Prophets of Admission : The college try may not get you into college

Here's the conclusion of the article ( emphasis in BOLD :

As it is, colleges already discount so many of the concrete measures. In addition to ignoring test scores (when it's convenient), admissions officers have a hard time keeping track of which high schools are rigorous and which are not. The U of C has freshmen matriculating from 900 different high schools this year. What does an "A" mean at any of them? "We don't know," Mr. O'Neill replies. What about the essays? More and more kids pay coaches to compose them. The U of C has picked some odd topics to get around this--"Write an essay somehow inspired by super-huge mustard" or "Use the power of string to explain the biggest or the smallest phenomenon"--but coaches can get creative, too.

I suspect that what bothers kids most about the process is not the cutthroat competition they face, but the arbitrary nature of the whole thing. You struggle to give schools what they want. But ultimately folks like Mr. O'Neill may simply ignore your grades or your test scores, focusing instead on whether you've had the right "experiences" or have the right skin color to be admitted to the sacred city.

The article goes on to mention Barack Obama, who believed that University of Chicago should treat his kids based on merit and not the color of their skin.

The most revealing thing is the admissions director of U of C disagrees with Obama. He said he’d give his kids a “break” anyway because the color of their skin makes the school assume that they have interesting things to say about American Society based on their background. Go figure.

The University of Chicago is a good school for serious students uninterested in sports or a great social life. The campus is beautiful. But its location on Chicago’s south side means that it is surrounded by high crime areas. Students who venture off campus run the risk of being mugged or worse. And assaults and robberies sometimes occur on campus. A good school. But I’d not let my kids go there.

None of this surprises me. The Ivy schools, and the Ivy-wannabees are no longer really schools for elite kids. They’re self-perpetuating publicity factories, selling a brand, not providing an education. If you’re an undergrad, they could actually care less if you learn anything.

The University of Chicago is a good school for serious students uninterested in sports or a great social life.

No tto worry, if UofC kids want to party, the frats at nearby Loyola Marymount will be more than willing to accomodate them.

All of this is why I believe it would be a good thing to establish an OPTIONAL nationalized standard test for each grade. That way, a student transferring from one state to another could take this test and show their performance in specific subjects. Additionally, it would enable a standard measure of high school that can be used by colleges, businesses an government agencies for acceptance and hiring.

I understand that many on this forum do not believe that the Congress should be involved in education. To a large part, I agree. However, under the commerce clause, the Congress has the authority to establish weights and measures (Article I, section 8). I am of the opinion that the measure of academic progress is an acceptable exercise of that authority.

We can debate the funding of education in another thread.

Mr. O'Neill, who proudly points to what he thinks is one of the biggest improvements to the University of Chicago in the past few decades--diversity.

If your referred college is on a smaller town like Chapel Hill NC or Charlottesville Va, it behooves you to send your child to the high school in that town. They tend to be a conduit to the school.

I am of the opinion that the measure of academic progress is an acceptable exercise of that authority.

I am not against using it as a SUGGESTED MEASURE. However, the moment Congress starts to IMPOSE this as THE DE FACTO measure on all states, I instinctively put my dukes up.

Think of your national standardized test as similar to the Dow Jones Index. I can use it as an optional benchmark for portfolio performance or I can ignore it altogether. If that is the idea, then I am all for it.

Similarly, I am personally against the FDA arresting people for producing "cures" ( effective or ineffective ) for diseases that their system does not approve of.

Similar to your proposed nationalized standard test, the FDA's role should be to act as a STANDARD for determining whether a drug is safe to take or not. People should be free to listen to the FDA or ignore it altogether. Freedom of CHOICE is what should rule.

But of course this is a matter to be discussed in a different thread as well.

If your referred college is on a smaller town like Chapel Hill NC or Charlottesville Va...

If you really want to go to U.Va., you should move to Northern Virginia and get your kids into TJHSST, the Governor's School for science and technology in Alexandria. They send over 100 kids to U.Va. every year (130 some in my year of graduation).

Those who don’t have a nearly full scholarship or aren’t independently wealthy might consider not going to college. You can do better as an electrician or plumber.

None of this surprises me. The Ivy schools, and the Ivy-wannabees are no longer really schools for elite kids. They’re self-perpetuating publicity factories, selling a brand, not providing an education. If you’re an undergrad, they could actually care less if you learn anything

Well this recent article from the Boston Globe pretty much tells us that you have a good chance of getting to the Ivies if : A) Your parents are rich and influential; or B) You are a good but not necessarily the top Black or Hispanic student. If you happen to be a middle class, smart kid, your chances are pretty slim.

EXCERPT :

Researchers with access to closely guarded college admissions data have found that, on the whole, about 15 percent of freshmen enrolled at America's highly selective colleges are white teens who failed to meet their institutions' minimum admissions standards.

Five years ago, two researchers working for the Educational Testing Service, Anthony Carnevale and Stephen Rose, took the academic profiles of students admitted into 146 colleges in the top two tiers of Barron's college guide and matched them up against the institutions' advertised requirements in terms of high school grade point average, SAT or ACT scores, letters of recommendation, and records of involvement in extracurricular activities. White students who failed to make the grade on all counts were nearly twice as prevalent on such campuses as black and Hispanic students who received an admissions break based on their ethnicity or race.

Who are these mediocre white students getting into institutions such as Harvard, Wellesley, Notre Dame, Duke, and the University of Virginia? A sizable number are recruited athletes who, research has shown, will perform worse on average than other students with similar academic profiles, mainly as a result of the demands their coaches will place on them.

A larger share, however, are students who gained admission through their ties to people the institution wanted to keep happy, with alumni, donors, faculty members, administrators, and politicians topping the list.

Applicants who stood no chance of gaining admission without connections are only the most blatant beneficiaries of such admissions preferences. Except perhaps at the very summit of the applicant pile - that lofty place occupied by young people too brilliant for anyone in their right mind to turn down - colleges routinely favor those who have connections over those who don't. While some applicants gain admission by legitimately beating out their peers, many others get into exclusive colleges the same way people get into trendy night clubs, by knowing the management or flashing cash at the person manning the velvet rope.

Leaders at many selective colleges say they have no choice but to instruct their admissions offices to reward those who financially support their institutions, because keeping donors happy is the only way they can keep the place afloat. They also say that the money they take in through such admissions preferences helps them provide financial aid to students in need.

But many of the colleges granting such preferences are already well-financed, with huge endowments. And, in many cases, little of the money they take in goes toward serving the less-advantaged.

A few years ago, The Chronicle of Higher Education looked at colleges with more than $500 million in their endowments and found that most served disproportionately few students from families with incomes low enough to qualify for federal Pell Grants. A separate study of flagship state universities conducted by the Education Trust found that those universities' enrollments of Pell Grant recipients had been shrinking, even as the number of students qualifying for such grants had gone up.

Just 40 percent of the financial aid money being distributed by public colleges is going to students with documented financial need. Most such money is being used to offer merit-based scholarships or tuition discounts to potential recruits who can enhance a college's reputation, or appear likely to cover the rest of their tuition tab and to donate down the road.

Given such trends, is it any wonder that young people from the wealthiest fourth of society are about 25 times as likely as those from the bottom fourth to enroll in a selective college, or that, over the past two decades, the middle class has been steadily getting squeezed out of such institutions by those with more money?

Really, if you're a smart middle class high school grad, it would be best to consider good schools that do not discriminate based on race but on merit. I still believe a few exist today.

You can do better as an electrician or plumber.

I actually think this is a good idea. Go to a good technical school, learn a trade that's in-demand, and then start making money.

In fact, if you really want to learn on your own, there are ONLINE courses available at very little cost and colleges already have lectures available via such medium as the Teaching Company.

Also, I am not certain how employers accept ONLINE COLLEGE DEGREES ( e.g. the ones offered by the UNIVERSITY OF PHOENIX and many other state universities ( I think University of Maryland has one ) ). But ONLINE College courses have started to blossom.

True. But nothing speaks better than graduating high in a class full of college professor’s kids. Especially the kids of the professors in the school you want to attend.

Get your State certification. If you have any business sense go next to your favorite bank and take out a business loan (probably on the order of size of a college loan), buy a lot in the industrial district, and prepare to run a contracting business.

Five years ago, two researchers working for the Educational Testing Service, Anthony Carnevale and Stephen Rose, took the academic profiles of students admitted into 146 colleges in the top two tiers of Barron's college guide and matched them up against the institutions' advertised requirements in terms of high school grade point average, SAT or ACT scores, letters of recommendation, and records of involvement in extracurricular activities. White students who failed to make the grade on all counts were nearly twice as prevalent on such campuses as black and Hispanic students who received an admissions break based on their ethnicity or race.

I don't doubt that the phenomenon exists, but their methodology looks a little questionable. Since Whites are a larger part of the population, wouldn't it be more likely that there would be more Whites admitted in such ways than those of other races? And really, what do they do about students who have shown that they can do the work by their scores, but who have lousy letters of recommendation or no extracurricular activities? Are they regarded as "getting a break."

Anyway, the overall picture is correct. Brown University in particular has become known for "celebrity admissions."