hard work and high achievement who did not get an acceptance letter.

 

In some cases, it may be that the declined students weren't as tippy top as the students who were accepted, but I do think that there is also an issue of supply and demand.  The highly selective schools cannot accept all of the students who are qualified and who would thrive at their school.  From what I've read or watched, as described by admissions representatives (The Gatekeepers, admissions video from Amherst, articles in NYTimes, etc) there is a certain amount of serendipity involved.  This student application spoke more to that admissions reader than other comparable applications.  

 

So not a lottery in the sense of the student being plucked from obscurity for no reason other than tossing their name in a hat.  But a lottery in the sense that there may be very little that differentiates an accepted student from another highly qualified student who was declined.

 

 

DS2 is interested in two non-Ivy highly selective schools.  I would describe at least one of them as a lottery school.  Its acceptance rate is around 5%.   

 

Similarly, I would say that service academies have a strong lottery aspect to them.  Most of the candidates offered appointments are highly qualified.  However, a great number of the students who are declined are also highly qualified.  

[Sebastian (a lady)]

 

Hashtag humblebrag. Your kids are awesome. You are a great parent. You win. There, now that you have had your moment (my children aren't even in the upper grades of elementary, so this isn't sour grapes), let's talk about reality for most people who work just as hard.

 

 

I fail to see how going after another member of the board in this tone helps the discussion.

[Sebastian (a lady)]

I also think that people can accept the idea of a board that weighs each applications and accepts the best and brightest (demostrated in various ways).  I think that people can accept a lottery aspect after students have crossed some threshold.

 

I think what frustrates is the sense that there is some short circuiting of either needing to cross the threshold or or having to be in the lottery with everyone else.  When special considerations (demographics, legacy, sports recruiting, geographic diversity) result in someone being picked despite not crossing the threshold of what is considered normally qualified or when the special consideration appears to trump the lottery aspect that other applicants have to contend with, there is bound to be feelings of resentment that rise up among students who didn't get the special consideration.

 

I also think that it is human nature that we can rationalize the purpose behind special considerations that might benefit people like our own family.  

 

There is a tough job in admissions offices trying to draw a distinction between a student who didn't achieve national or international level results because they didn't put the effort in and one who didn't have access to the equipment or resources that would have let him or her work on that level.  When is working on the family farm or ranch evidence of qualities that will indicate the student will thrive in the school's environment?  Conversely, when is working in a science lab something that mostly indicates the student is the child of the head of the department?  

[Janice in NJ]

Maybe you are joking, but I get really tired of hearing that admission to top schools is a lottery.  Yes, it's a long-shot; yes, the odds are against you, but calling it a "lottery" discounts the hard work and achievements of the kids who get in.  Three out of five of my kids were admitted to Princeton.  That's a rate of 60 percent.  Is that a lottery?

 

The kids that are getting in have accomplishments far beyond stellar SAT scores and GPAs.  They have done amazing things -- independent research, community service, whatever, that makes them stand out from all the other kids with great stats.

Hi,

 

I am sorry if I hurt your feelings; that was not my intention. Congratulations on your children's accomplishments. They must be wonderful young people, and you must be very proud of them. 

 

I would love to hear your feedback on the report referenced at the top. Are your children at Princeton? How do they feel about the shift mentioned in the article? Do they feel it would change the university for the better?

 

Once again, please accept my apology. I am sorry. I would love to hear your feedback on the article as well. A 60% acceptance rate is a big deal. You must have something to say about ivy league admissions. Do you think they should change it?

 

Peace,

Janice

 

Enjoy your little people

Enjoy your journey

[Sebastian (a lady)]

The original thread linked to an article in the NYT; it referenced a soon-to-be-released report by the Harvard Graduate School of Education.

 

Well, it was released:

 

Turning the Tide

http://mcc.gse.harvard.edu/files/gse-mcc/files/20160120_mcc_ttt_execsummary_interactive.pdf?m=1453303460

 

Thoughts?

Janice

 

Enjoy your little people

Enjoy your journey

I don't know if I'll be able to get through the whole report, since I have duties associated with my sustained and ongoing involvement such as doing admin for a scout troop and homeschooling my kids.

 

My gut reaction is that weighing community involvement in such a way that an admissions board uses it as a basis for admissions decisions flies in the face of picking community involvement for organic reasons.

 

One thing my kids did for three years was help at our library branch. They did this because we love books and want to be around people who love books. The bulk of the Friends group were mostly retired. My kids schleppt boxes of books, organized various sections, cleaned books, kept the sections organized during the sales, etc. They did furniture moving and set up for the annual system fundraiser and recognition reception. Their scout troop even spent most of a Sunday reordering the whole non fiction section when the two librarians at the branch realized they had but off more than they could accomplish.

 

They were known to the library staff and friends board. But this doesn't get much of a mention in their resumes. It was just something they did.

 

To be honest I don't see the caring crisis the authors see. I know students who work hard to support each other, people around them and causes they care about. Making these actions something that is measured and compared strikes me as antithetical to the stated goal of increasing caring. It seems like this would set kids to prioritizing actions that are measurable and look good to outsiders.

[Janice in NJ]

I also think that people can accept the idea of a board that weighs each applications and accepts the best and brightest (demostrated in various ways).  I think that people can accept a lottery aspect after students have crossed some threshold.

Yes, I believe this is what happens in reality. Once you make the cut, you might not make the next cut but there isn't anything you could have done about that except maybe you could have been someone else. Which you couldn't.

 

We all tend to accept this idea, "If you are accepted to Harvard, you are one of the most accomplished students."

 

We have a harder time with "If you are one of the most accomplished students, you are accepted to Harvard."  Why? Because it isn't true. We know TONS of counter-examples. 

 

In reality, you could argue that the first statement isn't true either. (22% of the students accepted to Harvard had a CR SAT score below a 700; 19% of the students were below a 700 in Math; 25% of students were below a 32 on the ACT)

 

So now we have the questions, "What is accomplished?" or "What does it mean to be most accomplished" or "exceptional?" 

 

Ultimately, we have the question, "If I really want to go to Harvard more than anything in the world, what can I do to make that happen?" Even Harvard has said, "We won't tell you." IOW, even they won't commit. 

 

The report listed seems to make the answer even more mystical. I'm just saying that we should be honest with our kids. There are lots of goals that you can have that you can achieve. This one is a little different. In fact, if you don't get in, no one is even going to tell you why you were rejected. IOW, imagine working for years to prepare for the SAT. Your goal is a 750 on each subsection. You finally take the test. Three months later, you get an email that says, "Sorry. You didn't hit the goal." No explanation. No test score; you don't even know if you were close. No opportunity to try again. In fact, you're not even completely sure they scored your test correctly. Nothing. Silence. 

 

Now imagine that you aren't even sure what the goal-score is supposed to be. What if this is the wrong test? What if this doesn't even matter?

 

This may all be a mute point in 20+ years anyway. After reading about Thrun's AI class at Stanford (MOOC  where NONE of the top 100 students in the class were actual Stanford students; a story worth tracking down), I am starting to think that I might be wrong about the power of the internet to disrupt education. Colleges in general and the ivies in particular may be over-playing their hands. 

 

Peace,

Janice

 

Enjoy your little people

Enjoy your journey

[Janice in NJ]

I don't know if I'll be able to get through the whole report, since I have duties associated with my sustained and ongoing involvement such as doing admin for a scout troop and homeschooling my kids.

 

My gut reaction is that weighing community involvement in such a way that an admissions board uses it as a basis for admissions decisions flies in the face of picking community involvement for organic reasons.

 

One thing my kids did for three years was help at our library branch. They did this because we love books and want to be around people who love books. The bulk of the Friends group were mostly retired. My kids schleppt boxes of books, organized various sections, cleaned books, kept the sections organized during the sales, etc. They did furniture moving and set up for the annual system fundraiser and recognition reception. Their scout troop even spent most of a Sunday reordering the whole non fiction section when the two librarians at the branch realized they had but off more than they could accomplish.

 

They were known to the library staff and friends board. But this doesn't get much of a mention in their resumes. It was just something they did.

 

To be honest I don't see the caring crisis the authors see. I know students who work hard to support each other, people around them and causes they care about. Making these actions something that is measured and compared strikes me as antithetical to the stated goal of increasing caring. It seems like this would set kids to prioritizing actions that are measurable and look good to outsiders.

Hi Sebastian, 

 

Please focus on your areas of sustained and ongoing involvement!   :001_smile:  WAY more important than reading the entire report!   :)

 

Regarding the caring crisis, I agree with you. It reminds me of something in physics known as the Observer Effect. 

 

Observer effect (physics) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer_effect_(physics)

 

Peace,

Janice

 

Enjoy your little people

Enjoy your journey

[Laura Corin]

The biggest help would be cutting down on the number of universities that one child can apply to.  For reference: the maximum in Britain is 5, and you can't apply to both Oxford and Cambridge.  Calvin applied to Oxford and then four second to third tier universities.

 

In US terms: if you were only allowed to apply to five in total, and only one from the Ivy League, that would suddenly give the admissions people time to deal with individuals, rather than coping with masses.  If the Ivies then began to demand academic interviews for admission (now that they have many fewer applicants) that might help too.  

[Muttichen]

Hi,

 

I am sorry if I hurt your feelings; that was not my intention. Congratulations on your children's accomplishments. They must be wonderful young people, and you must be very proud of them. 

 

I would love to hear your feedback on the report referenced at the top. Are your children at Princeton? How do they feel about the shift mentioned in the article? Do they feel it would change the university for the better?

 

Once again, please accept my apology. I am sorry. I would love to hear your feedback on the article as well. A 60% acceptance rate is a big deal. You must have something to say about ivy league admissions. Do you think they should change it?

 

Peace,

Janice

 

Enjoy your little people

Enjoy your journey

 

Oh, no worries.  I wasn't hurt, just a little irritated (I had been reading the Tiger Mom thread as well...).

 

My thoughts on the report -- well, it sounds nice, but what really is new in it?  Things like saying they want kids to be deeply involved in a few activities rather than dabbling in lots is old news.  At least, I've been hearing that for years.  They are talking about downplaying tests, but like earlier posters (maybe you) said earlier, we all know that's not really going to happen.  They need to quantify things to make it workable.

 

My kids' friends at Harvard and Princeton are incredibly talented and also caring kids who are deeply involved in community service.  It seems to me that the kinds of students the report says they are looking for are the kinds they're already choosing.

 

I understand how it looks like a lottery.  I feel like it's not, because the kids with really outstanding accomplishments are the ones who rise to the top.  Yeah, there are way too many kids with SATs above 2300 and 12 APs.  But it's not like they throw those in a hat and pick out as many as they have space for.  They pick the ones who have won national competitions, who have published papers in scientific journals, who have done sustained, meaningful community service, who have cared for family members in difficult situations, and so on. I know this is true, because I've met these kids and there's not a single one I haven't been impressed with.  I do agree with Sebastian that it can be somewhat arbitrary and what they are looking for can change from year to year and from school to school, but kids who have top scores and grades, who have great recommendations, who have pursued a rigorous curriculum, who are well-rounded, and who have something that says "Choose me!" above the others have a very good chance of getting into a selective  school.

[Lilaclady]

Thanks Muttichen. I love reading about your kids and learning about your perspectives.

[snowbeltmom]

The biggest help would be cutting down on the number of universities that one child can apply to.  For reference: the maximum in Britain is 5, and you can't apply to both Oxford and Cambridge.  Calvin applied to Oxford and then four second to third tier universities.

 

In US terms: if you were only allowed to apply to five in total, and only one from the Ivy League, that would suddenly give the admissions people time to deal with individuals, rather than coping with masses.  If the Ivies then began to demand academic interviews for admission (now that they have many fewer applicants) that might help too.

I would really like to see a limit placed on the number of schools a student could apply to, but I don't think it is realistic today in the US for the simple fact that students typically apply to more than 5 schools because they need to compare financial aid offers.

[Sebastian (a lady)]

The biggest help would be cutting down on the number of universities that one child can apply to. For reference: the maximum in Britain is 5, and you can't apply to both Oxford and Cambridge. Calvin applied to Oxford and then four second to third tier universities.

 

In US terms: if you were only allowed to apply to five in total, and only one from the Ivy League, that would suddenly give the admissions people time to deal with individuals, rather than coping with masses. If the Ivies then began to demand academic interviews for admission (now that they have many fewer applicants) that might help too.

I have mixed feelings on this. On one hand I think students want to have several acceptances in hand and be able to compare fin aid offers. If a student gets 2-3 turn downs, that doesn't give them much to choose from.

 

For upper level schools it can be hard to know if you are competitive or not. One school ds applied to has a middle 50% SAT math score of 750-800. They ask for subject test scores but don't publish averages. So if a student had a 770 SAT math is that a reach school or not? It's hard to know.

 

On the other hand I did watch ds put together a list of 5 schools. The Navy ROTC scholarship app lets students list up to 5 colleges in preference order. Scholarships are assigned to specific schools based on student preference and unit capacity. Ds spent time figuring out which schools he'd be willing to attend. But he also knew that this was tied to a full tuition scholarship so fin aid wasn't so much of a problem.

 

From my vantage point of an admissions information volunteer I see students start apps with scores that are far lower than the average accepted student. Sometimes I wonder if there is a list of top engineering schools or schools with good scholarships that students are working through.

[Laura Corin]

For upper level schools it can be hard to know if you are competitive or not. One school ds applied to has a middle 50% SAT math score of 750-800. They ask for subject test scores but don't publish averages. So if a student had a 770 SAT math is that a reach school or not? It's hard to know.

 

 

More specific data would help.  This is Oxford's page for admission to study English:

 

https://www.ox.ac.uk/admissions/undergraduate/courses-listing/english-language-and-literature?wssl=1

 

It's very specific as to what is required, which cuts down on applicants.  Then on this page it lays out exactly what percentages where interviewed and admitted.  Only those who met those basic (but high) requirements would have been interviewed:

 

https://www.ox.ac.uk/admissions/undergraduate/courses-listing/english-language-and-literature?wssl=1

 

Around 21% of applicants were admitted, because those who had no hope did not bother to apply, saving their effort and the university's.

[Gwen in VA]

I love the IDEA of having a limit on the number of schools that a student can apply to, but.....

 

1) Merit aid is mostly an unknown. A few school do publish expected aid amounts based on stats, but many rely on more intangible qualities when selecting merit aid recipients. For the students who can only attend a school with a significant amount of merit aid, limiting the number of schools applied to could be disastrous.

 

2) Counting on admission to any school where the admissions rate is below 30% (and certainly 20%) is arrogant and quite likely to result in a student with few options. (I know that if there were a limit, acceptance rates would go up, but by how much? Even today many students only apply to one or a small handful, so I don't know how much restricting the number of colleges applied to would up the percent accepted. Was it Yale which accepted 40% of its freshman class ED -- which means they only applied to that one school?)

 

3) It is harder to get a handle on where your student stacks up than one would expect. I've now had two students accepted to a prestigious scholars program despite not having some of the classes they recommend all freshman applicants have -- and despite being explicitly told by the admissions office that my child would not be accepted unless she did X, which she did not do.  Admissions and merit aid is not just a numbers game. Judging whether your child is a shoe-in or a long-shot candidate is not just a matter of looking up the average range of scores.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[JumpedIntoTheDeepEndFirst]

One private school near us has a requirement that students apply to at least x number of schools but not more than x number.  The maximum was set at 10 or less, I don't remember the exact number.  The guidance counselors wouldn't assist with applications or provide information if you exceeded the number.  That caused much angst for many families-many are applying to schools in multiple countries, are unsure of financial aid potential, unsure of how their very specific IB program will translate to a university, etc.   Limiting applications has generally upset more parents and students than helped.  

 

As for the "lottery" system--I think that some of the schools with low acceptance rates are a bit of a lottery.  However, what one needs to realize is that not every student who files an application gets one of the lottery tickets.  Those who do get a ticket are a select group of qualified potential students. Unfortunately selective schools do turn away students who are as qualified as the one's attending.  They turn away lots of students that were never qualified but had big dreams and who were never going to be given a lottery ticket.

[MarkT]

related article why standardized tests should not go away: 

 

https://www.applerouth.com/blog/2013/10/23/when-a-is-for-average-the-high-cost-of-grade-inflation/

[wapiti]

related article why standardized tests should not go away: 

 

https://www.applerouth.com/blog/2013/10/23/when-a-is-for-average-the-high-cost-of-grade-inflation/

 

That's what is so disturbing about potential percentile inflation with the SAT.

[Caroline]

related article why standardized tests should not go away:

 

https://www.applerouth.com/blog/2013/10/23/when-a-is-for-average-the-high-cost-of-grade-inflation/

That article is from a company who makes all its money off test prep. I would assume they don't want standardized tests to go away.

[MarkT]

That article is from a company who makes all its money off test prep. I would assume they don't want standardized tests to go away.

That does not disqualify them from having a valid point.

 

I see grade inflation at my son's B&M school.

[Tsuga]

I fail to see how going after another member of the board in this tone helps the discussion.

I fail to see how pointing out that you own kids got the good deal is helping either.

[Muttichen]

I fail to see how pointing out that you own kids got the good deal is helping either.

 

 

Look, Tsuga, back in the olden days, when the internet was in its infancy and my kids were starting school, dh and I were thinking about homeschooling.  We had both gone to a pretty selective college, and he had gone to an Ivy for grad school.  We wanted our kids to be able to do at least as well as we did.  It's not that we were obsessing over them getting into top schools at that point, but we were concerned that the educational path we were choosing for them could close doors.  We didn't want them to be rejected at schools because of a decision we made.

 

And so I talked to people.  The mom at soccer practice who taught AP English,  kids at church who had aced the SAT, but mostly parents whose kids had been admitted to great schools.  I am so thankful for all the people who took the time to answer my pesky questions and share their advice and experience with me.

 

Now I am on the other end.  My youngest is graduating in a couple of months.  I'd like to give back and share my experience to encourage younger parents and help them along.  I know it might come across as bragging.  Sorry.  If it bothers you that much, close the thread.

[snowbeltmom]

I fail to see how pointing out that you own kids got the good deal is helping either.

 

I don't think this is what is happening at all. 

 

I don't view the posts as bragging.  I think these types of posts are very helpful for families interested in the highly selective schools.  The poster has never claimed that her way is the only way. The posts are simply detailing the steps that the family took in their educational journey and the results that were obtained. 

 

Clearly, the parents provided their children with amazing opportunities, and the children worked extremely hard to obtain their goals.  Congrats to them.

 

[Sahamamama]

.nm

Edited April 4, 2016 by Sahamamama