College Admissions

[Revoltingest]

It seems that we're seeing different
definitions of "academic" being used.

Dictionary.com | Meanings & Definitions of English Words

The world's leading online dictionary: English definitions, synonyms, word origins, example sentences, word games, and more. A trusted authority for 25+ years!

www.dictionary.com

The primary definition here is about school
& education in general. Success in school
is a student doing well & graduating.

I win!

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

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

Use any any standard academic metric you'd like, or pick one out of a hat - the metric or metrics can be defined as we move forward. It seems clear that even this ill informed approach would serve to increase diversity, which I rank as a positive. Let's assume that you do as well.

Now please answer my question:

What if that the entire 8% are given to the top minority applicants. How, precisely, would that negatively change "who they are"?​

Once we get that answer, we can at least reach provisional agreement on the net effect.

 

[rosends]

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.

Yes, my question initially was how to quantify academic quality and the answer presupposed that one could quantify quality in computing "top" students.

 

[rosends]

1. We are talking about students, not pupils, i.e. universities not schools.

Sorry -- in my vocab, "students" covers students at all levels of schooling.

2. Yes, if a professor can't interest his students in academia, he can't be commended.

As a teacher, I see that as problematic.

3. Again, we are talking about the performance of universities, not professors or students.

I thought we were talking about how to assess the "quality of their teaching" as a way to understand the overall level of the school.

 

[rosends]

Use any any standard academic metric you'd like, or pick one out of a hat - the metric or metrics can be defined as we move forward. It seems clear that even this ill informed approach would serve to increase diversity, which I rank as a positive. Let's assume that you do as well.

But that's the problem -- if we dump the standardized tests and we know that the other academic metrics don't really serve the cause, how will we define the notion of a qualified or excellent student?

Now please answer my question:

What if that the entire 8% are given to the top minority applicants. How, precisely, would that negatively change "who they are"?​

Once we get that answer, we can at least reach provisional agreement on the net effect.

I'm not worried about any 8% -- I am worried about the entire admissions process. If there is no consistent, predictable, transparent and objective way of judging ANY student, then how can a school which claims to be on a higher academic level maintain that position?

 

[Heyo]

Sorry -- in my vocab, "students" covers students at all levels of schooling.

I try to keep my vocabulary English. (I do slip every so often and use Ameristanish.)

As a teacher, I see that as problematic.

I thought we were talking about how to assess the "quality of their teaching" as a way to understand the overall level of the school.

I misunderstood. As your OP was about the recent SCotUS decision and colleges (universities) and their elite status, read all my comments in that light.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

But that's the problem -- if we dump the standardized tests and we know that the other academic metrics don't really serve the cause, how will we define the notion of a qualified or excellent student?

Let me first acknowledge that I don't know.

Any internet search on, for example,

• "pros and cons of standardized testing," or
• "alternatives to standardized testing,"

should result in a near unmanageable number of options which I am sadly unqualified to evaluate. For what it's worth, I found this article sobering, and scanned a number of others, only to conclude that the problem remains an intractable one. This is more than a little sad.

Let's hope that professional educators, informed by the social sciences, will eventually zero in on clear opportunities for improvement.

I'm not worried about any 8% -- I am worried about the entire admissions process. If there is no consistent, predictable, transparent and objective way of judging ANY student, then how can a school which claims to be on a higher academic level maintain that position?

Perhaps by reexamining the claim. What does it mean? How is it measured by the university? How should it be valued by society at large?

And perhaps, just perhaps, our ethical standards should trump a university's bragging rights, which brings us to my (hypothetical) 8%, i.e., the admissions that you seem to dismiss as unworthy of concern. I'd like to suggest that diversity enhances the academic experience to the benefit of the greater community, and I suspect that you would agree.

In October 2021 the Harvard Crimson Editorial Boad ran an article titled High Time to End Legacy Admissions. The following are excerpts ...

When it comes to kicking the unfair “extra look” colleges give to legacy applicants, Harvard is falling behind, and its peers are taking the lead. Just last Wednesday, Amherst College announced that it will be doing away with legacy admissions — joining the ranks of schools such as Caltech and MIT, who already do not consider legacy status. ...​

​

The preposterousness of the tie-breaking boost children of alumni get is magnified once we recognize just how much legacy applicants already benefit from the outsize wealth and inside knowledge they enter college applications with. Piling on an extra advantage on the basis of this preexisting privilege is strikingly unjust. ...​

​

... , if abolishing legacy preference would still leave intact the substantial other advantages enjoyed by children of Harvard alumni, why does the University cling so tightly to the widely panned practice? For what other reason would the University be upholding a system that almost exclusively privileges the wealthy and white? The argument that the University has put forth comes down to money: alumni donate more if they know their children are given extra consideration, irrespective of their abilities. That cash, in turn, allows Harvard to further its educational mission.​

​

These economic arguments, which might satisfy our tit-for-tat intuition, fall flat in the face of rigorous research which finds “no causal relationship between legacy preference policies and total alumni giving among top universities.” Moreso, Harvard possesses the largest academic endowment fund of any university in the world. Are we really to believe that the financial security this $53 billion dollar monument affords us would crumble without the mythical “boost” in donations legacy preference provides?​

​

Consider this: What does Harvard have to offer as a result of its legacy preference that peer institutions such as MIT do not? The only answer we can come up with is more unjust admissions. ...​

​

Our Editorial Board has often turned over lofty questions of what admittance to Harvard really means, and how students ought to spend their time here. But since 2015, we have stood firm on one thing we believe a Harvard education shouldn’t be: inheritable.​

If you agree with the substance of this editorial, let's agree to worry about my hypothetical 8%, and to take positive steps to enhance the academic experience and repair society society by valuing diversity.

 

[rosends]

Let me first acknowledge that I don't know.

Any internet search on, for example,

• "pros and cons of standardized testing," or
• "alternatives to standardized testing,"

should result in a near unmanageable number of options which I am sadly unqualified to evaluate. For what it's worth, I found this article sobering, and scanned a number of others, only to conclude that the problem remains an intractable one. This is more than a little sad.

Let's hope that professional educators, informed by the social sciences, will eventually zero in on clear opportunities for improvement.



Perhaps by reexamining the claim. What does it mean? How is it measured by the university? How should it be valued by society at large?

And perhaps, just perhaps, our ethical standards should trump a university's bragging rights, which brings us to my (hypothetical) 8%, i.e., the admissions that you seem to dismiss as unworthy of concern. I'd like to suggest that diversity enhances the academic experience to the benefit of the greater community, and I suspect that you would agree.

In October 2021 the Harvard Crimson Editorial Boad ran an article titled High Time to End Legacy Admissions. The following are excerpts ...

When it comes to kicking the unfair “extra look” colleges give to legacy applicants, Harvard is falling behind, and its peers are taking the lead. Just last Wednesday, Amherst College announced that it will be doing away with legacy admissions — joining the ranks of schools such as Caltech and MIT, who already do not consider legacy status. ...​

​

The preposterousness of the tie-breaking boost children of alumni get is magnified once we recognize just how much legacy applicants already benefit from the outsize wealth and inside knowledge they enter college applications with. Piling on an extra advantage on the basis of this preexisting privilege is strikingly unjust. ...​

​

... , if abolishing legacy preference would still leave intact the substantial other advantages enjoyed by children of Harvard alumni, why does the University cling so tightly to the widely panned practice? For what other reason would the University be upholding a system that almost exclusively privileges the wealthy and white? The argument that the University has put forth comes down to money: alumni donate more if they know their children are given extra consideration, irrespective of their abilities. That cash, in turn, allows Harvard to further its educational mission.​

​

These economic arguments, which might satisfy our tit-for-tat intuition, fall flat in the face of rigorous research which finds “no causal relationship between legacy preference policies and total alumni giving among top universities.” Moreso, Harvard possesses the largest academic endowment fund of any university in the world. Are we really to believe that the financial security this $53 billion dollar monument affords us would crumble without the mythical “boost” in donations legacy preference provides?​

​

Consider this: What does Harvard have to offer as a result of its legacy preference that peer institutions such as MIT do not? The only answer we can come up with is more unjust admissions. ...​

​

Our Editorial Board has often turned over lofty questions of what admittance to Harvard really means, and how students ought to spend their time here. But since 2015, we have stood firm on one thing we believe a Harvard education shouldn’t be: inheritable.​

If you agree with the substance of this editorial, let's agree to worry about my hypothetical 8%, and to take positive steps to enhance the academic experience and repair society society by valuing diversity.

But that's my point -- I don't care about the argument in that editorial. My concern is not about economics but about ANY method of admission [to a school that has made its reputation on academic prowess] which does not put demonstrated academic success at the forefront. By eliminating a need for standardized test scores, and by acknowledging the failings of other purported academic data points, we are left with non-academic elements. NONE of those can ensure the continuation of an "elite" school's elite status. But even those non-academic standards are impossible to quantify so I can't see how a school will be able to defend ANY admissions decision in the future.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

But that's my point -- I don't care about the argument in that editorial.

OK.

 

[Quintessence]

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?

So to give you some background on the current state of higher education right now, "public" universities probably don't deserve to be called that anymore. The reason why I say that is because state support of these institutions has crashed over the past twenty years such that the majority of funding is now actually coming from tuition dollars. What this means is that most universities have stopped acting like public institutions and more like private businesses... because they have had to. They can't just be concerned with serving a public good anymore, they have to market themselves and compete for a dwindling pool of potential customers. The implications this has for admissions practices more or less means that universities have to chase tuition dollars - particularly the lucrative international and out-of-state students - over other considerations. It is in a university's best interest to admit as many students as it can.

In short, institutions are less concerned with initial gatekeeping university because of reduced enrollment and financial challenges. In order to maintain accreditation and pass external reviews, once a student is here the university will apply academic standards as per what has been set by the state, board of regents, and/or individual degree-granting departments. This permits universities to set as high of a bar as they want to for academic standards and maintain a more elite, rigorous education if they want to. Often these decisions are up to individual professors of individual classes, though, given the academic freedom faculty enjoy to do their jobs in the way they'd like to. To add, a lot of what a student gets out of university is entirely on them. It doesn't matter what university a student goes to if they are unwilling or unable to put in the work. And I see a lot of both of those things working at the university.