25 years old and deep in debt

[Berkut]

I actually saw what I thought was a pretty good suggestion.

Right now, the top notch schools are incredibly competittive to get into. When they are choosing between 10,000 1%s to pick out 1,000 to admit, it becomes almost ridiculous the lengths you have to go to to make yourself standout from the crowd. So much so, that it starts to become almost facical the stuff people do to try to make themselves a better candidate than the other already exemplary candidates.

The suggestion was that schools like the Ivy's and such quit trying to pick the very best of the very best of the very best. Rather, define a extremely high bar to consideration, and then just randomly select from those that make the cut.

So if you have 1,000 spots, define a bar that gives you 5,000 to pick from, and then randomly select from them, rather than trying to pick the best 20%. All of them are going to be great candidates, so why force them to go through ridivulous gyrations to make themselves somehow even more great than the rest?

Takes a lot of the ridiculous level of pressure of of students to be extraordinary, and lets them just be excellent, which presumably really should be good enough.

[merithyn]

I actually saw what I thought was a pretty good suggestion.

Right now, the top notch schools are incredibly competittive to get into. When they are choosing between 10,000 1%s to pick out 1,000 to admit, it becomes almost ridiculous the lengths you have to go to to make yourself standout from the crowd. So much so, that it starts to become almost facical the stuff people do to try to make themselves a better candidate than the other already exemplary candidates.

The suggestion was that schools like the Ivy's and such quit trying to pick the very best of the very best of the very best. Rather, define a extremely high bar to consideration, and then just randomly select from those that make the cut.

So if you have 1,000 spots, define a bar that gives you 5,000 to pick from, and then randomly select from them, rather than trying to pick the best 20%. All of them are going to be great candidates, so why force them to go through ridivulous gyrations to make themselves somehow even more great than the rest?

Takes a lot of the ridiculous level of pressure of of students to be extraordinary, and lets them just be excellent, which presumably really should be good enough.

That actually does sound like a reasonable approach. Which means that someone somewhere will find fault with it.

[Jacob]

That doesn't sound too unreasonable.

[Phillip V]

Or the candidate should just go where they are wanted and be happy about it. Trying to get into schools or jobs where there is no demand for you can be sadness-inducing. Like asking out a refusing girl over and over while another perhaps slightly "less" attractive nearby woman is available. And the latter will even give you anal.

[CountDeMoney]

The PowerBall of Higher Education?  I dunno.  Why work and aspire to something when it's all going to be reduced to chance anyway?  How completely inspirational.

[Admiral Yi]

I hereby find fault with it.

Nobody is forced to apply to an Ivy.  If you don't want the pressure and competition, go 2nd or 3rd tier.

We could just as easily extend the logic and say 2nd tier schools, instead of looking for "good" applicants, should set a bar of "OK" and randomly pick from that pool.  After all, there are applicants out there that sweat the competition of getting into a 2nd tier school.  And all the way down the food chain.

[Malthus]

You misunderstand, g. In general, I don't think anyone should be judged on things they have no control over.

That being said, since society as a whole is still mostly slanted toward the Saltines, the graham crackers and Ritz crackers should have a bit of a leg up in the admissions office. Basically, until educations are at least on par across the board, there has to be some way to mitigate the lack of opportunity for the more exotic crackers in the world.

I don't know if getting a small advantage at college admissions offices really is going to change that situation much.  The kids who are getting the advantages based on crackerness are already getting good enough educations to be college material so are not the ones who need help.

This is indeed the problem with most forms of racial preference - they tend to help those who do not need it.

This is really a subset of a larger problem: that programs to benefit the disadvantaged often miss the mark.

Canada is rife with social assistance programs that end up "helping" the middle class (even upper middle class!) much moreso than the disadvantaged - for the very simple reason that navagating the bureaucracy to obtain access to the programs is a significant chore and one that those already in the middle/upper middle classes are far better able to do that chore successfully.

[MadImmortalMan]

I like Berkut's plan. I would have had a better chance of going to my first choice college that way. I barely missed out because I was white and male. Ironically, today, being male would have helped. 

[CountDeMoney]

I barely missed out because I was white and male.

I call bullshit.   I blame your lack of extracurricular activities. 
But I guess goofing on all those Future Business Leaders of America members in the cafeteria seemed like fun at the time though, right?

[merithyn]

I don't know if getting a small advantage at college admissions offices really is going to change that situation much.  The kids who are getting the advantages based on crackerness are already getting good enough educations to be college material so are not the ones who need help.

That's actually not true. There are a lot of kids who are graduating from high school who have no idea what they're doing when it comes to applying for and getting into colleges. Some of them are definitely not college material right away, because their schools were lacking. Do we penalize them for that? Or do we work toward leveling the playing field for them by offering support and guidance?

I would posit, however, that it's not the crackerness of the person that's the issue. Rather, it's the cost of the box that matters most. In other words, socio-economics seem to play a much larger role anymore in college readiness than race or gender.

[Jacob]

Socio-economics a.k.a. class.

[garbon]

I don't know if getting a small advantage at college admissions offices really is going to change that situation much.  The kids who are getting the advantages based on crackerness are already getting good enough educations to be college material so are not the ones who need help.

That's actually not true. There are a lot of kids who are graduating from high school who have no idea what they're doing when it comes to applying for and getting into colleges. Some of them are definitely not college material right away, because their schools were lacking. Do we penalize them for that? Or do we work toward leveling the playing field for them by offering support and guidance?

I would posit, however, that it's not the crackerness of the person that's the issue. Rather, it's the cost of the box that matters most. In other words, socio-economics seem to play a much larger role anymore in college readiness than race or gender.

So if you come from a rich background and have advantages, they should say - that's nice what you've accomplished but we're going with this less talented poor kid?

[garbon]

Btw, when in the last decade would we say that also these "farcical" acts done to get into top schools started?

[merithyn]

So if you come from a rich background and have advantages, they should say - that's nice what you've accomplished but we're going with this less talented poor kid?

You say that as if those kids don't have something to offer an Ivy league school.

[garbon]

So if you come from a rich background and have advantages, they should say - that's nice what you've accomplished but we're going with this less talented poor kid?

You say that as if those kids don't have something to offer an Ivy league school.

Not at all but you are talking about lowering the bar. After all, they are currently selecting people with lots of activities and other resume type stuff that this disadvantaged kid doesn't have...and presumably it is because that's the type that they think will thrive at their schools. You're then asking them to take on riskier applicants for the sake of society?