Topic: [SERIOUS] How do we fix the College Admissions Process? A short list (Read 288 times)

 I am sick of college admissions officers holding themselves out to be noble.  They have a very difficult job.  Most of them face competing pressures to admit full pay students do my essay who have high SAT scores who might also be athletes or the children of influential people.  There aren't enough to go around.  Some colleges even care - a little - about racial and socioeconomic diversity.

I'm not thorough with the college system that exists in US, but I would definitely say that it's in a much better place than in my country (India) and China and some Asian countries has, which is totally based on marks, mugging up stuffs for exams and syllabus with no focus on real learning.

However, I think that one thing comes at the expense of others.

If we want to eliminate entrance exams like SATs because as you said, these aren't truly the real measure of a student's intelligence, wouldn't that lead to more nepotism and corrpution, because in the absence of an entrance test, corrupt ways would only exist for admission.

It's kinda true that kids of wealthy people can get better tuitions and stuffs to perform in the exams, it's still better than to completely eliminate the entrance exams and just taking away the slim chances kids of poorer families might get because of their high merit which they might show in the entrances and will open door towards admission based on fully wealth of parents.

However, the government can to improve fairness in the exam might provide free education programs for the entrance exams to the financially disabled kids to give them a better chance, instead of throwing away billions of dollars in name of wars and shits.

Sounds like you are being a passive aggressive instigator as usual. No one is talking about the MCAT.  Or LSAT.  Or GMAT.  Or GRE. I am aware they don't grade SAT's and other undergraduate level standardized tests with A's and B's. Of course you can't pass up an opportunity to point out something obvious when you can stroke yourself off in public and instigate unnecessary conflict, then pretend to be the victim and take a horribly fake dive like you are at a soccer game to signal to everyone how much of a meanie I am.

Sounds like you've never taken the MCAT.  Or LSAT.  Or GMAT.  Or GRE.

It's not about getting an A or B.  It's about being smarter and more prepared than everyone else taking the same test.

Any multiple choice tests are trash. Once you learn a handful of process of elimination techniques to increase your odds of a correct answer, you can literally take any test with zero knowledge of the subject matter and score an A or a B.

The SAT / Act does have a writing section, it's just not about you and most colleges don't really require it because they have their own writing sections. I'd rather have the common app or someone along those lines administer essays for you college, though the prompt would change often and there wouldn't be much guidance. Becuase the current system just promoted people using tutors to help write things.

SAT/ACT is just learning how to take a test like anything else. A few thousand dollars in tutors could easily help ya out there, that's how the upper middle class / rich kids do it.

Add an essay section on the entrance exam if you want to test one's writing skills.

Asking applicants for an essay just adds one more expense for the parents.  Most undergrad applicants have prepping companies preparing their applications.  So if you ask for an essay, parents will just spend more money to get a professional essay prepared for their precious ones.

Real-time, in-person testing is the only way to go.  Include an oral exam to test speaking skills if your program requires it.

Properly designed entrance exams (that very few applicants can complete in time) will allow you to select the best of the best.  

That way the university resources will be used for their intended purpose.

PS. SATs are a joke.  It is like checking if someone has a pulse.

Eh -- I do think there is immense value in a school seeing your essay (just in a different way then it is done now) and participating in sports / other hobbies as it does show what kinds of interests you have. Volunteering would fit into the same sort of thing.


It would also make sense for colleges to have the school verify that all of these are actually being done -- you wouldn't want someone saying on their application that they're the president of all these different clubs without actually doing such and only being admitted to a college because he got the leg up from these.

I don't live in the US but I read some article blaming the subsidies for the continuing rise of tuition fees. Universities know that one way or another, they are going to get paid and so they jack up the prices. Without such a guarantee, they'd price it realistically.

I also agree with your opinion that not all people belong in college. College diploma used to mean something when not everyone can have it. Now it became just another requirement for a job and is also negatively affecting people who can't go to college (either for intellectual or economic reasons). If you're a highschool graduate applying to work as a barista, they'd pick those English majors over you! 

As for vanity courses, IMHO they should not be subsidized and loans not given out for them.

Good ideas.  All leaning towards what American Post-Grad school is like today.

1. Administer entrance exams to each school and each program.  Accept only the top 100 students per program. Offer full scholarships to the top 10 students in each program.  

2. Eliminate non-academic scholarships.

3. Eliminate all other bullshit/noise: recommendation letters, volunteer work letters, high-school averages, essays, participation in sports and other hobbies, racial and social profiles, etc.

I see. So your entire argument was a non-sequitur. Got it.

Yeah, I wasn't saying that student loans don't drive up the costs.  They obviously do.  I don't think getting rid of the federally funded loans, especially the subsidized ones would solve much, at least not for the public schools.  I guess limiting them to only non-private schools might be a good idea though.

Interesting Report there:

Unfortunately what you think is irrelevant, the fact is federal loans with accompanying private funding requirements have been proven to drive up tuition costs. Of course you would have to have a basic understanding of economics and bother to look first instead of just assuming to be correct to understand this.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/prestoncooper2/2017/02/22/how-unlimited-student-loans-drive-up-tuition/

https://slate.com/business/2015/09/student-loans-drive-up-college-costs-what-should-we-do-about-it.html

https://www.newyorkfed.org/medialibrary/media/research/staff_reports/sr733.pdf

about the admissions process

what most dont know is behind the scenes college get sponsors from big companies. this is not just sports but also science and industry
there are electric companies that help finance colleges to train electrician engineers to be the future electric generation plant workers.
law firms, hospitals and as i said NBA NFL sports

but they only get a best rate/bonus if the student grades have a high standard of passing their degree. so colleges do get picky and only want people that are serious about learning and show good thinking/problem solving skills to make getting their degree easier than just a dumb jock who just wants to get drunk and date cheerleaders.

there are other secret payments like internships/apprenticeships/ work experience where by the colleges get paid for many hidden reasons

so having the right student available who fits the needs has an actual priority
this does effect a colleges 'rankings' as they show good exam results and then good follow on employment prestige so colleges will always be picky.

a way to solve the accessibility to getting students able to get a degree, for those that dont care about going to prestige colleges. can be done by simply doing a 'home school' /internet based courses. as costs can be lowered.
for instance one college can record tutors lectures and then make that video available to millions of online students. this way instead of a lecture hall of 50 students paying towards the costs of the tutor/hall/administration/lodgings. that tutor is getting paid by 1million students meaning fee's get cut by 2000x compared to a student attending a college
so if a attending college fee was $20k.. a online college could be $10
thus making college degree's accessible to everyone

Yep, just got it earlier today. Very excited about that.

But I'm unsure of if private lenders are forced into not discriminating. Though I don't think they do discriminate based on the degree or anything along those lines because people can't discharge the loans anyway. Which is because the US government wants more and more people to go to college because (even if you pick some random degree) statistically it gives people the best shot at success compared to just going to high school.

Obviously, there's an argument here for people to go to trade school, and I do agree with that, though I'm going to be leaving that one out of this conversation.

Are you guys saying the federal government makes private lenders offer loans without any sort of discrimination?  I was always under the impression that when it came to loans they (the private companies) could pick and choose however they liked.

(Hey Squatz you just got your legendary)

I appreciate extending the benefit of the doubt. Would never compromise my standing here for one post.

But:

I do understand the special regulations when it comes to this sort of loan though. Because without these built in discharge protections, there is no way that lenders would ever lend to people that have no income yet, no assets, and no ability to prove that they will have income.

You're a college kid going to school, getting a loan for the entire cost of school is a massive benefit that is extended to you because it is backed by the US government and you cant discharge it.

This isn't like any other loan, if you were to stop paying the bank can't just take your degree and say -- you're clear. The paper is not worth anything. This isn't like a car loan / house mortgage where the bank can seize the asset to pay off what is owed. That's why these special protections are built in.



The government plays a role in all the loans though, even disregarding the 5k given out. They've ensured that all people are allowed to get loans, regardless of assets, income, and so on and so forth. The only thing that the people must agree to to get this loan is that there is no way to discharge this loan.

And not being able to discharge this loan makes sense. As I said up above, discharging other loans can come with the ability of the bank to seize assets. A loan for school, with value that we determine to be knowledge, isn't something that can be seized and sold off to ensure that the lender isn't hurt.

I am not interested in ruining anyone's income or ability to post here, especially for a single possible mistake. I also am not interested in judging others, and am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt.

It is not just the government that does this, private lenders also lend without regard to the value of the degrees they are financing. This is largely because of special rules (written into law) regarding collecting defaulted student debt makes it difficult to ever 'get rid' of student debt, and private lenders not even asking about the type of program students are enrolled in. I am not sure if lenders are prohibited from asking about this, but I think it would probably be a safe bet that they are.

I really don't think the federal loan program is that big of a factor, and isn't it a profitable program overall anyway?  The loans aren't that big, and even if the student gets buried in private loans they can't make payments on the government loans will still get paid.  I think the max an undergrad student can get in subsidized loans is $5k a year for 4 years and they have to be enrolled as a full time student.  If the kid ends up making even 10% more over the period of an average life with an average income, that's a great return when you add up all the extra income tax.