The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
Deleted
Andrew_Jay
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
-
Andrew_Jay on
0
Posts
Got that off the college for texans website. Basically, if you're in the top 10% of your graduating class, you automatically get into any state run university regardless of your SAT scores or anything else.
The top 10% rule sounds like a good idea, it gurantees that the smartest and brightest are able to get into a state college, but it's not perfect. It makes it really hard for out of state people to get into colleges for one thing, though the way some colleges are set up, it's like they don't want you if you're not paying state taxes. I'm kind of split, I mean I sure wouldn't mind going to some small school, being in the top 10% by taking a whole bunch of AP classes and easily passing them, then going to a state college of my choice, but on the other hand, I would hate if I was an out of state guy who worked hard to get my scores but got rejected in favor of a guy who had a 3.1 gpa but was in the top 10% of his class because of class size.
Basically, if I was a small town high school guy, I would love it. If I was big city high school guy, or out of stater, I would hate it. North Carolina as far as I know doesn't have a 10% rule and neither does Virginia, even though Virginia state colleges have to accept at 65% of their applicants from in state if I remember correctly. May be wrong though.
If this question does not answer itself, then something is wrong.
Why should students with disadvantages not related to their personal aptitude be given preferential treatment in admissions to educational facilities?
Because they have disadvantages not related to their personal aptitude. This means that they look worse than they really are.
The top 10% across the board doesn't mean you get the smartest or the brightest.
Uh, I don't see why universities should have lower standards for any group of people. When it comes to "disadvantaged" individuals, that's the gap education grants (and not admissions criteria) are supposed to fill.
Basically: for what reasons should a person with a 3.0 GPA and a 1050 on the SATs be given preference over a person with a 3.5 and a 1250? Should employers take into consideration the same reasons?
Richer schools have greater access to extracurricular activities, athletics, and advanced courses, including SAT prep courses. Students from richer schools already get preferential treatment, because admissions boards give weight to students who participate in the above activities. Students from poorer schools get passed over because their SAT scores are lower (SAT doesn't really test anything except how good your SAT prep was) and because they didn't participate in the band/orchestra/speech/Academic Decathlon team their school didn't have.
By giving preferential treatment to the top 10% from each school, the admissions board is recognizing the students who performed the best they could with the tools and facilities they were given.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
You're assuming that all kids in rural towns are disadvantaged. That is absolutely not true.
But college isn't a mandatory service. It's based around accepting the best students who have the best learning capabilities that you can find.
Yes, and if a student's "learning capability" was such that they rose to the top of the learning environment they came from, then they should be given first shot at admission.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Do teachers in rural towns not curve grades? Admittedly I'm only slightly familiar with the school system in a rich city, but everyone I knew in high school commented on how teachers curved grades.
But the argument involved here is that the gap in primary and secondary schools is so wide that someone in a better school in the 10-30% range may have a better learning capability and education than someone from a worse school in the top 10%. That's why I really don't think the SAT is that bad. A standardized test to judge those capabilities is the best option we have to make those calls practically.
So should employers have the same policy?
Giving kids a chance is fine, but that doesn't mean you should be able to leave out other students who did go to better school and didn't do so well on their school's scale, because that's what ends up happening. Maybe the state university system needs a major overhaul in capacity, and should be able to fit in more students. But filling seats with kids who may be successful rather than kids who prove they are successful on a more competitive scale (i.e., the SAT), is not in the best interests of the state, and is a risky process at best.
These aren't private universities we're talking about, they're publically-run, taxpayer-maintained instutions, that should have goals beyond mere profitability.
I agree, but Universities also aren't meant to be charities. Not the way they are run currently, anyway. The fact that they have admissions cut-offs at all shows that their criteria are primarily focused on the question of "will this person succeed in a university setting." I'm unsure of how going to a crummy school relates to that, aside from possibly making the student even less prepared to enter University-level classes.
***First of all, lets get something straight. People are associating "large schools" with "rich schools". I wish I knew the color for unlime, because I would unlime the hell out of that sentiment.***
Obviously they should. Every warm body with a sob story should get a chance at everything. Because they have a sob story. Boo hoo.
Why is a blanket rule like the 10% rule grossly unfair? The point is if you come from a large school, where the margin of the top 10% will be inevitably smaller than a small school due to more competition, and make decent grades, you're not guaranteed college. As in, it's hard to get in. Why is it hard to get in? Because the spots are filled up with the 10% rule. Everyone who is in the top 10% clamors to get into one of the major 3 public uni's in Texas (UT, Texas A&M, Texas Tech - ugh) leaving no (read: few) spots left for otherwise deserving students. I had friends with 3.7's, 1300 SATs, and 30 ACTs that had to go to a community college for a year in order to get into a major state university. Community college. For someone who made great marks. Not that there's anything wrong with going to a community college, mind you. But, shit.
Spots in higher education should go to the best and brightest, period. Half the population is on the ass end of the bell curve, wether you like it or not.
Consider this me liming you.
The "charities" comment was more in response to your comments about the government's role being to do things like feed the homeless, which may cause some people to see connections that don't exist.
All college admissions criteria are unfair. Some are less fair than others.
If you don't have a 10% rule, it's unfair to students from poorer schools because they don't get the admissions brownie points from participating in extracurricular activities, weighted GPA from AP/IB courses, and higher SAT scores from better SAT prep courses.
If you do have a 10% rule, it's unfair to students from more populous schools.
The difference? The latter can still compete through the extracurricular activities I mentioned. They're not barred entirely, they're just not given first shot. The former, however, are completely fucked. It's a choice between giving one group a surmountable disadvantage versus giving another group an insurmountable disadvantage.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Still, you have to remember that extracurriculars are not limited to large schools (people in my tiny hometown were still very active in the community with boyscouts and Christian-oriented groups), you can take AP courses (and I'm pretty sure most states that are not Cali don't weight, at least Alabama doesn't), so that leaves us with only SAT prep courses, which are not as big of a factor as you may think.
Look further down the line and you will also see a person who ALSO only has a few shots, who now has those few shots taken away and gets no college at all. The really smart kids are going to find a college no matter what. The problem becomes how to filter through everyone ELSE, the borderline guys who may or may not get into any college whatsoever.
http://www.oprah.com/about/press/releases/200604/press_releases_20060407.jhtml
It's a fact of life that any criteria you choose people on is unfair. Blanket rules like these are above-and-beyond in the spectrum of unfair not just because of the scenario I detailed in my post that you snipped, but that they also hurt the kids coming from smaller schools in the fact that they are less prepared.
Why do you think everyone who had good grades but missed the 10% gets into a major state university thier second year? Dropouts.
A lot of these kids coming from smaller schools simply aren't equipped to handle the rigors of a serious academic environment (much less one combined with the socially-rich atmosphere of most universities.) It hurts these students because it's the equivalent of throwing them in the deep end of the pool and saying "learn to swim." It sucks, but it's not thier fault. These kids need to go to a junior college to gear up for a large university, not go school for a year, flail around for a while, then decide "School's not for me" and sink.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
For schools, the problem with not giving some preferential treatment to the poorer areas is that if they do, then the people in the poorer areas will remain less educated, resulting in something of a ghetto of uneducation, where kids don't get into university because their parents aren't rich because they didn't get into university, sic ad nauseam. Having areas of deep uneducation is not only unfair, but also dangerous, as it divides the people pretty heavily, which isn't so good for democracy.
I'll be fine, just give me a minute, a man's got a limit, I can't get a life if my heart's not in it.
The real problem with this is basic and secondary education, not universities. If you're not equipped to succeed academically at a high level by the time you're graduated from high school, there's not much of a chance you can just become so by just going to university. You need fundamentals, and college is the place where they finally just stop teaching you the fundamentals and dive into the real stuff.
Obviously I can only offer my own, anecdotal experience, but the people from my hometown who go to college have a very difficult time adjusting to college in comparison to others, and fall very quickly into the "party hard, work soft" mentality, which may have gotten them by in high school, but won't work in a more competitive atmosphere. They deserve somewhere where they can go to college, though, and that's understandable, but not necessarily at the top universities in their state, which can be extremely difficult places to adjust.
You had friends who are liars. With a 3.2, 1350 SAT, no ACT and moderate extra curricular activities i got into WPI, which is a private university comparable to MIT in terms of educational quality. Grades haven't inflated that far since 2002
I also love how you say that the margin at a large school will be larger than that at a small school. Do you have any statistical backing to find this? Once you are over a few hundred students, the rest is going to be irrelevant to the margin. Why? Because its a statistical sample over a population significantly large taking the same percentage off the top! Unless there were outside factors somehow making the students at the large school for some reason closer in intelligence and ability than those of small schools.
When there are more people, there are also more spots
Wow, I must be a liar too. Although maybe just a truth-stretcher since my 3.9/1450/34 barely got me into the uni from out of state. Seriously though, I've seen the transcripts with my own two eyes thankyouverymuch.
Also, private schools don't play by the same rules as public schools.
So, if the admission standards are the same as a school at MIT's caliber, you're lucky. Or a liar.
Furthermore, it doesn't take but a little common sense to understand that if there is a larger base of students there will be more competition to be at the top - the bell curve gets skewed with more people trying to get a piece of the pie. Simple mob mentality at work. If everyone tried exactly as hard as they normally would, sure it would work out fine. Too bad people see that only the top 150 in thier class get thier guaranteed admittance and decide to spend all 4 years of highschool buried in books.
Finally, there aren't more spots. The university can not and does not want to accomodate everyone for several reasons. Cost, space, student/faculty ratio, etc. etc. etc. I can go on for hours.
In closing, take your dickish attitude elsewhere.
...colleges have a set number they want to admit into each class.