Gifted Issues Discussion homepage Forums General Discussion Changes in college admissions policies?

A new high-profile analysis of the college admissions process makes a lot of healthy suggestions for change. It's discussed in today's New York Times.


It would be wonderful if the colleges implemented even these two suggestions. I'm not sitting on my hands waiting for it...but maybe, just maybe, they'll change to a system that won't be gamed in a way that puts too much stress on kids.

I saw this. It was heartening to see that people are thinking about it, but I don't envy those trying to figure out how to fix it. I have 5 years before my oldest applies...get on it, folks!

My son had one AP freshman year and two AP this year. They are his favorite classes because they are hard and have smart kids in them. He would take everything AP just for those reasons if there wasn't so much work involved. It looks like he will take two next year and two senior year for a total of 7.

But it still leaves you with the question of what should matter for admissions. How should a college select the best applicants, if they shouldn't look at test scores, number of APs, and extracurriculars?

It sounds ideal but not very practical.

That will reward the people who are best at faking sincerity. College admissions officers who spend about 15 minutes reading an application should not try to play God and peer into the applicant's soul.

No matter what admissions processes the most selective colleges use, a large ratio of applicants to seats will cause competition and stress.

Last weekend my middle school son participated in a 1-day math competition at Philips Exeter, in New Hampshire. Many of the winning teams for the last several years have been from Shanghai, China https://exeter-math.appspot.com/archive/2015results.html . If rich Chinese are willing to send their children around the world for a math contest, imagine what they will do to send their children to an Ivy.

I don't know what the answer actually is-- but I agree that the problem is real and that it needs to be a much higher priority to solve it.

When you have a college student, and you see the sheer scope of the mental health problems in that population (anxiety and depression, chiefly), and you know more parents than not who can name one or more of their own children's friends who have attempted suicide as college students...

yeah. Doing something that seems like a step in the right direction seems a LOT better than doing nothing because it's not enough to fix it all.

I doubt that it is a step in the right direction.

Some applicants will try to stand out through athletic accomplishments while taking a moderately demanding schedule. Other applicants, who are smart and studious but not athletic, will load up on AP courses. I don't see why the latter group should be singled out as problematic.

If there are many more applicants than seats, I can't think of a better way of admitting people than the quality and quantity of academic output. People are not forced to apply to the most selective colleges, and most colleges are not that selective.

If anything, I think they should stop looking for the so called wellroundedness. A lot of the students are anxious because they are not prepared academically for college. Nearly three quarter of college freshmen need remedial math. How many of the college students are going to focus on sports, music, or arts anyway. They should and do have special admission requirements. Why shouldn't the colleges pay more attention to academics? I can see the kids are stressed. But I am not sure they are stressed for the right reasons. I personally think this overemphasis on extracurricular as a reason why the kids are so over scheduled and stressed.

Luckily there is still graduate school, where they really only care about academic potentials.

I agree with Thomas Percy.


I agree. Unfortunately, admission is also helped by the following, none of which are academic criteria:

• Number of extracurricular activities (lots is better)
• Athletic ability
• Membership in a favored group (child of a graduate, minority status [depends on the minority], child of a big donor, child of a celebrity or celebrity applicant, etc.)
• Essay about amazing voluntourism trip to [insert exotic distant land]
• Being an out-of-state student who pays higher tuition

As for AP courses, I'm not convinced about them. Why should students have to teach themselves the first 15% of AP X during the summer, when they could be gaining work experience, pursuing another interest, etc.? Three AP courses turns into 6-10 hours of work per week and adds to stress levels while removing time available to work.

Colleges don't ask Calc 1 students to learn the first two chapter of the textbook in July and August, and colleges often go into more depth. Courses taken at a local college or university during high school are, IMO, much better predictors of ability to do college-level work. The student is offering proof of having succeeded in courses at an actual college (and tuition and books are usually free to high school students). Personally, I'd prefer this system, with AP left for places that don't have a local college.

Finally, when elite colleges pick 5 donor's kids, five other kids who were better qualified academically are rejected.

I agree with both Val and Thomas Percy. Academics should be the information in question, but too often a lot of other things wind up being considered that have little to no bearing on an applicant's success at an institution of higher learning.

The basic numeracy and literacy skills of a great many entering college students are quite bluntly dismal.