Reply With QuotePoll/thread prompted in part by revelations about Illinois "clout" list for applicants (link).
In-state over out-of-state
Black over White
Asian over White
Bolivian immigrant over White
Poor over middle class
Varsity athlete over mathlete
Mathlete over varsity athlete
Varsity basketball over cross-country
Legacy (father was alum) over non-legacy
Parents donated (over several years) $10K over no donation
Mother is a senator over typical parents
ather is a moderately well-known actor over typical parents
Applicant was a moderately successful child actor over typical childhood
Attended low quality rural school over attended typical decent suburban school
Attended low quality rural school over attended Philips Exeter
Above average (1 SD) SAT/ACT scores over varsity athlete
Varsity athlete over above average (1 SD) SAT/ACT scores
Top 25% of applicants in SAT/ACT scores over top 25% in student activities
Top 25% of applicants in student activities over top 25% in SAT/ACT scores
Can/will pay full tuition over will require large scholarship
Consider the following scenario. You are in charge of determining admissions criteria and weighting for a major, top-notch, US *public* university (something like Illinois, Cal-Berkeley, Indiana, Virginia, etc.)
Ignore current policies, and assume that any legal barriers to using (or not using) any of these factors for admission are removed [Edit - I had left the last two words off this sentence].
For each entry, select it if you think the applicant/applicant category on the left should get a nudge relative to the one on the right, ceterus parabis.
i.e. If you think that between two students who are otherwise about the same, the school should tilt towards the an in-state applicant over an out-of-state applicant, check off the first box. If you think that that shouldn't matter one way or the other, or even that the scales should be tilted towards the out-of-state applicant, leave the box unchecked.
(Some times I have presented the choice twice, flipped around the second time in case you think tilting should go the other way.)
Feel free to use whatever rationale seems useful to you. That may include likelihood of the applicant to succeed academically, fairness to the applicant, value that a particular trait brings to the school directly or indirectly, fairness from a societal point of view, etc.
===
Read "Father" for "ather" in the 12th choice.
Assume that the above are potential applicant traits at time of application. Someone who did a particular activity in high school may or may not do it in college.
And again, the comparisons above are ceterus parabis, from the standpoint of the application. Variables not explicitly in play (that can be seen on an application) for a given choice should be assumed to be constant for that choice. i.e. If it doesn't say anything about grades, test scores, activities, or whatnot, assume those are constant between the two choices. That said, feel free to use intuition about what certain variables might suggest in terms of non-measurables. i.e. If you think that a particular activity suggests, beyond the activity itself, a relatively high (but not directly measurable) level of motivation, drive, chance of academic success or whatever, use that intuition. If you feel that between two students with similar grades and test scores, the one who had background X has more potential or whatever, so be it.
Last edited by Phil_Stein; 10-24-2009 at 10:53 AM.
Poll/thread prompted in part by revelations about Illinois "clout" list for applicants (link).
Given the way your poll is constructed, I don't think I can choose any of the choices.
What I CAN say (having worked in university administration now for a decade, after being a college teacher for 12 years before that), is:
I want the best and the brightest. I couldn't care less whether they are athletes or not, and I don't think that should be a criteria for schools at all--at least in the sense of being used as fundraisers for the school through so-called "revenue sports". In the sense of being fit, healthy students who can participate in a variety of competitive activities, that is fine.
I WILL substitute other "classical" talents for intelligence (dance aptitude, musical aptitude, etc.). I also believe strongly in a diverse body of students, so I want students from all racial identifications, all regions of the country as well as international students, obviously a mix of male/female as well. I wouldn't even bother asking about sexual orientation, that will likely take care of itself through the general diversification. Definitely want economic diversity as well.
The in-state-vs-out-state issue is really a funding problem. If it is a public state-funded institution, then you are pretty much stuck with at least 2/3 in-state students (which almost certainly also means lowering your academic standards). But if it is a privately-funded school, then I'd prefer a much broader representation from around the country and globe.
I guess in short, I think the best educational environment is one where diversity is valued very highly in pretty much everything EXCEPT intelligence, with value being assigned in much the same way for other classical artistic talents (say, as represented by the Muses).
None of the above. If all else is equal, then randomize it.
Note that a few of the categories explicitly get at test scores. (So obviously, in those cases, the test scores themselves are not equal).
(You may of course think that test scores are not a good indicator of academic potential, but if so, advance the position/argument.)
This poll is missing 'rich over poor' and 'white over everything'. Invalid!
Here goes.
I don't think schools should recruit people or give a shit based on their athletic performance.
I think schools shouldn't give a shit about most student activities. President of the Student Council? Gimme a break, nobody cares. Cheerleader? Whup-dee-doo.
But Robotics club? Programming club? Now that's something I'd look at if I were an admissions officer at, say, University of Maryland at College Park or Catonsville, both solid Engineering / CS schools.
Outside of stuff like that, and other stuff that can be quantifiably linked to academic performance or not flunking out of school, I think it should be randomized.
Bolivians? Seriously?
Ummmm...activities like being President of student council IS an indicator of college ability. Actually, being a cheerleader can be as well. People who participate in extra curricular activities tend to be more involved in general, and this makes it more likely that they will matriculate. You are showing some bias by favoring computer oriented clubs over other social clubs.Originally Posted by AaronSofaer
I haven't seen a single statistically valid study that demonstrates a strong correlation between social clubs (or bullshit like cheerleading/student council) and academic success in college. Unless maybe your major is cheerleading.
I'd favor someone who did Robotics Club in High School for an Engineering major not because of the social aspects but rather for the same reason I'd favor someone who took AP Computer Science over someone who took AP English.
OK, so here is my voting:
In-state - Favored. As a practical political reality at the state level, this is probably necessary, and it's probably fair, too, in that the citizens of these states have voted to pay for relatively elite schools and should receive some benefit.
Black/white/asian - No favoritism. I realize that this is likely to lead to school populations different from citizen populations, proportionately, but I think imposing racial preferences, in 2009, on something as valuable as admission to top-notch universities is damaging to society and race relations, and just not really fair.
Bolivian immigrant - Favor. The bolivian immigrant may or may not be pair (often it is the children of wealthy parents from poor countries who get such opportunities), but if someone immigrated from a country with such a different language and culture and still achieved good grades and test scores in high school, that says something. And this is also a case where the diversity argument works pretty well, IMO.
Poor - Favor. Kinda similar to the argument about the Bolivian immigrant. Also, a nice backdoor method of increasing black admission rates in a much more acceptable manner than favoring Barack Obama's children (who will have all kinds of advantages in life) over those of a poor white family from West Virginia (stereotypical example, I know).
Athlete/mathlete - I didn't favor either of these. It's a little tricky, because the scope of being in either of these activities could vary considerably. If the mathlete is a super math-genius, that should come through in other ways. Basically, this comes down to how the student spent time in high school, and what they learned from that. I punted.
Basketball vs. cross-country. I don't know a whole lot about either of these, but my impression is that varsity basketball in most high schools is likely to be a more serious endeavor, and show more commitment and such than cross-country. Not universal, and perhaps my impressions are wrong, but anyways...
Legacy - no tilt.
Parent $10K donation - no tilt.
Mother a senator or Father an actor - no tilt.
Applicant a former actor - tilt. Seems like an interesting life experience that the applicant would bring with them - would add a bit of value. This is something the *applicant* did, not their parents (though of course their parents may have pushed them along, but still...)
Rural schools - tilt. If you go to a relatively bad school, it may be hard to judge your academic merit based on grades (apples to apples comparisons may be hard, class rank may be against weak competition), but if you get test scores comparable to those who went to much better schools, I tilt in your favor.
SAT/ACT scores versus varsity athlete - Tilt towards the test scores.
SAT/ACT scores versus activities - Tilt towards the test scores.
Can pay tuition - No tilt. This question may not come across as clearly as some of the others. I guess I would say that, at the application stage at least, this probably shouldn't be a factor. Now, for those admitted, there's a question of how much aid can/should be provided. But I realize that some may have taken this question as to whether a university should be equally happy to have a student enrolled who paid $0 tuition versus one who paid full fare. Tricky issue.
You haven't read very many studies on the issue then. If you have a subscription or access to a database of educational research journals/articles, go ahead and do a little bit of actual research and reading before making a sweeping (and misinformed) statement like that.
If I had such a subscription, maybe I could. Asking a layman to do research on a subject by telling him to buy his way past pay barriers is retarded, and calling the statement that "I haven't seen a single statistically valid study that..." misinformed seems like a non sequitor... are you saying that I have seen such studies, and am simply lying?
To be fair, student council is a popularity contest in which the winners get a free lounge, a free (average boosting, if you are going into an arts program in college) extra credit/free period, and have basically no responsibility or hard work to do. Maybe it was different in other high schools, but that was what it was in my high school, and I'm not sure how that makes them a better candidate.
Then again I played sports in high school and that helped me out, and I'm sure as hell not going to play sports at a college level so I guess from my perspective it's more about gaming the system to get in then it is about doing things that actually make sense to influence college admission.
My only rule would be you have to be over 76" tall.
Aaron,
I'm not accusing you of lying -- I do confess to finding your wording a bit annoying, though. The way you worded it made it sound as if you had some kind of basis other than your own personal bias/prejudice for your position that "nobody cares" about "shit like student council." The fact is, university admissions officers DO care because they know that involvement in extracurricular activities (especially leadership and service-based activities) are strong predictors not only of collegiate academic success, but of the prospective student making a positive contribution to the campus.
If you're a layman on a topic and haven't done any reading of your own about it, it's best to avoid grandiose statements like "I haven't seen a single statistically valid study that demonstrates a strong correlation between social clubs (or bullshit like cheerleading/student council) and academic success in college." That implies you have some measure of knowledge of a subject you frankly do not. I'm not sure about the specific cause of your uninformed hostility towards student activities, but my guess is it's founded in the fallacy of personal experience.
Only thing I agreed with was poor over middle class. If you do that, it covers what matters of the racial/immigrant divide, as well as the poor school vs. well-off school divide.
I've always been a fan of Texas' strategy: Let everyone in at first, and let the first year sort out who belongs and who doesn't.
It shows involvement. Success in college isn't about intelligence, or at least not only about that. It's about involvement and commitment. One of the biggest problems in the university environment is students that have all this extra personal time and do nothing with it. Those are the students most likely to drop out. Students who get involved in student government, cheerleading, etc. are more likely to be commited to the university experience. Sure there are exceptions, but as a rule, these kinds of activities are indicators of success, where success isn't measured by all As or test taking per se, but involvement in the overall university experience and tendency to actually graduate.
I totally agree with you in terms of clubs, sports, and volunteer organizations, but in my limited experience student council is not the same as those.
I never said anything bad about cheerleading, I haven't done cheerleading myself but it looks like it takes a lot of dedication (real cheerleading, not standing around yelling, acrobatics and shit) and hard work, other clubs center around socializing and accomplishing things, volunteer organizations help people, but student's council... ugh. I don't know maybe your student council was awesome but mine literally did nothing, they were there for the perks and the line on their college application.
I've done what research I can, running into pay barriers enough time to take actions like "Ask my friend to log into LexisNexis so I can try to avoid paying money", which is about as far as I'll go to get the information I'm looking for.
I found three reasonable studies, two of which were clearly not statistically valid, and one of which drew a conclusion far beyond what the data supported, which was a slight down-trend in academic success when correlated with purely social extra-curriculars. By slight, I mean very slight; totally not statistically significant, maybe a half standard deviation at the most.
I found a lot of bullshit surveys and case studies purporting to be statistical studies and I found a lot of stuff behind pay barriers which I can't speak to at all.
University admissions officers care for a wide variety of reasons, some of which may have absolutely nothing to do with academic success. Maybe they think that people who were in social clubs are more likely to be rich and famous. I do remember one study, I could try to find it, that talked about how intelligence is highly flawed for determining success after college, which speculated on various other factors, some of which might be correlated with social activity.
I guess it might depend on if you're looking for the best students, or the best graduates, who will give you lots of money after they graduate?
If you know of any studies, please feel free to link them.
Got a cite?
Aaron, Robert is a university professor (I believe with multiple universities over his career so far). I'd say he has a pretty decent foundation for his opinion.
I've let my ProQuest subscription lapse and don't have the PDF's of the various studies I've saved over the years on my home computer... suffice it to say that while the specific effect of student activities (this includes athletics, student council, clubs) on student achievement and behavior is a new field of research, there have been quite a few studies published over the past five years.
For starters, why don't you spend some time on the website for the National Association of Student Councils? Focus in particular on the following areas:
NASC Student Leaders Program (a portfolio-based certification program for students)
NASC National Councils of Excellence Award (a portfolio-based certification program for high school student councils)
Raising Student Voice and Participation (an initiative to get the entire student body involved in issue identification and school/community leadership)
Of course many people attended high schools with lame resume-builder student activities (whether that be the Underwater Basketweaving Team, the Service Club, or the Student Council)... these unfortunate personal experiences do not mean they are the norm throughout the country. The fact is, the standards, expectations, and achievements of student leadership programs around the nation have never been greater.
That's nice. Of course, they're all behind pay barriers, aren't they?
For starters, why don't you spend some time on the website for the National Association of Student Councils? Focus in particular on the following areas:
NASC Student Leaders Program (a portfolio-based certification program for students)
NASC National Councils of Excellence Award (a portfolio-based certification program for high school student councils)
Raising Student Voice and Participation (an initiative to get the entire student body involved in issue identification and school/community leadership)
If I linked this in an argument in Qt3, people would be making fun out of me for months. It's not a study, it's obviously coming at it from the angle of "student councils are awesome" because it's the association for student councils.
I'm not lnking it as a study, but as an example of the current state and direction of student councils in America. Feel free to educate yourself rather than remaining more concerned about making fun or chanting "cite please" for anything you disagree with.
I've done all the educating myself on the topic that I intend to; to wit, I've gone and looked for actual research, and having found that I have access to none of the studies that are claimed to speak with any authority on the subject, I still remain open-minded enough to read any study or other valid research on the subject.
If you want, I could counter-link with things exactly as reliable that discuss the role of student councils in college admissions as a tool for keeping colleges WASPy, but it would have about as much pull as your link; e.g., none.
I've made my claim: That I have seen no evidence of a positive correlation. I stand by it. If you want to have a discussion, you could say something like "and if you take a look at this paper, whose abstract isn't behind a pay barrier, you could see some evidence". I'd read that.
In addition to the things I suggested before, you should also add 'your last name' to the list.
Really? State run schools have lower academic standings? I'd dare say you're wrong in that regard; Binghamton University is considered a Public Ivy and is also part of the SUNY system.
Activities and academics are the only things that should matter, IMHO. I suppose in "all else being equal" scenarios that race and economic background could play a role, but I don't think those things should ever offset other factors. In the end the primary role of a university is to identify the people best suited to success, who are most likely to do something with the opportunity that a college degree gives them.
University of Maryland has some pretty amazing departments. The Catonsville campus' Computer Science department is arguably one of the best in the State, and better than JHU's.
Posting Permissions