Admissions Why do Colleges Want "Well Rounded" Students?

[martinbn]

Didn't Groucho Marx say that? You must be confusing him with Karl Marx.

Was Karl the one who didn't talk?

 

[Vanadium 50]

It's a little hard to tell if we are beating up on the Harvards of the world or the Kenyons, as things seem to be shifting every few messages, but it might be worth pointing out that most people who go to college go to places that are less competitive. Most people go to places that are pretty much average.

If yuou have one student who got good but not great grades and good but not greate test scores, and another who got good but not great grades and good but not greate test scores but also edited his school newspaper, is it unreasonable that Average College accepts the second before the first?

 

[gleem]

Getting back to the OP.

But why do admissions offices care about being "well rounded". Lets say a student did lots of extra curricular activities', how does saying being on the high school basketball team, have any effect on their ability to learn their chosen major?

Why should this matter if the student demonstrates her scholastic aptitude? How much time does one spend on practices, meetings, and games? She demonstrates that she can excel at learning in less time than those who do not engage in sports. However, any extracurricular activity takes time away from studying. They put themselves at a disadvantage which helps prepare for the stress of the university experience.

Universities need students to fill seats to be sure but Harvard can only accept about 2000 freshmen out of 60,000 qualified applicants. But why should we want to go to Harvard? Harvard has 385 years to develop its program and produce alumni 63 years (55 graduating classes) more than Yale the next oldest US university and well over 200 years advantage over most other US universities. I think the students are responsible for its fame and success since taking the best students requires the best faculty.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Harvard has 385 years to develop its program

Interesting point.

To some degree, longevity matters. You can't be unsuccessful for centuries without disappearing. But how far should one take this? Bologna is 3x older than Harvard, but I don't think anybody would say it's 3x better. Caltech and Stanford are comparatively young, but no slouches. MIT and Kansas State were formed at about the same time.

Also, things were different back then - no women, no standardized tests, and financial aid - then called "scholarships" - was the exception. Modern college admissions has only been around for a century or less (the SAT is 97 years old),

 

[StatGuy2000]

Also, things were different back then - no women, no standardized tests, and financial aid - then called "scholarships" - was the exception. Modern college admissions has only been around for a century or less (the SAT is 97 years old),

Perhaps I'm being pedantic, but is there not a difference between financial aid and scholarships?

I've always thought of financial aid as being assistance provided to students to ensure they can afford to attend their particular college/university (e.g. grants for low-income students, low-interest loans, grants for veterans, etc.). Pell Grants or the GI Bill being the two best examples in the US.

Whereas scholarships are merit-based financial awards based on specific criteria (e.g. high grades, extracurricular achievements, abilities in sports in the US, etc.)

 

[Vanadium 50]

Perhaps I'm being pedantic, but is there not a difference between financial aid and scholarships?

I think you are. It's the PF way.

Let's not use that word. Back in the day, financial aid was rare, and it was entirely academic merit-based. Now it is common, can be based on need, or the ability to toss a football, or any of a number of things. Probably the most accurate description is that every student pays a different price with this posted tuition being the cap. But it was not always this way.

 

[bhobba]

I guess other countries have Ivies.

I can assure you here in Aus, while we have the group of 8, and they are generally considered more 'prestigious', we don't have what you would call 'Ivies'. In transferring between universities, they consider grades and a group of 8 grades is given a higher weighting. The difference here is it is realised that universities have more significant variance in specific programs. For example, our local group of 8 university, the University of Queensland (last I looked, ranked 35 in the world), is known to be better for physics and pure math. Where I went, the Queensland University of Technology (171 in the world - it dropped from when I went there - it was about 100), is known to be better at Computer Science and Applied Math. UQ has introduced a new Mathematical Physics degree - only time will tell how that is ranked.

Thanks
Bill

 

[bhobba]

Back in the day, financial aid was rare, and it was entirely academic merit-based.

Here in Aus, financial aid is called a Commonwealth Supported Place (CSP) and is entirely merit-based. It has to be said most courses have enough CSP places that nearly everyone gets one, but some high demand ones do not. There is some non-merit-based aid, but it is not called CSP. In Australia, way back in the day when I did it, it was free for everyone, but since then, they have introduced the idea of CSP. The kind of degree people on this site do, like math, only pay something like $4k a year - much more without CSP. Fortunately, I did well in undergrad; if you do well, you automatically get CSP for any further university work you do. And I believe you can go from non-CSP to CSP, and if you are lazy and keep failing, have CSP removed.

I believe in free education (ie paid by the government), but $4k a year is hardly onerous. Oh, and if you do a research-based degree, that is free. The CSP fee for courses like Journalism is about $15k a year. Not sure if I agree or disagree with that - it's based on industry need - it is thought there is a lot of industry need for math, but not much for journalists. Interestingly, my philosophy master's degree is about $10k, but I planned a significant research component in the degree, which is free. It would have been entirely free if 2/3 was research, but since I did not do philosophy undergrad, I had to do more than 1/3 as coursework.

Thanks
Bill

 

[russ_watters]

But see, you said it. Everybody wants to go to one university and not the other, because it is BETTER. Not necessarily because it is high quality, but because it is BETTER. In this case, it is also high quality.

When I say "better" I mean higher quality. Mostly education quality, but there are other qualities. What do you mean when you say it?

More or less the same thing, all I'm saying is that elite is not the same as better, and better is not the same as high quality. As you said, better is high-ER quality. Not high quality.

Well I'm thoroughly confused.

There are a million ways to organize an educational system, hard to believe this one is "gravity".

It's not the system. Gravity drives stratification in a variety of physical systems. Human/animal nature (competitiveness) drives stratification in social/biological systems. You can suppress it somewhat, but I have yet to see a system where it has been successfully eliminated if it has a strong effect (if that's even a desirable thing). Maybe you could invent one, but I doubt it. Anyway, given the prior talking in circles about "better" vs "higher quality" I don't think there's anything productive to discuss here.

 

[bhobba]

Finally, there have been attempts to improve equality by disposing of elite institutions and the well-off. The Khmer Rouge tried it in the 1970's in Cambodia. It did not end well.

I can't believe anybody would believe it was possible - but I would not call the Khmer Rouge objective rationalists. The answer is to realise that elite institutions are not always the best choice for what you want to study.

I will do a separate post about an interesting college called Shimer, which was once ranked the worst in the USA. Its world ranking is nearly 13,000. Yet, it sends 50% of its students to do a Master's, and about 25% get a PhD. Something funny is happening there, so I want to post about it separately. It is now part of the North Central College, and its curriculum has changed slightly (I prefer the old one). And if you want prestige, they had a Shimer in Oxford program (I don't know if they still do). Yet were ranked the worst in the USA. The mind boggles.

Thanks
Bill

 

[Vanadium 50]

Shimer is tiny - a dozen faculty and a hundred students. It is not bad. It has over the years been associated with the University of Chicago and Illinois Tech. It's a Great Books College, which may be OK if you are studying literature or philosophy, but you really don't want to learn your physics from Newton and Maxwell.

(I may be wrong - Roland Winston graduated from there, and as they say he has forgotten more physics than I will ever learn)

I certainly believe a formula might put it at the bottom - or the top - of a list because it is so different, but don't see how looking at an oddball (that nonetheless has similar admissions policies to other schools discussed) will shed a lot of light on the situation.

 

[bhobba]

Shimer is tiny - a dozen faculty and a hundred students. It is not bad. It has over the years been associated with the University of Chicago and Illinois Tech. It's a Great Books College, which may be OK if you are studying literature or philosophy, but you really don't want to learn your physics from Newton and Maxwell.

Now it is integrated into a traditional college. You do it instead of your general ed requirements. It is about 11 subjects, not including a senior thesis, which most good programs have anyway (mine certainly did). It is just historically interesting reading about these past scientists; you learn your actual science from usual courses.

I like the older curriculum better, which had about the same number of courses. The one that would interest people here is the old Bachelor Of Science program. You come in with 40 credits in whatever you like, do two great book subjects - What is Light and Modern Physics and a math subject covering Godel etc. The usual first-year subjects, depending on your 40 credits, you get credit for from an evaluation or test out. Go to Oxford for a year, then work on your final thesis, some self-study subjects, and History and Philosophy of the West a year later.

The details, though, are not the important thing; the important thing is many great schools need not be 'elite'.

I will do a Shimer post a bit later. Others may be interested in this different school.

Winston is a great scientist (specialising in optics if I remember correctly). He started at Shimer at 14 instead of HS using their early entrance program. When he graduated, he went to Chicago for his Bachelor of Science, which he completed in just two years, and then his graduate work. Shimer attracted a lot of students like that - bored or disengaged with HS.

Thanks
Bill

 

[AndreasC]

Well I'm thoroughly confused.

Good doesn't mean better and better doesn't mean good, perhaps that is the source of your confusion.

It's not the system.

It is the system. As I said, differences will exist. But not everywhere has "elite", hyper competitive places with a massive difference from the others, and manage concentrate all the wealthiest people. And some of them have pretty good institutions. In my country we don't have so great institutions because they are very underfunded, but most of them are pretty much at the same level. There are some world famous researchers working in some of the least competitive places here, and although wealth still plays some small part (it's hard for poor people to study in general), it's nothing like the US, because every place is free. This is similar to the situation in many places in Europe, @bhobba will tell you about Australia.

I am not saying that to present my country as a success story, the unis are having a lot of trouble due to overall problems in the country, and there are certainly a lot of downsides to the particulars of the system. My point is to show that differences can exist, elite universities are not a law of nature. In fact to a certain degree this particular culture is only seen in the elite places of the US and UK. That's where every super rich person who gave a damn about education (or at least their parents did) I know went, they didn't go to ETH or Sapienza or god forbid Lomonosov, even though they are very highly ranked.

(The ones who didn't give a damn at all went to some ridiculous degree mills and adult kinder gartens).

 

[gwnorth]

since taking the best students

You are mistaken if you think it is the mission of Harvard to admit the best and brightest students. It is not and that isn't what they claim in their mission statement either

The mission of Harvard College is to educate the citizens and citizen-leaders for our society. We do this through our commitment to the transformative power of a liberal arts and sciences education.

Harvard admits the students who they believe will be future influencers and who will be able to raise their profile and most importantly donate back.

 

[gleem]

You are mistaken if you think it is the mission of Harvard to admit the best and brightest students. It is not and that isn't what they claim in their mission statement either

I never said that was their mission statement. I said they attracted the best and the brightest. (and thus admitted the best and the brightest)

Harvard admits the students who they believe will be future influencers and who will be able to raise their profile and most importantly donate back.

I don't see that in the mission statement but don't all institutions of higher learning seek these types of students? Harvard has almost two hundred years on most schools in forming a huge influential alumni base.

 

[gwnorth]

I never said that was their mission statement. I said they attracted the best and the brightest. (and thus admitted the best and the brightest) I don't see that in the mission statement but don't all institutions of higher learning seek these types of students? Harvard has almost two hundred years on most schools in forming a huge influential alumni base.

If Harvard's goal was to admit the best and brightest then their admissions process would not be holistic. They would base admissions on high school GPA and test scores. They don't. They make allowances for institutional need (ALDC admits) who frequently have lower academic credentials and include subjective personality ratings. Undergraduate education at Harvard is predominantly about social networking. They are the LinkedIn of the university world.

 

[gleem]

If Harvard's goal was to admit the best and brightest then their admissions process would not be holistic. They would base admissions on high school GPA and test scores. They don't. They make allowances for institutional need (ALDC admits) who frequently have lower academic credentials and include subjective personality ratings. Undergraduate education at Harvard is predominantly about social networking. They are the LinkedIn of the university world.

Perhaps you could tell us the source of your insights into Harvard's admission procedures.

There are 3.7 M high school graduates. Harvard has over 55,000 applicants each year,1.5% of HS graduates. They accept 2000 students. They draw from the smartest, most expressive, most involved, most challenged, most ambitious, and most confident students each year. If not the best and or brightest then what are they? We all know academic achievement is but a single element of the profile of the best and brightest (although hardly the best predictor of success) with the other elements reflected in their successes in being recognized for accomplishments and assessed by others.

Harvard wants the best and brightest to apply and entices them by offering them a path to the realization of their ambitions. If it benefits Harvard all the better. All good universities do the same. Like any competition, there is a leader and currently Harvard is it.

 

[vela]

Perhaps you could tell us the source of your insights into Harvard's admission procedures.

There have been many recent news stories about Harvard's admissions criteria because the Supreme Court was expected to rule on a case in which Harvard was defending its practices. The Court ultimately issued a decision earlier this year that ruled affirmative action unconstitutional.

Some Asian-American candidates felt discriminated against because they were rejected even though they were better qualified objectively than students who were admitted. Ironically, it was Harvard's holistic approach that deemed them deficient in "personality" and therefore not suitable for admission.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Students_for_Fair_Admissions_v._Harvard

 

[Vanadium 50]

The Court ultimately issued a decision earlier this year that ruled affirmative action unconstitutional.

I wouldn't say that exactly.

Affirmative action, as it is usually thought of was ruled unconstitutional in Bakke in 1978. This suit did two things - it opened up a lot of the admissions process, and showed that Harvard was deliberately trying to circumvent Baake (hey, what does the Supreme Court know anyway - most of them went to Yale anyway) and it granted standing to Asian-Americans. It had been argued that they were not "real" minorities.

But apart from increasing the transparency of Harvard's process, I am not sure of the relevance, as we have been told that the problem isn't with Harvard. It;s with Kenyon and its ilk: colleges that strive for excellence but have small endowments and thus cannot offer a ton of financial aid.

 

[bhobba]

I still do not get this concern with Harvard. It's a great school - but far from the only one. I believe Harvey Mudd, for example, is not well known at all, but is at least Harvards equal.

Why not simply research schools and aim for the one that suits you best? The US has the most vibrant tertiary sector in the world. The list I would personally look at is the schools that send the most students to graduate schools. Who they are can be surprising:

https://www.collegetransitions.com/dataverse/top-feeders-phd-programs

Harvard is there, but not at the top.

Thanks
Bill

 

[vela]

I still do not get this concern with Harvard.

We were just using Harvard as the poster child for some of the controversy about admissions to highly ranked schools.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Harvard is. after all. the second-best college in Cambridge, Massachusetts,

 

[bhobba]

Harvard is. after all. the second-best college in Cambridge, Massachusetts,

No prizes for guessing the best

Thanks
Bill

 

[CookieSalesman]

Why would this be true? This would only seem compelling in selective universities. In other universities, they'll take students who can afford the tuition.

 

[CrysPhys]

Why would this be true? This would only seem compelling in selective universities. In other universities, they'll take students who can afford the tuition.

<<Emphasis added>> There are 73 posts prior to yours. What does your "this" refer to?

 

[Hornbein]

I went to an ordinary college then transferred to an elite one. The quality of education was the same but the student body was very different.

 

[CrysPhys]

I went to an ordinary college then transferred to an elite one. The quality of education was the same but the student body was very different.

Oh, your reply is open to so many tempting one liners.

 

[mathwonk]

@bhobba: my guess: Lesley?

 

[CrysPhys]

@bhobba: my guess: Lesley?

How positively bizarre! Some strange delayed telepathy going on. When Reply #73 was first posted, I was right on the verge of replying "Lesley?" (even though I graduated from the same school in Cambridge that V50 did). Many decades ago, Lesley University was Lesley College, known as an elite college for future elementary school teachers. It still resonates with me today because one of the most beautiful women I've ever met in my entire life was a student there (...long wistful sigh...).

 

[Vanadium 50]

because one of the most beautiful women I've ever met in my entire life was a student there

I think you are using a different definition of "well-rounded" than the OP.

 

[MidgetDwarf]

 

[Vanadium 50]

Since this thread has drifted into a...more Cambridge, Massachusetts-oriented direction...

An engineer and a maiden were sitting in a park
The engineer was working on some research after dark
His scientific method was a marvel to observe
While his right hand checked the figures, his left hand traced the curves,

(from the MIT Engineers Drinking Song)

 

[symbolipoint]

While starting to read the wikipedia article on "polymath" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polymath I began to be reminded of this forum topic about colleges wanting well rounded people.

 

[snorkack]

In order to keep out Jews, without explicitly saying so?
Back in 19th...early 20th century, many elite colleges had exams based on academic criteria. The universities saw what they thought a problem - Jews were too smart and got too many places. So they moved the goalposts to be less transparent and keep Jews out without visibly showing it. (Same issue with Asians).

 

[docnet]

Just to add, private universities want to accept students who have a higher probability of becoming wealthy donors after graduation.

 

[pinball1970]

In order to keep out Jews, without explicitly saying so?
Back in 19th...early 20th century, many elite colleges had exams based on academic criteria. The universities saw what they thought a problem - Jews were too smart and got too many places. So they moved the goalposts to be less transparent and keep Jews out without visibly showing it. (Same issue with Asians).

Feynman was rejected on this basis from Columbia in the 30s, he ended up doing his PhD somewhere else.

 

[gmax137]

In order to keep out Jews, without explicitly saying so?
Back in 19th...early 20th century, many elite colleges had exams based on academic criteria. The universities saw what they thought a problem - Jews were too smart and got too many places. So they moved the goalposts to be less transparent and keep Jews out without visibly showing it. (Same issue with Asians).

Wait, are you saying Jews are not "well rounded?" Seriously?

 

[pinball1970]

Wait, are you saying Jews are not "well rounded?" Seriously?

With 22% of Nobel prizes yet only 0.175% of the population,I think they are good!

 

[gmax137]

Feynman was rejected on this basis from Columbia in the 30s, he ended up doing his PhD somewhere else.

Rejected from Columbia undergrad, he went to MIT instead. He did his PhD at Princeton.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Feynman

 

[pinball1970]

Rejected from Columbia undergrad, he went to MIT instead. He did his PhD at Princeton.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Feynman

That was it.

 

[snorkack]

Wait, are you saying Jews are not "well rounded?" Seriously?

Well, the people who came up with "well rounded" in 1920s chose to define "well-rounded" in such a way as to be able to keep Jews out.
Not a coincidence that these people also engaged in a witchhunt against professional athletes.

 

[berkeman]

Thread is closed for Moderation...

 

[berkeman]

Since this long thread is wandering off into territory we'd rather not visit, it will remain closed. Thanks folks.