College Admissions

[rosends]

Apologies if this is the wrong place for this but I don't know where else to put it. A recent SCOTUS decision, along with another, related case, plus certain trends in college admissions (and a bunch of harsh realities) has made me wonder where we are supposed to go next. I shall try to explain (and I'm coming at this from a fairly informed position).

Colleges are, supposedly, not all the same. Certain colleges has established reputations for only admitting the most intellectually capable/qualified applicants so they can graduate the most elite students. But to do so, in terms of admissions standards, one needs a way to evaluate students from all over the world, and compare them, and see if they meet a particular threshold of skill that the school decides will guarantee the right population. The goal is, I would assume, to create a population which shares an intellectual level.

In the past, standardized testing was an important part of this. Grades created by a high school are unreliable. Not only do curricula vary from school to school, but grading methods and grading standards are highly variable. Having an external assessment allowed colleges to compare students from disparate locales and backgrounds. But because of (choose your preference)
1. covid
2. test content bias
3. test prep economic bias

many schools have abandoned the standardized tests. Some have shifted the burden to other tests (from SAT/ACT to AP, but that's no better) but many have simply eliminated the requirement to take standardized tests (some even refuse to look at submitted scores).

What else goes into an applicant's presentation?

Essays -- assessing them is highly subjective and they can be written by committee
Recommendations -- generally populated by propaganda and spin

In terms of non-academic material, a student submits a list of co and extra curricular involvement. Not every student has time or resources (or even interest) to get involved and being a member of the "Save the Whales Club" has no bearing on a student's academic ability to succeed in college.

Along with the lack of any valid and objective measure of intelligence, schools have been working towards "diversity" but unless the issue of creating diversity only falls upon a decision between two identical applicants, who differ only in race (or the like) a school is likely to make a decision which does not ensure the most highly qualified applicant gets in because the driving motivating factor is not academics. If we throw out (as SCOTUS has said) any awareness of sub-culture membership then how do we choose? If, as another thread points out, legacy admissions are questioned, and schools cannot give priority to people who write the biggest checks, then how can anyone choose between different applicants.

The NY Times had a recent article which suggest "adversity" as a way of measuring student worth. Not only is this unmeasurable (and unverifiable) but it hurts the student who has strong academic skills and has had fewer struggles along the way. What we end up with a school that cannot say it has the best and brightest because being "bright" no longer is a factor in the decision making. So the elite schools cannot quantify what student has the best chance of admission and can no longer claim that the graduates are the strongest thinkers or most qualified to enter the work force.

So I'm left wondering -- going forward (assuming no standardized test scores, unreliable other academic elements, and no preference based on race etc, legacy or financial ability):

1. How should any random school decide who gets admitted?
2. How can schools claiming to be the elite colleges/universities create populations which can live up to that reputation?

I'm not looking for an argument about the propriety of the recent decision or any of the other decisions about tests or legacies etc. I'm looking forward, wondering how schools can operate to continue to be who they are, instead of a homogenous set of campuses full of a random selection of students at varying levels of competence. TIA

 

[Orbit]

Most public universities accept everyone. Everything you are describing applies only to elite universities.

 

[rosends]

Most public universities accept everyone. Everything you are describing applies only to elite universities.

Very true, but even state and city schools have academic standards (or at least used to). Is the solution to have only Open Enrollment schools? Won't this eliminate "elite" schools?

 

[Heyo]

Apologies if this is the wrong place for this but I don't know where else to put it. A recent SCOTUS decision, along with another, related case, plus certain trends in college admissions (and a bunch of harsh realities) has made me wonder where we are supposed to go next. I shall try to explain (and I'm coming at this from a fairly informed position).

Colleges are, supposedly, not all the same. Certain colleges has established reputations for only admitting the most intellectually capable/qualified applicants so they can graduate the most elite students. But to do so, in terms of admissions standards, one needs a way to evaluate students from all over the world, and compare them, and see if they meet a particular threshold of skill that the school decides will guarantee the right population. The goal is, I would assume, to create a population which shares an intellectual level.

In the past, standardized testing was an important part of this. Grades created by a high school are unreliable. Not only do curricula vary from school to school, but grading methods and grading standards are highly variable. Having an external assessment allowed colleges to compare students from disparate locales and backgrounds. But because of (choose your preference)
1. covid
2. test content bias
3. test prep economic bias

many schools have abandoned the standardized tests. Some have shifted the burden to other tests (from SAT/ACT to AP, but that's no better) but many have simply eliminated the requirement to take standardized tests (some even refuse to look at submitted scores).

What else goes into an applicant's presentation?

Essays -- assessing them is highly subjective and they can be written by committee
Recommendations -- generally populated by propaganda and spin

In terms of non-academic material, a student submits a list of co and extra curricular involvement. Not every student has time or resources (or even interest) to get involved and being a member of the "Save the Whales Club" has no bearing on a student's academic ability to succeed in college.

Along with the lack of any valid and objective measure of intelligence, schools have been working towards "diversity" but unless the issue of creating diversity only falls upon a decision between two identical applicants, who differ only in race (or the like) a school is likely to make a decision which does not ensure the most highly qualified applicant gets in because the driving motivating factor is not academics. If we throw out (as SCOTUS has said) any awareness of sub-culture membership then how do we choose? If, as another thread points out, legacy admissions are questioned, and schools cannot give priority to people who write the biggest checks, then how can anyone choose between different applicants.

The NY Times had a recent article which suggest "adversity" as a way of measuring student worth. Not only is this unmeasurable (and unverifiable) but it hurts the student who has strong academic skills and has had fewer struggles along the way. What we end up with a school that cannot say it has the best and brightest because being "bright" no longer is a factor in the decision making. So the elite schools cannot quantify what student has the best chance of admission and can no longer claim that the graduates are the strongest thinkers or most qualified to enter the work force.

So I'm left wondering -- going forward (assuming no standardized test scores, unreliable other academic elements, and no preference based on race etc, legacy or financial ability):

1. How should any random school decide who gets admitted?
2. How can schools claiming to be the elite colleges/universities create populations which can live up to that reputation?

I'm not looking for an argument about the propriety of the recent decision or any of the other decisions about tests or legacies etc. I'm looking forward, wondering how schools can operate to continue to be who they are, instead of a homogenous set of campuses full of a random selection of students at varying levels of competence. TIA

In Germany the differences in the quality of high school grades (by state) are handled with a bonus system. Aside from that everyone who meets the "numerus clausus" (weighted grad) gets a place, applicants being randomly assigned to universities.
The "elite" universities get that status from the quality of their teaching, not from the ability to choose who to teach.

 

[rosends]

In Germany the differences in the quality of high school grades (by state) are handled with a bonus system. Aside from that everyone who meets the "numerus clausus" (weighted grad) gets a place, applicants being randomly assigned to universities.
The "elite" universities get that status from the quality of their teaching, not from the ability to choose who to teach.

Wouldn't that mean that more students fail out? Or that academic standards have to be similar school to school?

How does one quantify the quality of teaching?

 

[Heyo]

Wouldn't that mean that more students fail out? Or that academic standards have to be similar school to school?

Academic standards are pretty similar. While education is a state matter, there is a commission of the states education ministers which sets most of the curriculum.

How does one quantify the quality of teaching?

By the academic success of the graduates.

 

[Revoltingest]

Academic standards are pretty similar. While education is a state matter, there is a commission of the states education ministers which sets most of the curriculum.

By the academic success of the graduates.

By predicted academic success of the graduates.

 

[rosends]

Academic standards are pretty similar. While education is a state matter, there is a commission of the states education ministers which sets most of the curriculum.

By the academic success of the graduates.

So the more high grades a teacher gives, the better the teacher is?

 

[Heyo]

By predicted academic success of the graduates.

... based on previous performance.

 

[Heyo]

So the more high grades a teacher gives, the better the teacher is?

Academic success is not measured by grades but by published papers.

 

[Revoltingest]

... based on previous performance.

Circumstances that would've handicapped that
performance predict results better than looking
at grades alone..

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I'm looking forward, wondering how schools can operate to continue to be who they are,

In what ways do legacy admissions and preferential treatment to donors define and sustain "who they are"?

Let's say, to take an extreme example, that we're talking about 8% of the admissions. What if that the entire 8% are given to the top minority applicants. How, precisely, would that negatively change "who they are"?

Are we prepared to argue that this new 8% will necessarily be academically worse than those they replace? That would strike me as a pretty volatile claim.

 

[Revoltingest]

Academic success is not measured by grades but by published papers.

Depends upon the level. That may be
so for post doc academia, but for us
lesser folk, graduating with good grades
is success.
Dropping out is failure.

 

[rosends]

Academic success is not measured by grades but by published papers.

So a student's success in school is based on the interest in publishing and the ability to get a paper published? If the top student in the class has no interest in academia so he doesn't write a paper for publication, the teacher cannot be commended for his teaching?

 

[Heyo]

Circumstances that would've handicapped that
performance predict results better than looking
at grades alone..

Depends upon the level. That may be
so for post doc academia, but for us
lesser folk, graduating with good grades
is success.
Dropping out is failure.

We are talking about the status of the university. An elite university is one which produces successful graduates consistently. Elite universities attract elite teachers and elite post docs.

 

[Revoltingest]

We are talking about the status of the university. An elite university is one which produces successful graduates consistently. Elite universities attract elite teachers and elite post docs.

Academic papers are far from all that
makes a successful student. Many of'm
graduate with good grades, & go on to
become successful teachers, engineers,
etc, etc, all without publishing.
Prestige is useful to recruit top students,
but isn't the be all & end all of its purpose.

 

[rosends]

In what ways do legacy admissions and preferential treatment to donors define and sustain "who they are"?

What I wrote in the final paragraph is 'I'm not looking for an argument about the propriety of the recent decision or any of the other decisions about tests or legacies etc. I'm looking forward, wondering how schools can operate to continue to be who they are"

Ignoring any of the arguments about the recent decisions (and about legacies etc) I wonder how ("elite") schools can continue to be who they are without objective academic standards to use in admissions. I didn't say that legacies and donors sustain who they are.

Let's say, to take an extreme example, that we're talking about 8% of the admissions. What if that the entire 8% are given to the top minority applicants. How, precisely, would that negatively change "who they are"?

You're begging the question of how a school can define "top" applicants of any race.

 

[Heyo]

So a student's success in school is based on the interest in publishing and the ability to get a paper published? If the top student in the class has no interest in academia so he doesn't write a paper for publication, the teacher cannot be commended for his teaching?

1. We are talking about students, not pupils, i.e. universities not schools.
2. Yes, if a professor can't interest his students in academia, he can't be commended.
3. Again, we are talking about the performance of universities, not professors or students.

 

[Revoltingest]

I've been triggerd!
To "beg the question" isn't the same as "to raise a question".
The former is a logical fallacy...

Begging the question - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I feel better now.
My pedantry lobe is no longer having a seizure.

 

[Heyo]

Academic papers are far from all that
makes a successful student.

Academic success is not measured by grades but by published papers.