Why Elite-College admissions need an overhaul

The brilliant poet, distinguished novelist, or political cartoonist of the future who just did not care about that physics course in his or her sophomore year (and received a grade that showed it) is told that he or she doesn’t have a prayer of getting into one of the selective schools. So is the kid who starts out entertaining tourists on the street but who will eventually do extraordinary work as a performance artist. There is an appreciation for diverse talents, but only if they go hand-in-hand with great College Board scores and uniformly high GPAs.

But that should not be the way the world works. If Columbia can produce a poet of Allen Ginsberg’s quality, who cares if he was lousy in mathematics? And if the university can produce a physicist as brilliant as the eventual Nobel Laureate Julian Schwinger, does it matter if he had no interest in high-school European history?

By gauging the achievement of secondary-school students according to current admissions standards, many of the top schools seem to have taken the quirkiness out of the student body—and the rebelliousness of intellect, style, and thought that is often critical to doing something important in fields other than law or medicine. And in my experience, it shows. I’ve noticed that students today are rarely willing to challenge their teachers in class. College becomes an instrumental bridge between high school and graduate school—or to a good job. The admissions process currently used by many highly selective colleges leaves behind some of the most talented kids. Of course, many of these youngsters go to other places and thrive—and have wonderfully productive careers pursuing their interests. It is unfortunate, however, that the admissions criteria used by the some of the most selective schools end up classifying the exceptionally talented but “one-sided” youngster as “not eligible” for admission.

The schools’ proclivity to “do everything right” may be limiting students’ impulses toward the rebellion and inquisitiveness that could lead to greater skepticism and creativity.

confuzzled dude wrote:

The brilliant poet, distinguished novelist, or political cartoonist of the future who just did not care about that physics course in his or her sophomore year (and received a grade that showed it) is told that he or she doesn’t have a prayer of getting into one of the selective schools. So is the kid who starts out entertaining tourists on the street but who will eventually do extraordinary work as a performance artist. There is an appreciation for diverse talents, but only if they go hand-in-hand with great College Board scores and uniformly high GPAs.

But that should not be the way the world works. If Columbia can produce a poet of Allen Ginsberg’s quality, who cares if he was lousy in mathematics? And if the university can produce a physicist as brilliant as the eventual Nobel Laureate Julian Schwinger, does it matter if he had no interest in high-school European history?

By gauging the achievement of secondary-school students according to current admissions standards, many of the top schools seem to have taken the quirkiness out of the student body—and the rebelliousness of intellect, style, and thought that is often critical to doing something important in fields other than law or medicine. And in my experience, it shows. I’ve noticed that students today are rarely willing to challenge their teachers in class. College becomes an instrumental bridge between high school and graduate school—or to a good job. The admissions process currently used by many highly selective colleges leaves behind some of the most talented kids. Of course, many of these youngsters go to other places and thrive—and have wonderfully productive careers pursuing their interests. It is unfortunate, however, that the admissions criteria used by the some of the most selective schools end up classifying the exceptionally talented but “one-sided” youngster as “not eligible” for admission.

The schools’ proclivity to “do everything right” may be limiting students’ impulses toward the rebellion and inquisitiveness that could lead to greater skepticism and creativity.

http://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2016/02/whats-wrong-with-college-admissions/462063/

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

The brilliant poet, distinguished novelist, or political cartoonist of the future who just did not care about that physics course in his or her sophomore year (and received a grade that showed it) is told that he or she doesn’t have a prayer of getting into one of the selective schools. So is the kid who starts out entertaining tourists on the street but who will eventually do extraordinary work as a performance artist. There is an appreciation for diverse talents, but only if they go hand-in-hand with great College Board scores and uniformly high GPAs.

But that should not be the way the world works. If Columbia can produce a poet of Allen Ginsberg’s quality, who cares if he was lousy in mathematics? And if the university can produce a physicist as brilliant as the eventual Nobel Laureate Julian Schwinger, does it matter if he had no interest in high-school European history?

By gauging the achievement of secondary-school students according to current admissions standards, many of the top schools seem to have taken the quirkiness out of the student body—and the rebelliousness of intellect, style, and thought that is often critical to doing something important in fields other than law or medicine. And in my experience, it shows. I’ve noticed that students today are rarely willing to challenge their teachers in class. College becomes an instrumental bridge between high school and graduate school—or to a good job. The admissions process currently used by many highly selective colleges leaves behind some of the most talented kids. Of course, many of these youngsters go to other places and thrive—and have wonderfully productive careers pursuing their interests. It is unfortunate, however, that the admissions criteria used by the some of the most selective schools end up classifying the exceptionally talented but “one-sided” youngster as “not eligible” for admission.

The schools’ proclivity to “do everything right” may be limiting students’ impulses toward the rebellion and inquisitiveness that could lead to greater skepticism and creativity.

http://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2016/02/whats-wrong-with-college-admissions/462063/

Looks like its THAT time of life and angst. The "Desi IVY fever"

Just learnt that a son of a cousin of a cousin of a cousin got into Berkeley - that too when the kid is in Freemont. It certainly is an achievement and a proud moment for the parents and the grandparents and the great grandparents - with different cousins and second cousins oozing with Jealousy.  I just found out from FB post on the kid's page.

Not much is going to change in the IVY league admissions - if anything it will become even more protective of the Whities.

confuzzled dude wrote:

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

The brilliant poet, distinguished novelist, or political cartoonist of the future who just did not care about that physics course in his or her sophomore year (and received a grade that showed it) is told that he or she doesn’t have a prayer of getting into one of the selective schools. So is the kid who starts out entertaining tourists on the street but who will eventually do extraordinary work as a performance artist. There is an appreciation for diverse talents, but only if they go hand-in-hand with great College Board scores and uniformly high GPAs.

But that should not be the way the world works. If Columbia can produce a poet of Allen Ginsberg’s quality, who cares if he was lousy in mathematics? And if the university can produce a physicist as brilliant as the eventual Nobel Laureate Julian Schwinger, does it matter if he had no interest in high-school European history?

By gauging the achievement of secondary-school students according to current admissions standards, many of the top schools seem to have taken the quirkiness out of the student body—and the rebelliousness of intellect, style, and thought that is often critical to doing something important in fields other than law or medicine. And in my experience, it shows. I’ve noticed that students today are rarely willing to challenge their teachers in class. College becomes an instrumental bridge between high school and graduate school—or to a good job. The admissions process currently used by many highly selective colleges leaves behind some of the most talented kids. Of course, many of these youngsters go to other places and thrive—and have wonderfully productive careers pursuing their interests. It is unfortunate, however, that the admissions criteria used by the some of the most selective schools end up classifying the exceptionally talented but “one-sided” youngster as “not eligible” for admission.

The schools’ proclivity to “do everything right” may be limiting students’ impulses toward the rebellion and inquisitiveness that could lead to greater skepticism and creativity.

http://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2016/02/whats-wrong-with-college-admissions/462063/

Looks like its THAT time of life and angst. The "Desi IVY fever"

Just learnt that a son of a cousin of a cousin of a cousin got into Berkeley - that too when the kid is in Freemont. It certainly is an achievement and a proud moment for the parents and the grandparents and the great grandparents - with different cousins and second cousins oozing with Jealousy.  I just found out from FB post on the kid's page.

Not much is going to change in the IVY league admissions - if anything it will become even more protective of the Whities.

But what percentage of these top scoring Asian & Indian kids are actually brilliant & innovative, not scoring machines?

truthbetold wrote:Amusing conversation. What makes those high scoring young boys so dumb and all of us shooting breeze on this forum great intellectuals? Jealousy? Sour grapes?

truthbetold wrote:Amusing conversation. What makes those high scoring young boys so dumb and all of us shooting breeze on this forum great intellectuals? Jealousy? Sour grapes?

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:

truthbetold wrote:Amusing conversation. What makes those high scoring young boys so dumb and all of us shooting breeze on this forum great intellectuals? Jealousy? Sour grapes?

rather our great intelligence.

truthbetold wrote:

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:

truthbetold wrote:Amusing conversation. What makes those high scoring young boys so dumb and all of us shooting breeze on this forum great intellectuals? Jealousy? Sour grapes?

rather our great intelligence.

Sure.  We all have lot of achievements to show for that 'great intelligence'.