US university admissions

[malcontent]

Another piece of the admissions puzzle (no statement as to whether it is right or wrong).

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics ... 90d2&ei=18

I totally agree that legacy should play no part in admissions decisions, placements should go to the most deserving students, full stop.

They claim legacy is exclusively white people, that’s not true 100% the time. But regardless, it should be abolished, along with race and gender. Taking an unbiased approach does not mean taking away opportunities for higher learning; there are plenty of opportunities in the US for anyone with any abilities.

[NYY1]

I totally agree that legacy should play no part in admissions decisions, placements should go to the most deserving students, full stop.

They claim legacy is exclusively white people, that’s not true 100% the time. But regardless, it should be abolished, along with race and gender. Taking an unbiased approach does not mean taking away opportunities for higher learning; there are plenty of opportunities in the US for anyone with any abilities.

What is your definition of the most deserving student? Many schools have different expectations based on the circumstances and opportunities a student was afforded (in high school and life). And although there is a general hierarchy of academic requirements as one goes down the list of "rankings," every school has a range (25th - 75th percentile or whatever) and some students with lesser academic qualifications will get in (whereas those with higher grades / test scores will not get in).

Even if all of these news items are abolished, I don't think the above (range of admitted students) will change. What I mean is there are benefits to admitting people with differing experiences, backgrounds, and academic accomplishments. And this is different from pursuing diversity for the sake of diversity (or political objective) or filling quotas.

[malcontent]

I totally agree that legacy should play no part in admissions decisions, placements should go to the most deserving students, full stop.

They claim legacy is exclusively white people, that’s not true 100% the time. But regardless, it should be abolished, along with race and gender. Taking an unbiased approach does not mean taking away opportunities for higher learning; there are plenty of opportunities in the US for anyone with any abilities.

What is your definition of the most deserving student? Many schools have different expectations based on the circumstances and opportunities a student was afforded (in high school and life). And although there is a general hierarchy of academic requirements as one goes down the list of "rankings," every school has a range (25th - 75th percentile or whatever) and some students with lesser academic qualifications will get in (whereas those with higher grades / test scores will not get in).

Even if all of these news items are abolished, I don't think the above (range of admitted students) will change. What I mean is there are benefits to admitting people with differing experiences, backgrounds, and academic accomplishments. And this is different from pursuing diversity for the sake of diversity (or political objective) or filling quotas.

I agree, pursuing diversity for the sake of diversity is the problem. Considering different experiences, backgrounds and academic accomplishments… that is all fine and good, provided it actually contributes something to the greater good and the collective strength of the student body.

There are white people who grow up as minorities in predominantly black neighborhoods — many of them have to overcome significant adversity. Likewise there are black people who grow up as a minority in wealthy, predominantly non-black neighborhoods, some with more privileges than many whites. The point is, race by itself should never be a factor, it’s just plain wrong.

[NYY1]

I agree, pursuing diversity for the sake of diversity is the problem. Considering different experiences, backgrounds and academic accomplishments… that is all fine and good, provided it actually contributes something to the greater good and the collective strength of the student body.
...

Well, exactly what "actually contributes something to the greater good and the collective strength of the student body" is subjective and can't really be proven or disproven. Probably, everyone thinks he/she contributes more than the other guy/gal. Every university makes a call on this, and generally more of the intake meets the academic bar (say middle 50% + top quartile), but allocating seats to some others to accommodate whatever circumstances probably isn't harming the student body either.

Universities are academic institutions and they would like to put together a cohort that matches the classes/experience they are offering (and ultimately that their graduates continue to meet employers' expectations). That's why as you said there is still some baseline bar to meet (generally speaking). At the same time, it's still kind of hard to say what makes the most deserving student around the edges...

Anyways, here the placement and allocation of seats has generally been done by marks/grades (merit). Systems elsewhere tend to have a lot of other subjective factors determining things. Both have pros and cons, but they are different (in what they ask for, what type of behaviour they produce, and the consistency of outcomes).

[malcontent]

I agree, pursuing diversity for the sake of diversity is the problem. Considering different experiences, backgrounds and academic accomplishments… that is all fine and good, provided it actually contributes something to the greater good and the collective strength of the student body.
...

Well, exactly what "actually contributes something to the greater good and the collective strength of the student body" is subjective and can't really be proven or disproven. Probably, everyone thinks he/she contributes more than the other guy/gal. Every university makes a call on this, and generally more of the intake meets the academic bar (say middle 50% + top quartile), but allocating seats to some others to accommodate whatever circumstances probably isn't harming the student body either.

Universities are academic institutions and they would like to put together a cohort that matches the classes/experience they are offering (and ultimately that their graduates continue to meet employers' expectations). That's why as you said there is still some baseline bar to meet (generally speaking). At the same time, it's still kind of hard to say what makes the most deserving student around the edges...

Anyways, here the placement and allocation of seats has generally been done by marks/grades (merit). Systems elsewhere tend to have a lot of other subjective factors determining things. Both have pros and cons, but they are different (in what they ask for, what type of behaviour they produce, and the consistency of outcomes).

When you talk about he/she contributing, apparently xe/xer can contribute even more if you go by USC admit rates, non-binary have a far higher rate of acceptance than binary.

I see no additional value created by simply identifying as something other than your biological gender. But maybe that’s what my daughter needs to do in order to get accepted — this is the world we live in today and institutions like USC are lapping it up. Nobody stops to think about why the number of non-binary applicants is surging… I suspect some clever people have figured out it gives them a better shot.

Interesting story, I was flying through SF airport a few months ago and there were three bathrooms, male, female and all gender. Since I had some big business, I thought to myself, the men’s room is probably the dirtiest one, and I doubt many use the gender confused bathroom — so that is exactly what I did. It was indeed very clean, almost unused. I am happy to benefit from gender mania where I can

[NYY1]

I agree, pursuing diversity for the sake of diversity is the problem. Considering different experiences, backgrounds and academic accomplishments… that is all fine and good, provided it actually contributes something to the greater good and the collective strength of the student body.
...

Well, exactly what "actually contributes something to the greater good and the collective strength of the student body" is subjective and can't really be proven or disproven. Probably, everyone thinks he/she contributes more than the other guy/gal. Every university makes a call on this, and generally more of the intake meets the academic bar (say middle 50% + top quartile), but allocating seats to some others to accommodate whatever circumstances probably isn't harming the student body either.

Universities are academic institutions and they would like to put together a cohort that matches the classes/experience they are offering (and ultimately that their graduates continue to meet employers' expectations). That's why as you said there is still some baseline bar to meet (generally speaking). At the same time, it's still kind of hard to say what makes the most deserving student around the edges...

Anyways, here the placement and allocation of seats has generally been done by marks/grades (merit). Systems elsewhere tend to have a lot of other subjective factors determining things. Both have pros and cons, but they are different (in what they ask for, what type of behaviour they produce, and the consistency of outcomes).

When you talk about he/she contributing, apparently xe/xer can contribute even more if you go by USC admit rates, non-binary have a far higher rate of acceptance than binary.

I see no additional value created by simply identifying as something other than your biological gender. But maybe that’s what my daughter needs to do in order to get accepted — this is the world we live in today and institutions like USC are lapping it up. Nobody stops to think about why the number of non-binary applicants is surging… I suspect some clever people have figured out it gives them a better shot.

Interesting story, I was flying through SF airport a few months ago and there were three bathrooms, male, female and all gender. Since I had some big business, I thought to myself, the men’s room is probably the dirtiest one, and I doubt many use the gender confused bathroom — so that is exactly what I did. It was indeed very clean, almost unused. I am happy to benefit from gender mania where I can

I've made no statements about race or gender in admissions. I've only said how universities are deciding who is the most deserving student is subjective. I think the reality is that there are different standards or expectations depending on where you are coming from (irrespective of race or gender).

Anyways, do you have a way to define the most deserving student? All academics to date? Reasonably academics to date and other accomplishments (how to weight these two?)? Lesser academics/accomplishments but coming from a situation where the student did as much as was reasonably possible (lower income school, family situation, etc) and could potentially thrive/surpass many others in the "right" environment? I think it's kind of hard to say?

[malcontent]

I've made no statements about race or gender in admissions. I've only said how universities are deciding who is the most deserving student is subjective. I think the reality is that there are different standards or expectations depending on where you are coming from (irrespective of race or gender).

Anyways, do you have a way to define the most deserving student? All academics to date? Reasonably academics to date and other accomplishments (how to weight these two?)? Lesser academics/accomplishments but coming from a situation where the student did as much as was reasonably possible (lower income school, family situation, etc) and could potentially thrive/surpass many others in the "right" environment? I think it's kind of hard to say?

Of course there is no perfect way to ascertain who is the most deserving, and I agree there is always going to be a degree of subjectivity. I’m not convinced that writing a beautiful essay should carry much weight, especially since stories can be faked and never get verified.

I find some parallels in the way companies try to find the best job candidates. But for institutions of higher learning, I do think academic results should be the most important measure, and I believe even in the US, it is still the #1 consideration above all others. I think standardized testing is important, and going test option or test blind is the wrong move, especially in this era of rampant grade inflation.

This article does a good job of explaining how this is happening and suggests evidence of this can be found by comparing grades earned vs standardized test scores - things are clearly not adding up.

https://qz.com/1032183/no-wonder-young- ... a-students

[NYY1]

Of course there is no perfect way to ascertain who is the most deserving, and I agree there is always going to be a degree of subjectivity. I’m not convinced that writing a beautiful essay should carry much weight, especially since stories can be faked and never get verified.

I find some parallels in the way companies try to find the best job candidates. But for institutions of higher learning, I do think academic results should be the most important measure, and I believe even in the US, it is still the #1 consideration above all others. I think standardized testing is important, and going test option or test blind is the wrong move, especially in this era of rampant grade inflation.

This article does a good job of explaining how this is happening and suggests evidence of this can be found by comparing grades earned vs standardized test scores - things are clearly not adding up.

https://qz.com/1032183/no-wonder-young- ... a-students

I think the US should have kept the SAT only because there is no common standard across the country to evaluate both curriculum and grading (of course some powerhouse schools have reputations). Just noting, you once complained about the academic rigor here, but what you post above is obviously the other side of the story; everyone (or too many people) gets an A.

As for university admissions, I think academics is something that generally must be met to keep one in the running, but it is not always a sufficient condition alone (especially at the most selective schools). I mean, even among the highest GPA buckets (for schools that provide admit data by academic stats), the acceptance rate is not 100% and some applicants from the lower buckets get in. Just like the best companies don't hire all 4.0s first, I think the uni's are essentially doing the same (although still a preference to the better results in both cases).

As for essays, I've already made some comments about them previously. There' isn't a 100% rate of fraud detection, but admissions officers are not dumb either. There are certainly ways to tell what is genuine and what is window dressing. They are looking for certain things here too.

[malcontent]

I think the US should have kept the SAT only because there is no common standard across the country to evaluate both curriculum and grading (of course some powerhouse schools have reputations). Just noting, you once complained about the academic rigor here, but what you post above is obviously the other side of the story; everyone (or too many people) gets an A.

As for university admissions, I think academics is something that generally must be met to keep one in the running, but it is not always a sufficient condition alone (especially at the most selective schools). I mean, even among the highest GPA buckets (for schools that provide admit data by academic stats), the acceptance rate is not 100% and some applicants from the lower buckets get in. Just like the best companies don't hire all 4.0s first, I think the uni's are essentially doing the same (although still a preference to the better results in both cases).

As for essays, I've already made some comments about them previously. There' isn't a 100% rate of fraud detection, but admissions officers are not dumb either. There are certainly ways to tell what is genuine and what is window dressing. They are looking for certain things here too.

Yes, I think the academic rigor here can be a little overdone. My daughter and her cousin took the SAT last Dec and both got near perfect 800 for the math section without any prep — they both said it was a piece of cake. That tells me Singapore might be going beyond college level math. Is that really necessary?

Rather than the rigor, I think workload is the bigger issue - it seems to be driven by the testing methodology here. The number of topics covered on a given test, the frequency of testing, the exhaustive nature of the tests, it all adds up. My daughter is taking midterms now, prelims several weeks later and then A-levels after that. Is that really necessary?

As for grading, I’m not a proponent of grade inflation, I’m a proponent of fairness. If other applicants with my daughter have have As that would have been C’s or B’s here, but are seen as equally good as my daughter’s A… that is just plain wrong. Yes, grades aren’t everything, but for highly selective schools, you won’t even get a shot without the grades, so my daughter should have a better shot - if judged fairly. I don’t expect it will - in fact, on top of inflation other applicants have other GPA enhancing opportunities like APs and honors classes that my daughter does not have access to.

It’s not as if my daughter is gunning for Stanford or CalTech… but even UCLA, Berkeley and USC seem to be a reach. I guess we’ll find out soon enough, applications open Aug 1.

[NYY1]

Yes, I think the academic rigor here can be a little overdone. My daughter and her cousin took the SAT last Dec and both got near perfect 800 for the math section without any prep — they both said it was a piece of cake. That tells me Singapore might be going beyond college level math. Is that really necessary?

Rather than the rigor, I think workload is the bigger issue - it seems to be driven by the testing methodology here. The number of topics covered on a given test, the frequency of testing, the exhaustive nature of the tests, it all adds up. My daughter is taking midterms now, prelims several weeks later and then A-levels after that. Is that really necessary?

As for grading, I’m not a proponent of grade inflation, I’m a proponent of fairness. If other applicants with my daughter have have As that would have been C’s or B’s here, but are seen as equally good as my daughter’s A… that is just plain wrong. Yes, grades aren’t everything, but for highly selective schools, you won’t even get a shot without the grades, so my daughter should have a better shot - if judged fairly. I don’t expect it will - in fact, on top of inflation other applicants have other GPA enhancing opportunities like APs and honors classes that my daughter does not have access to.

It’s not as if my daughter is gunning for Stanford or CalTech… but even UCLA, Berkeley and USC seem to be a reach. I guess we’ll find out soon enough, applications open Aug 1.

I think the testing (and workload that proceeds the testing) is done the way it is because they are setting the questions at a level that will create a distribution of scores (the SAT is essentially setup this way too). Basically, either there is a system to create academic differentiation or there is not. If one doesn’t want that, that’s fine but it can’t be both ways. I do agree there could be fewer tests ahead of the national exams (already done at the primary level and will be done in JC in the future).

As for SAT math, there are many kids in US that can produce those types of scores too (probably with little effort if you've been exposed to advanced math). Check out the SAT Math percentile rankings for math/science related or any highly selective schools. Basically, if not offered as a standard course but targeting these types of schools, students will be seeking to achieve that level of proficiency anyways.

As for "fairly" equaling a better shot, I’m not sure. First, those kids are not coming here, kids here are going there (play by their rules). Second, while grade inflation and test optional may bring more applicants into play, I think there is more academic differentiation there than the headline numbers suggest, and there are a lot of US domestic kids that are on par (academically) with the higher-ranking kids here (this is achieved through various ways). In the end, even though the application numbers have surged, perhaps there are applicants and “applicants.”

Anyways, good luck. No one here is doubting your daughter's effort or chances. I'm just trying to say I think there is a lot more to it than some of the perceptions that exist here. From what I've seen, some kids have very strong applications and many others are in the running. And from each group, some get it and some don't.

[Lisafuller]

It's always been my belief it stems from the intermingling between the European Spanish and the Indigenous peoples of the lands that they invaded/conquered/subjugated/raped/and or pillaged. In South & Central America and adjacent islands lining the Gulf of Mexico they were mixed with the native indians/Mayans,Incans, etc around 5-600 years ago when they plundered the Americas for gold and gemstones. (Which has been a bonanza to treasure hunters looking for the lost Spanish fleets caught in hurricanes with their plunder to take back to the queen and pope.) Most hispanics speak either a form of European Spanish/Portuguese mixed with the local native tongue into a creole of sorts but after 400 years has become an identity of it's own. I always wonder where the word came from but I have a feeling it was originally a contraction of Historically Spanish to differentiate between Spanish as a race and those Mixed with natives of conquered lands. But I'm neither a linguist nor an ethnologist. This is also similar in the Philippines as well but not called hispanics but are considered a race separated from the aborigines of the 'peens.

Right, but why must they ask? What is the intention there? Or Hispanics afforded certain advantages or are they disadvantaged?

[Lisafuller]

If you want to talk about ignorant… how about college admissions treating “Asian” & “Hispanic” as races?

The Hmong race are one of the most underprivileged minorities in America, and yet they don’t get a fair shake because other Asians are raising the bar.

I’m sure these admissions folks are really bright sparks… but when it comes to understanding the people of this world, they are about as clued in as Hank Hill —

https://youtu.be/d_CaZ4EAexQ

This makes me wonder why most official forms and applications require you to declare if you are Hispanic specifically. Any idea why? I've searched this on the Internet multiple times, but haven't really gotten a conclusive answer.

I think some bright sparks sitting in some think tank dream up this ignorant stuff, and the ignorant people on the ground have even less of a clue.

Just take Latinx, which some non-Latin person thought would be more appropriate than the gender specific forms Latino/Latina… but had this person been a Latino, they would have known that Latino is already gender neutral - calling a person of any gender a Latino is perfectly fine. Having an o at the end in Spanish means male -or- any other gender, it’s already a catch all… and that’s why Latinx has never been well accepted by Latinos.

You know what they say about good intentions.

I find Latinx ridiculous. I mean, sure, having masculine and feminine words is not the most inclusive, but that's how the language works.

[Lisafuller]

I am still puzzling over how my daughter should handle the ethnicity question. None of the comments online are consistent, and now with the new Supreme Court ruling, maybe it won’t make as much difference.

USC is near the top of my daughter’s target school list, and I assume from the admissions data that they do hold Asian students to a significantly higher standard. It’s pretty easy to surmise this by comparing % Asian at the top UCs that are race blind by law.

From everything I’ve read, it does seem like a net positive to discuss being biracial in the essay, especially if you’ve got a bleeding heart story about overcoming adversity as a minority… I think we can come up with one.

Another approach which has worked for applicants similar to my daughter (who have a western surname), don’t talk about race at all and focus on how she has embraced global culture as an American living abroad. I also think we can position my daughter as a future bridge builder between international students and American students on campus - two groups that never integrate well, even among Asians.

As much as I dislike the idea of gaming the system, the fact is that the college admissions folks in the US tend to be bleeding heart liberals, and I’m happy to tell a story that tugs at their heartstrings if it gets her admitted.

Unless your daughter is a truly convincing writer, which based on what you've said in the past about her English, doesn't seem to be the case, I wouldn't recommend fabricating a story or inflating experiences for the purpose of garnering a pity acceptance.

College admissions officers are experienced enough to see right through a dishonest essay. The essays that I've seen really work are those that come from the heart, even if the content itself isn't as fantastic or unbelievable.

[Lisafuller]

I am still puzzling over how my daughter should handle the ethnicity question. None of the comments online are consistent, and now with the new Supreme Court ruling, maybe it won’t make as much difference.

USC is near the top of my daughter’s target school list, and I assume from the admissions data that they do hold Asian students to a significantly higher standard. It’s pretty easy to surmise this by comparing % Asian at the top UCs that are race blind by law.

From everything I’ve read, it does seem like a net positive to discuss being biracial in the essay, especially if you’ve got a bleeding heart story about overcoming adversity as a minority… I think we can come up with one.

Another approach which has worked for applicants similar to my daughter (who have a western surname), don’t talk about race at all and focus on how she has embraced global culture as an American living abroad. I also think we can position my daughter as a future bridge builder between international students and American students on campus - two groups that never integrate well, even among Asians.

As much as I dislike the idea of gaming the system, the fact is that the college admissions folks in the US tend to be bleeding heart liberals, and I’m happy to tell a story that tugs at their heartstrings if it gets her admitted.

IMO, someone should go with the story that he/she feels strongest about and/or best represents him/her. Both have their selling points. At the same time, the U.S. is itself very diverse and there are other privileged kids (either growing up abroad or other special circumstances), so there will be other applicants playing both of these buckets too (maybe not to the exact same circumstances, but there is uniqueness in many different ways). Hence, I think it is best to speak about who/what you are vs what you think someone else wants to hear (the writing tends to reflect the truth vs. trying to (semi) fake something).

I don't think this is gaming the system. Your kids definitely have a different life experience from a typical suburban kid. Your daughter has checked the grades box, and based on some of your comments (or rants), she may be underweight (relatively speaking) a few other areas. You need to win this component.

As for the recent news, I doubt it will change much. Schools that want to maintain diversity will find ways to do so.

Good luck.

I completely agree.

As for the point about diversity, I believe you have a point. Schools may no longer be allowed to explicitly ask for an applicants race, but many find a way to work it into their essays nonetheless. Colleges may then obtain their information this way when making their decisions.

[Lisafuller]

...
As for whether it takes so much more than it's worth, I'm not sure I fully agree with that. When one understands what these schools are really looking for, it's something that the student wouldn't regret doing irrespective of the admissions outcome (which may be different from mugging). I believe that can be done in the local system, but it is not easy. Perhaps there are other avenues that more easily allow that.
...

Even if one understands precisely what each school is looking for, which, in itself is a tall order, there is so much density in terms of competition that there's a lot of luck that factors in as well.

Applicants today make themselves crazy trying to game the system, calculate their odds, similar to a lot of the PR/SC chances threads we see on the forum.
...

Across the top handful to dozen (I know, debatable exactly what this list is comprised of), there are some differences in what they favour (in totality), but often there is something (common factor) that helps a lot.

But yes, you are correct. Even with many positive attributes it doesn't always work out for everyone. Follow placement from a particular school or into a specific uni year after year, and there are always surprises; both people that looked great and didn't get in and those that didn't look as strong but got the offer. It's for many of the reasons discussed, and partly why I think it is best to aim high (if you so desire) but avoid a die-die approach to things.

One thing I've realized is that when it comes to college admissions, you may not get in to the school you want, but you will get into the school you're meant for. If a student approaches the process with a sense of openness to all possibilities, he or she will have a far more rewarding time than one who is nearsighted.