> For those pursuing expertise though, schools can provide a lot of value through offering access to others with talent and to some degree infrastructure.
I think you misunderstood what I meant. When I was referring to schools, I meant high school and earlier. In other words, the schools that should presumably give you an education relevant to the standardized tests.
OP is not saying Only standardized tests are relevant, what he is saying is after your education, SATs are the level playing field which you can prepare for, the preparation is within the student's control. Otherwise its all fuzzy and vague extra-curriculars etc which will decide who gets in.
The Elites will still get in and the people at the other extreme will also get in, but its the ones in the middle who will suffer.
I don't think one can just hand-wave away the primary school in this way and at the same time talk about a level playing field and dismiss extra-curriculars. They're all related.
Moreover, for better or worse, college is not a purely academic exercise. Colleges are looking for applicants who will participate in the social life of the campus, not just robotically go to class. They want students to participate in college extra-curriculars too.
People can participate in the social life of campus at any college. The problem with using this supposed socializing metric at the expense of more academically qualified kids is that it just shuffles the more academically talented kids to a lesser University. Where they what? Supposedly socialize less. Why should the social kids go to the academically rigorous college and the academic talents go to a lesser University? In the end, this socializing metric is bs cover in order to juke admissions for the purposes of legacy and diversity criteria.
The notion also relies on an inaccurate stereotype of what smart looks like. In practice, you are as or more likely to see an Ivy-level academic talent that looks like a leader than not.
Its rare to find lesser academic talents who will have better extra-curriculars than the best academically inclined candidates. The latter's prep schools will generally offer far more opportunity in that regard, and moreover any excellence in EC's is in a competitive environment that is often more intense.
> Why should the social kids go to the academically rigorous college and the academic talents go to a lesser University?
I was speaking from the perspective of college admissions, not from the perspective of applicants. Note also that I said "for better or worse". I wasn't making an overall judgment of the university system, merely noting that colleges themselves find extra-curricular activities important. I personally would abolish the invitation-only university system and provide continuing state-supported education to everyone. What is the purpose of the current university system, other than a largely non-educational social purpose? The selectivity of admissions inevitably results in further disparity among citizens, between the club members and non-members, the haves and have nots.
> The notion also relies on an inaccurate stereotype of what smart looks like. In practice, you are as or more likely to see an Ivy-level academic talent that looks like a leader than not.
> Its rare to find lesser academic talents who will have better extra-curriculars than the best academically inclined candidates.
I'm confused. You seem to be suggesting that extra-curricular activites are in fact an accurate indicator, contrary to the SAT proponents?
>I'm confused. You seem to be suggesting that extra-curricular activites are in fact an accurate indicator, contrary to the SAT proponents?
I'm unsure how you arrived at that conclusion. I'll chalk it up to me being unintentionally unclear.
What I am saying is that its largely a fallacy that Universities are commonly put to the decision of a more social candidate versus a more academically talented candidate.
The more common reality being that the leading academically talented candidates are as or more qualified in their extra-curricular participation.
At least within a deviation of academic and social metrics that is meaningful.
Selectivity of admissions allows for selectivity of curriculum. Selectivity of curriculum allows for better trained / educated students.
As well as tailoring of education to meet a student's ability, both on the high and lesser ends.
You may as well ask what the purpose of special education or gifted programs are. To put in in the terminology of those commonly concerned with the plight of haves and have nots, the answer is educational justice.
Last, maximizing the education of elite academic performers tends to maximize results for the nation in the real world in a manner that raises the living standards for have nots.
> What I am saying is that its largely a fallacy that Universities are commonly put to the decision of a more social candidate versus a more academically talented candidate.
> The more common reality being that the leading academically talented candidates are as or more qualified in their extra-curricular participation.
I have no particular objection to this, but doesn't it imply that the SAT requirement is superfluous, with the combination of grades and extra-curriculars adequately measuring what the colleges want to measure?
> You may as well ask what the purpose of special education or gifted programs are... the answer is educational justice.
I don't feel that's an answer. It's just a couple of words that sound nice.
(I was in a gifted program in junior high school, by the way. In retrospect, it's not clear to me what purpose it served, other than to separate us socially from other students. Maybe it wasn't a very good gifted program, but I did live in a fairly well-off school district, so I don't think that was from lack of funding. In high school we had Advanced Placements courses, which are obviously more practically useful, though I wouldn't place them under the category of "educational justice".)
> in a manner that raises the living standards for have nots.
That's the issue. It sounds nice, reminiscent of the Rawlsian difference principle, but empirically I'm not seeing it in the world. What I see is largely self-enrichment of the minority, without much regard for everyone else.
>I have no particular objection to this, but doesn't it imply that the SAT requirement is superfluous, with the combination of grades and extra-curriculars adequately measuring what the colleges want to measure?
No. You are making an unfounded judgement call that grades and extra-curriculars adequately measure what the colleges want to measure, in total.
>I don't feel that's an answer. It's just a couple of words that sound nice.
It's a developmental clinician's perceptive (myself) that has its root in the long standing educational and clinical view that curriculums should be tailored to meet student ability. The most obvious every-day example being in the special education classroom (which enjoys the protection of hefty federal law), and which is also mirrored in the less obvious gifted programs.
>I was in a gifted program in junior high school, by the way. In retrospect, it's not clear to me what purpose it served, other than to separate us socially from other students. Maybe it wasn't a very good gifted program, but I did live in a fairly well-off school district, so I don't think that was from lack of funding. In high school we had Advanced Placements courses, which are obviously more practically useful, though I wouldn't place them under the category of "educational justice".
You can't see the purpose of a child with a 150 IQ having a unique curriculum apart from other students? That may or may not be you, but it doesn't mean that it isn't someone. Controlling for any lack in your specific gifted program.
Unless highly organized and driven, the average admissions non-advantaged (no affirmative action, etc) successful Ivy candidate is likely 140 IQ+. With 150 not being uncommon.
There is an ethical parallel to providing these individuals with a unique curriculum and providing one to special education students.
>That's the issue. It sounds nice, reminiscent of the Rawlsian difference principle, but empirically I'm not seeing it in the world. What I see is largely self-enrichment of the minority, without much regard for everyone else.
That's because you lack context on the history of living standards and poverty.
> You are making an unfounded judgement call that grades and extra-curriculars adequately measure what the colleges want to measure
Unfounded? I don't think so. After all, I've gone through admission myself. Anyway, what do you think they want to measure?
> curriculums should be tailored to meet student ability
> having a unique curriculum apart from other students
I agree wholeheartedly. However, our school system doesn't provide that. Our system isn't even remotely in the vicinity of that. We still rely mostly on social promotion based on geography and age, with age groups sometimes divided into 2 or 3 rough subgroups. I'm not impressed. I think it's questionable how much if any value that provides. It's classism rather than individualism.
> the average admissions non-advantaged (no affirmative action, etc) successful Ivy candidate is likely 140 IQ+. With 150 not being uncommon.
"likely"? Is that just your speculation, or do you have empirical evidence? I know that IQ tests are not required for admission.
I'm not a fan of the notion of "IQ". I consider it a kind of pseudoscience. I don't think I've ever taken an IQ test myself, though I don't recall exactly the criteria for admission to the aforementioned gifted program.
> That's because you lack context on the history of living standards and poverty.
Mmmkay, thanks for playing. I'm done here now. Congrats on the smugness, hope you enjoy it.
My school's gifted and talented program contained the top 10% of students, or IQ 120. Anything more restrictive would not be politically acceptable or practical.
I think you misunderstood what I meant. When I was referring to schools, I meant high school and earlier. In other words, the schools that should presumably give you an education relevant to the standardized tests.