University Admissions

Ben… they didn’t have those networks before going to school. They received access to the selective schools because of their extracurricular activity… access they otherwise would not have had. So where’s the racism and injustice in universities using applicants’ extracurricular involement as an admissions critera? Seems to me that, from this limited example, students from disadvantaged backgounds get a leg up because of the practice rather than your absurd “off the top of your head” claims.

I must protest, this is just flatly not true. It is certainly true that the FAFSA is a very poor judge of a family’s “financial strength” as the federal government (in their infinite wisdom) assesses it, because the FAFSA is a poorly designed document. But even for schools that only use the FAFSA–most state/public schools–those who do need analysis try their best to get behind the flat numbers, by looking at tax returns and other documents to see if the family is trying to hide assets, or has made spending decisions that prioritized their own standard-of-living over their responsibility to fund their child’s education.

At most private institutions–or at least at most of the wealthier/elite/top-ranked private institutions–in the US, a much much more in-depth analysis of a family’s financial strength is done, using the College Board Profile document as well as the FAFSA, and requiring a pile of other documentation as well.

After spending 12 years teaching college English, I’ve been in administration for the past 5ish years, working in financial aid, and I can tell you that schools try very hard to NOT let family’s get away with hiding money, or buying that second house/boat/whatever and stick the university with the bill in the form of higher aid for the student.

As for the comments about Michigan’s point system? Yes, there used to be a point system that was used at most if not all institutions, though it varied from school to school. But Michigan now evaluates every student application holistically, using 2 or 3 readers (depending on the score each of the first 2 readers gives the application). There are certainly some absolute requirements for admission–base GPA, base class ranking, base SAT/ACT. Even those might be a bit flexible at the edges, since most schools have outreach programs that try to identify promising high schoolers who for whatever reason were underachievers but nonetheless they believe hold promise. But overall, to even get looked at, you have to meet base numbers, and then after that, the holistic reading comes in.

The problem is that schools are just bombarded with applications these days, and it becomes very difficult to distinguish between students. As a recent Chronicle of Higher Ed article noted (I can’t link it, their site is subscription blocked), schools are routinely receiving anywhere from 4-10 times the number of applications for the slots they have available in any given school year. I know Michigan, to continue that example, ultimately has an entering class each year of between 5500 and 6000 students, and given their “take” rate, they generally admit probably 40% more than that? (that’s a rough guess on my part). I can guarantee you that they receive at least 3x that many applications for admission. How do you even begin to parse 30,000 applications? What happens when you see that you have 5000 slots for “the best and the brightest” and you’ve got 15,000 applications that have GPAs over 3.9, ACTs of 31 or higher, SATS of 1300 or higher? High schools where they now fudge the GPAs by awarding bonus GPA points for accelerated classes, and then designate half the damned classes as accelerated so they can make sure all their kids have really high GPAs? Schools that name 50 students Valedictorian for the year? Don’t shoot me if I get the numbers a tad bit wrong, but I believe the specific example sited was UCLA, which last year received roughly 41,000 applications for admission, and over 17,000 of those had a GPA of 4.0 OR HIGHER on a 4.0 scale. How do you deal with such nonsense?

Admissions is a very tough role for universities these days, and financial aid is an equally tough role. Limited space, limited resources, poor evaluation tools (such as FAFSA and as SAT/ACT, both of which test your ability to take the test and that’s about it), heavy pressure to meet a variety of goals, some of which directly conflict with each other (example: faculty love out-of-state students, because the admissions criteria tend to be higher so the students tend to be better, but state legislatures love in-state students, because of course their families are the ones who call the congressman to complain about Johnny not getting admitted to the school he’s always dreamed of attending), etc. Yes, race plays a factor in admission, because schools want a diverse student body. Geographic diversity is also a desire. Economic diversity is also a desire. Learning style, aptitude, interest, age, gender, gender identification, there are lots and lots of “diversities” and most colleges want as diverse a body as possible, because so much of learning takes place outside the classroom. But don’t bash the poor admissions folk and financial aid folk for dealing with limited tools and resources in trying to meet those demands.

(sorry, you gored my ox!)

BTW, before anyone even goes there, yes, it is the middle-income family that gets shafted in the whole deal. Schools have yet to find a good way to flatten the curve so that the pinch felt is the same regardless of family financial strength: the very poor tend to get pretty much a free ride, the wealthy of course are wealthy, but the middle-income family (and good luck defining that) tend to just miss the cut for federal or even state aid, and yet don’t really have the resources to make it without that.

The Democrats are making noises about increasing the cap on Pell grants, and hopefully also raising the income (expected family contribution) cap for who can receive them. They have also thrown in the new Academic Competitiveness grant and the SMART grant, and I hope they raise the cap on those as well. Every little bit helps, and the 40-70k per year family is the one that really has to scrape to make ends meet while putting a kid through college these days.

No, the theory that you came up with off the top of your head is wrong. University admissions benefit greatly from the weight given to extracurricular activities, and removing them from consideration would fix none of the problems in higher education. In fact, it would almost certainly make the problems you object to far worse.

In fact, it would almost certainly make the problems you object to far worse.

  1. My theory is objectively correct. Emphasis on non-academic factors was an attempt to lower the amount of Jewish students at Ivy League schools.

  2. How would decreasing the emphasis placed on character cause the problem to get worse?

  1. Source? WTF?

Ben, did you go to a mixed race/socioeconomic public high school? How many poor kids/minorities played football and other sports (extracurricular activities)? Because I did, and the number was very high.

If you are a talented liar you can make up all kinds of things you did for extracurriculars (like running the charity for the poor example you gave above). But that person is still a liar.

I basically posted this before, but imagine the hypothetical of two students from similar financial backgrounds with nearly identical grades and SATs. One of them did community service and played a sport. The other didn’t. How do you deal with these students? They’re clearly not identical applicants, and I hope you’ll agree that, all other factors being equal, the student who “did more” is probably more deserving of admissions.

Giving less advantaged students a bigger boost in admissions is a noble goal. But doing so by ignoring extracurricular activites is misguided.

I feel like I should link to a Gladwell article on confirmation biases, but I’m guessing that’s too intro-psych to write about in the New Yorker.

Let me just say, roughly 80% news reports about college admissions are incredibly elitist. Mostly they seem to focus on the ivy leagues, and students strugling to get in. While students like that exist, for the rest of us there are probably over 1,000 other 4-year institutions to consider in America. Don’t get into Yale? Look at Notre Dame. Didn’t take you either? Check out the Ohio State University. Still overshot? Cincinnati might be right for you. So, forget about how the ivies choose to accept people. It such a small smidgeon of the real world college experience.

With that out of the way, lets talk about college admissions. First and foremost schools look at GPA and class rank. A lot of you seem to forget about class rank. If you are above a school’s average GPA and class rank, chances are they’ll accept you, period. They’ll look at the quality of your coureload and school, for sure, but I think that just gains you “points” for a good ones instead of losing points.

Next up is standarized test scores. Some schools have minimum standarized test scores to get in. But once you hit that threshold there is a diminishing return for higher scores. Though incredibly rare, a perfect 36 coupled with a 2.0 won’t get you into the good schools. But if you’re slightly below the average GPA and class rank it makes you a lot more appealing.

Once you get passed the people who are clearly above average in all these aspects, then they start to nitpick. Letters of recommendation help. If some teacher says you’re in the top 1% of math students he has, that goes a long way in explaing your value as a student despite a lack luster GPA. Curriculum Vitae’s and extra curricular’s also help out here. A student whose worked through out high school looks good to most colleges where its expected that most students will work on their own to help pay tuition. Likewise, knowing you were in school plays or were student council president makes you look better.

Basically, if your GPA, class rank, and test scores put you into a category of people in which the university wants to accept some of but not all, then things like your resume, recommendations, and personal essay help. Also, saying your interested in an underserved major helps out. Woman wants to major in engineering? Did well in math? Schools will overlook those D’s in Spanish.

The obsession with the ivys is entirely rational - the graduates end up running everything. It’s seems like the entire government sometimes.

To exclude Jews in the 1920s or so, the Ivy Leagues deemphasized more objective criteria such as examinations and grades, and stressed “potential leadership” and similar subjective traits to have a mission based reason to exclude the unwanted Jews.

At least one source is Steven Farron, The Affirmative Action Hoax: Diversity.

The Gladwell article linked in this thread.

Ben, did you go to a mixed race/socioeconomic public high school? How many poor kids/minorities played football and other sports (extracurricular activities)? Because I did, and the number was very high.

Well, mine wasn’t that mixed race(there were Asians and Arabs, but no Hispanics and very few blacks), but it was very mixed socioeconomically. I don’t think you’re arguing with me, though. I’m not saying black people don’t play sports, I’m saying that it’s easy for rich people to waste time on resume boosting bullshit while poor people don’t have that luxury.

Well, if you are upset about something that happened in the 20s, I’m not sure how to respond to that. I thought we were talking about current admissions practices.

Ben, you’re flat-out wrong on this one. And you completely misread the Gladwell article. One of the major points was that, while extracurriculars were originally a ploy to screen out jews in favor of wasps, they have actually become a great way to select the best students… often from minority and lower SES groups that otherwise wouldn’t have a shot. That students admitted becuase of their extracurriculars can fare better than students admitted on grades/scores alone or, worse, legacies.

What’s more, if you think grades and test scores to be truly meritocratic, you’ve clearly never seen the sort of grades and test scores scads of money of elite prep schools and tutors will get a rich kid of average intellect.

Yeah, test scores only measure test taking skills. I have always tested extremely well. I am not extremely smart. Hell, the only way I know I’ve really learned/understood something is if I can explain it to someone else.

However, I think there is some small sliver of hope. The internet is an amazing tool for self-education. And, IMO, that’s what it is all about. Going to an elite college, allows you the luxury of usually getting an OK to Good eduction without even trying, i.e., if you pass and get through, you’ll have learned a fair amount of liberal arts stuff. But at a non-elite or state school (which vary wildly from what I can tell), it’s up to you to teach your self, ultimately - far easier to slide through unnoticed and unchallenged. (although I only took a few courses at public schools, so I could be wrong).

I heard an old saw in law school, that I think is true more and more:
"After <law school>, the people who made Bs, end up working for the people who made Cs, while the people who made As teach.

But, yeah. College admissions, financial aid, scholarship, all that stuff is where the rubber meets the road so to speak and a lot of people get runover.

I think students should be admitted based on how much tasering they can stand.

One of the major points was that, while extracurriculars were originally a ploy to screen out jews in favor of wasps, they have actually become a great way to select the best students…

When you define “best” as “makes a lot of money after college” and your data point is that the Harvard football team gets Wall Street jobs you’re high if you think that it has anything to do with the students.

Ok, then read the studies I cited. You’ll find that ethnic minorities in low income settings demonstrate significantly greater academic performance, long term success, and resiliency as a result of their extracurricular activities. You’ll find strong correlations as well as cause-effect relationship between student involvement in extracurricular activities and academic performance. You’ll find these benefits are particularly pronounced for students from disadvantaged backgrounds and under-represented cultural groups. In short, you’ll find out just how outrageously wrong you are.

Or you could keep focusing on your class envy. Because that’s super productive.

Fair enough, but isn’t this the same kind of bias as the one Ben is showing? Yes, people exploit the system. There are people who abuse worker’s comp too, but that doesn’t mean we should get rid of it. A majority of the people who get good grades do so because they are smarter or work harder. A majority of people who do well on tests really will do better in college. If we just look at the exceptions, at the people who are beating the system, the system will look terrible. But that’s true of anything.

Good points, Robert, but I’ve seen enough stories of public high school guidance counselors altering student grade transcripts and have personally witnessed the amount of extra time and money wealthy private school students spend on SAT prep to have decreasing faith in grades and test scores. That’s not to say I don’t value them (I do) but I think it’s telling that many University Admissions officers are giving slightly less weight to class rank and SAT score and more weight to the “whole student.”

Jay Matthews has written some interesting articles about lower income students who take AP high school courses, fail the AP test, but go on to greater collegiate success than wealthy kids who score well on the SAT and AP exams but flounder in college.

In short, I don’t want to come across as advocating the abolition of grades and test scores as admissions… I think they have value, but I don’t think they should ever be the only metric.