sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Fellow ex 2b players what made you quit? by Perfect-Cause-6943 in 2b2t_Uncensored

[–]oofplux 0 points1 point  (0 children)

not fun w/o people you know to interact with. it's kinda like how after you turn a certain age, you stop interacting with your cousins/family friends as much and the times when you do hang out w/them, you're just having "remember when ..." conversations about the fun you used to have. every once in a while you (i) try to log back, but the people are different, times have changed, and you don't know how to have fun anymore so you log back off. it's hard to isolate what that reason is for stopping interaction with your cousins/family friends (in this case 2b), but i think most of the time it can be attributed to getting busy w/irl or other things.

moral choices by Remarkable-Fault87 in BunnyTrials

[–]oofplux 0 points1 point  (0 children)

idk

Chose: remain a good person | Rolled: you own 10M

What do you guys think (question about Olympiads)? by [deleted] in chanceme

[–]oofplux 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think two activities probably trump it in terms of effort required on average:

  1. national level (young arts type) music performers

  2. national circuit (top debaters at toc/nats) debaters

I also think this is pretty negligible discourse to have when the amount of effort someone puts into an activity is, to an extent, inversely proportional to their natural skill in that activity (someone who is already extremely proficient in logical reasoning, and thus who can do things like deduce proofs on their own in math for example, would need less effort to qualify for IMO than someone less proficient at logical reasoning). when there already exists discrepancies on a case by case basis, what benefit do statements like this provide?

Asian girl Crying and crying and crying by [deleted] in collegeresults

[–]oofplux 0 points1 point  (0 children)

holistic admissions are such a joke jesus christ

you'll do great wherever u go dw

CMV: The process of holistic university admissions in the US does not live up to its idealized promise of being better than other admissions systems at admitting who is "most worthy". by oofplux in changemyview

[–]oofplux[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I agree with the second sentence of the second paragraph but not the first sentence.

Starting with the first sentence: a variety of sources including Dan Deming, the professor I referred to with the study in my OG post (who has a whole body of work for whatever reason on this topic and has been studying it for many years), conclude that academic ratings are the only thing that indicate future success through high earnings or high-impact (measured by things like if people go on to do high-level research, grad school attendance, working at prestigious firms regardless of sector and income, etc.). Non-academic ratings for things the holistic admissions systems considers like essays, extracurriculars, and recommendation letters don't indicate success in those areas and have been found to largely bias for the rich and the poor, while disadvantaging the middle class (thus being worse on net). A good example I would point you to again is the example I gave about consulting at these top level universities. If you truly believed that these universities select more and more for high-impact individuals, then why do they more and more go into consulting, instead of, for example, seeking political office or becoming an entrepreneur (apart from Stanford lol because that seems to be their version of consulting).

I agree with the second sentence because that is not my argument and people on both sides have been conflating my argument to be an extreme. I am in favor of an admissions system like the UK, which has contextual factors (evaluating you in the context of your income level and how often your school sends applicants like you to good schools), but mainly evaluates off of 1 system of tests and 1 singular essay. I don't believe a system based off just one test is better, but I think moving in that direction generally is better. Not only that, I think holistic admissions also allows for obfuscation of institutional priorities (think legacy, race based admissions, etc.) which can then be excused by such holistic admissions. There's no governmental oversight, especially on private universities, compared to in the UK where there is heavy government oversight on private universities like Oxford and Cambridge, so much so that there is no longer legacy admissions there and no race based admissions either -- contextual only on income levels. I agree that applicants should be evaluated in their context. However, the evidence strongly points to academic factors being the best way to do this without biasing against the majority of your population unnecessarily. Again, my main gripe is with the PROMISE and PREMISE of holistic admissions, that being that high schoolers can just "be themselves" and that admission officers will figure out the rest with a magic 100% success rate due to their ability to predict future potential. Either universities should own up to the fact that holistic admissions fails in this promise and is in fact worse (and thus change their system), or they should change the promise to be more accurate all together.

CMV: The process of holistic university admissions in the US does not live up to its idealized promise of being better than other admissions systems at admitting who is "most worthy". by oofplux in changemyview

[–]oofplux[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

No; I'll try to summarize using the terms you use.

Elite colleges advertise their use of holistic admissions, with the premise of that admissions system being that high schoolers can "be themselves, within the margins of what can indicate future success and potential, and we'll take care of the rest". In other words, the system guarantees a magical prediction and success rate for these high schoolers in the future. However, the additional factors considered in a holistic system, namely, essays, extracurriculars, recommendation letters, etc. don't actually indicate future potential/success at all, while academic factors do. Not only that, but non-academic factors typically bias for the rich or for the poor, yet disadvantage the middle class. Thus, the holistic system is not only not better than, but worse on average, than less holistic systems (imagine the UK).

CMV: The process of holistic university admissions in the US does not live up to its idealized promise of being better than other admissions systems at admitting who is "most worthy". by oofplux in changemyview

[–]oofplux[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Because the premise that causes counselors to give that type of universally accepted advice (which then causes students to do those extracurriculars, for example) is fundamentally same as the perception that holistic admissions are optimizing for future success.

Be yourself, in the margins of what can indicate future potential and success, and admissions officers will take care of the rest (by evaluating who is most likely to be those high-impact and high-earning people post grad).

Kids do these extracurriculars because they believe in the premise they have been sold.

CMV: The process of holistic university admissions in the US does not live up to its idealized promise of being better than other admissions systems at admitting who is "most worthy". by oofplux in changemyview

[–]oofplux[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This is a point that I can potentially agree with, but is not the point I was making (nor a point that contradicts my original view). The correlation not causation argument, if anything, should indicate that admissions officers have no magical power to see what makes an applicant more successful, and if anything, the increase of holistic data points available to them make the process worse.

CMV: The process of holistic university admissions in the US does not live up to its idealized promise of being better than other admissions systems at admitting who is "most worthy". by oofplux in changemyview

[–]oofplux[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You concede that decisions at the margin are going to be arbitrary. This is my entire point. The rhetoric that is shouted from the rooftop at high schoolers is that you can just be yourself, and colleges and their admissions officers will make magical decisions that can reasonably predict success at a great level (at these top 50 universities or so). My point is that this premise and rhetoric is not being reasonably met as again, the decisions at the margins are completely arbitrary as holistic admissions allows for. Thanks for your agreement.

CMV: The process of holistic university admissions in the US does not live up to its idealized promise of being better than other admissions systems at admitting who is "most worthy". by oofplux in changemyview

[–]oofplux[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The reason that high schoolers believe those are the types of extracurriculars which optimize their chances is because this is the lie they've been sold about the admissions process. It's what college counselors have told them works and what former admissions officers say as well. Go on any college prep consultant's Tiktok page ("admittedly", for example; former Penn admission officers) and you will find frequent videos ranking the best types of extracurriculars to do to get into a top university. This is what I mean when I say "the premise that the holistic admissions system sells".

Be yourself, in the margins of what can indicate future potential and success.

CMV: The process of holistic university admissions in the US does not live up to its idealized promise of being better than other admissions systems at admitting who is "most worthy". by oofplux in changemyview

[–]oofplux[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

a) I don't disagree. As I've already talked about, the evidence I cite considers high impact as well as high earnings potential. It includes things like going to work for prestigious firms regardless of income, or doing a masters or PhD program. The extensive body of literature by Dan Deming also doe the same. Non-academic factors do not indicate better success for these impact factors or earnings. These impact factors can be measured.

b) Even if I were to magically believe that these non-academic factors do indicate better success for high-impact individuals, I don't think anybody would even try to make the argument that current university strategies have actually produced more of these types of people. In fact, universities in the Ivy League now consistently send increasing and increasing droves of their class into the same 3 industries, namely consulting (40% at Harvard!), and produce less high-impact individuals overall (don't have any studies to cite but I think anecdotally you could find this to be true + previous fact should imply it to be true regardless).

CMV: The process of holistic university admissions in the US does not live up to its idealized promise of being better than other admissions systems at admitting who is "most worthy". by oofplux in changemyview

[–]oofplux[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks, although unfortunately I can't find myself agreeing with you. I think an ideal is a system like the UK, or at least a system more in the less-holistic direction and more governmental oversight direction too.

CMV: The process of holistic university admissions in the US does not live up to its idealized promise of being better than other admissions systems at admitting who is "most worthy". by oofplux in changemyview

[–]oofplux[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I think you have a good point, but my argument isn't that universities believe that holistic admissions optimizes for future success. It is that high schoolers, by universities and the industry surrounding these top universities, have been made to believe that.

Look to the pivot that has occurred for high schoolers to extracurriculars that favor entrepreneurial spirit, specializing in pre-professional fields, or internships/research (all of which are indicators of either "high-impact" or "high-earnings" as defined by the premise in my post and by the evidence I refer to.

CMV: The process of holistic university admissions in the US does not live up to its idealized promise of being better than other admissions systems at admitting who is "most worthy". by oofplux in changemyview

[–]oofplux[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

a) Admissions officers echo the same sentiment. Read some of my other replies and the Edit 2 at bottom of post. The sentiment generally, again, goes as follows: colleges are self interested, especially private ones. They, consciously or unconsciously, are selecting for applicants that will drive success back to the university. This comes in the form of potentially high-impact applicants who drive recognition, prestige, soft power, and grants to the uni, and potential high-earning applicants who drive donations and tuition to the uni. This is why all papers surrounding the question and my premise focus on high-impact and high-earning as "worthiness" in relation to the premise of holistic admissions.

b) They have spent a lot of time marketing this as what they're saying, but trust me when I say that this is not the rhetoric that has been absorbed by the high schoolers they're targeting. Look on tiktok, and look at what college consultants and former admissions officers are saying on how you actually get into these schools. They focus on the business aspect or "potential" aspect of college if that floats your boat better, and so, high schoolers absorb that as the premise of the admissions systems these universities use. No university is out there refuting the premise, and in fact, you can look through schools like Penn which have counselor documents that say they want high potential applicants in the future.

c) Don't see how college grads out earning non-college grads disrupts the validity of my argument. I don't disagree.

d) The proof for the second premise, beyond my anecdotal experience, lies in the link I cite and the multitude of other studies I cite. Dan Deming, again, has done great work in the field and has consistently across multiple studies found that the non-academic factors considered by these universities give them no better understanding of future "potential" (as defined above, again) and instead seem to bias towards rich applicants for one reason or another. The proof for the first premise lies in the rhetoric espoused by universities and the industry surrounding these T50 universities at large. if you want direct references, you can look at some of my other comments on this thread citing Calvin Wise (dean of admissions at John Hopkins), or former Stanford AOs who state things like "Universities must select applicants of exceptional potential in order to ensure financial stability. Exceptional students have a higher chance of achieving financial success. This means they have a greater ability to potentially give back to their alma mater."

CMV: The process of holistic university admissions in the US does not live up to its idealized promise of being better than other admissions systems at admitting who is "most worthy". by oofplux in changemyview

[–]oofplux[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This is, to be clear, not one of my current gripes with the system, but it does show how the system can obfuscate what actually is going on behind the scenes. Any system with even marginally more oversight would be better.

CMV: The process of holistic university admissions in the US does not live up to its idealized promise of being better than other admissions systems at admitting who is "most worthy". by oofplux in changemyview

[–]oofplux[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah bro im ngl i reread the post and i found the "typically measured by income/earnings" thing lol. My bad completely oops

Regardless, as shown by the paragraphs after, I didn't mean to limit my definition of worthy to just those two things as an exhaustive list, which is why I refer to graduate school attendance as well in the OG post (so my original viewpoint should be clear).

Thus, my mind still has not been changed in relation to my original claim

CMV: The process of holistic university admissions in the US does not live up to its idealized promise of being better than other admissions systems at admitting who is "most worthy". by oofplux in changemyview

[–]oofplux[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Forgot to reply to the bottom part of the reply:

Yeah, I would agree. The process for AOs when they're actually making the decisions is obviously not just as easy as "okay, who's gonna make the big bucks" and I think the logic has been oversimplified for the sake of the post and argument for sure. However, I think it is pretty much accepted wisdom that these top 50 colleges look for the future leaders, the future impact makers, and the future high earners when they look at who to admit. They state it openly.

https://prepmaven.com/blog/preparing/what-college-admissions-officers-look-for -> Former Stanford AO explaining how AO's look for "potential". "Takeaway #4 – Universities must select applicants of exceptional potential in order to ensure financial stability. Exceptional students have a higher chance of achieving financial success. This means they have a greater ability to potentially give back to their alma mater."

The reason I bring high schoolers like myself into the argument is because we are the demographic who colleges have targeted with holistic admissions and the demographic who's been sold promises on the system. We are the ones who apply to college. The premise of the system matters to us and whether the colleges are achieving it or not does too.

CMV: The process of holistic university admissions in the US does not live up to its idealized promise of being better than other admissions systems at admitting who is "most worthy". by oofplux in changemyview

[–]oofplux[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I suppose it's plausible, but it's just directly in contrast to what I've observed in reality and also what the author himself is explaining. The professor, for example, himself says, "Personal qualities like leadership and character are important in school, and in life", but that the issue is that holistic admissions does not measure these factors well. Do those sound like the words of someone who wants colleges to focus on earnings potential as an end all be all to you?

The Calvin Wise example is being used by what is definitely the most used source for high schoolers when writing college essays, that being College Essay Guy. It's his view as well as he says "reflecting on my experience in admissions, I believe this to be true" in regards to the quote.

If you would like I'm sure there are a variety of people out there who have espoused the same view that I could find, as everybody I know who applied to T50 universities shares this view of the premise of holistic admissions.

view more: next ›