[lighthawk]

An admissions surprise would be getting rid of standardized testing and only admitting within the pool of the top 5% of each graduating class for schools whose requirements meet the university guidelines.

Adding online lockers is a nice attempt, but doesn't solve the problem.

[JoeAltmaier]

Substituting one test for another? Why is that helpful to promoting diversity?

The whole point of standardized testing is to level the playing field, so folks are admitted by demonstrated ability and not what prep school they went to or what neighborhood they grew up in.

[bilbo0s]

Actually, the original point of standardized testing was not to "level the playing field", but rather to identify the academically talented. The job of Ivy Admissions Officers is to identify students that will enrich the environment of the universities by which they are employed. These are two separate problems.

Just as an illustration, consider one of the "goals" of Admissions Officers at one of the Ivies. This particular Ivy, some time ago, set itself a goal of admitting one male, and one female, from every state in the union. Simply selecting the top candidates via "demonstrated ability" will not allow them to meet this goal. It would be difficult to find elite students in Arkansas, Alabama and Montana who would compare favorably to elite students from Massachusetts, New Jersey or Minnesota. So it's plain that this goal had to be satisfied via other means. Programs like those the article talks about are a part of achieving these lesser known admissions goals.

[JoeAltmaier]

Not fair! They can simply look harder. How can it be said with a straight face that there are zero qualified candidates in those example states? Preposterous. It just takes time to find them.

[CapitalistCartr]

Wyoming has about 580 thousand total population, and no prep schools comparable to the East Coast ones. Its not simply raw intellectual ability. The most qulualified student in each year from that state will most likely find an Ivy League overwhelming. If each such school wants at least one man, one woman from there, it's not going to work.

[lighthawk]

The standards should be on the school. If the top 5% of students from any accredited school have a chance to get in, it would bring up the percentage of students from lower income brackets and better identify schools that have problems. In theory, if a school is really capable and has fairly distributed abilities within its pool of students, regardless of income, the top 5% should be capable of getting into an Ivy League school.

[JoeAltmaier]

We live in the real world, where some high schools are in rich neighborhoods with lots of resources, and some not. Relying on the local school is another way of saying 'enforce the status quo'

[lighthawk]

How and why should we not be relying on our local schools for education?

If a student can get into the top 5% of their class by GPA, and if the university believes that school is capable of providing the standards required to judge which students make up the top 5%, how does that not help choose the most elite students from each school while giving the school the flexibility to determine how and what they can teach, as long as it meets the university's standards?

If a school doesn't have the resources to teach the students effectively, why do we even send our kids to that school? Saying "because we have to" is a cop out. The school needs to be fixed or realized for what it is- a school that is ineffective at teaching at an elite level.

[verisimilidude]

You contradict yourself. If the top 5% of any school is magically qualified to attend the top universities, then what incentive would any school really have to improve? You'd literally flip the incentive structure in education, such that parents would eventually be fighting to get their kids into the worst schools, with less competition, in order to increase their chances at college admissions. It's a race to the bottom.

[lighthawk]

I didn't say they were magically qualified.

I said the school had to meet the standards of the university. If the school is extremely difficult and the top 5% of the class doesn't have the same GPA as someone from another school that is less stringent but still meets the standards of the university, then students from the top 5% GPA of both schools would be able to apply.

And what is wrong about providing incentive for the best students to get into schools that are not performing quite as well but are still certified by the university as being adequate? It is much better for top performing students to spread out and raise the bar.

It is far from a race to the bottom. It's about bringing up the bottom.

[zeckalpha]

How would you find the top 5% without a standardized test? GPA?

[lighthawk]

Yes, I'm suggesting put the burden on the school to meet the requirements of the university. If the school cannot meet the requirements, the student should know that he/she should not go to that school if they want to get into their university of choice. It's more transparent that way and would help states and counties identify schools that needed assistance.

[aroch]

How would this help students from low income areas or students from all but the most well funded public and private high schools? IMO, it would make things drastically worse. Students really don't get to pick their high school if they're attending public schools, that is based entirely on where you live. Low income families by virtue of being low income cannot afford to live in wealthier areas with better public schools. By the same token, they cannot afford to send their kids to expensive private schools

[lighthawk]

Right now there are prep schools that send more than the top 5% of their students to Ivy League schools.

I'm suggesting that you have to be within the top 5% class GPA to get in. So, some students may actually have a lower GPA, but still have a chance to get in, because they were in the top 5% of their class.

I'm also saying that students don't have to have the resources to take SAT prep courses, because they would only have to do well at their own schools.

If the public or private school was not accredited for possible acceptance into an Ivy League school, parents should know that and be able to do something about it, and so should the state or county.

[basseq]

I'd argue that a vast majority of students—particularly on the lower end of the income scale—don't have a choice in the school they attend.

[lighthawk]

In the county I live in, if another school provides resources you cannot get at your assigned school, you may be able to get into that other school. So there are options for some, depending on where you live.

But more importantly, poorly performing schools need to be identified and fixed. If they can't be, then it needs to be obvious that they are not able to prepare students for elite education.

It is not right for only those from wealthy families to be the only ones that can be adequately prepared, because they can go to prep schools and train for and retake standardized tests.

[basseq]

There are structural barriers (e.g., the ability to request a different school) and institutional barriers (e.g., the willingness or resources needed to overcome structural barriers).

I think most districts in the U.S. have similar processes to attend an alternate school, but barriers remain high in low-income areas, ranging from stigma to logistics (e.g., transportation to a more distant school). Even when structures are in place, the ability to attend a different school is a stretch for some.