I don’t care how high your SAT scores are: if you’re planning to attend any institution of higher education that isn’t blatantly obvious in its accreditation (Stanford, Yale, etc.), and you don’t take the so-easy-a-monkey-could-do-it step of checking your intended school’s official accreditation status, then you’re an idiot.
Go here or here and get it done. You’ll spend hours more time texting today than you will ascertaining that your institution will hand you a valid degree after you’ve given said school your blood, sweat, tears, time, and money. Avoid this woman’s mistake.
Prospective college students who have remained unaware of the fact that January 23rd’s SAT results are up at CollegeBoard.org are waaaaaay too relaxed. Or possibly relaxed just enough…
While high school juniors and seniors are in full-on panic mode because the college application and acceptance process is hitting the fan in earnest for both groups of students, I’m hopeful everyone can manage to remember that college is not a life or death situation. Every adult involved in the life of an upperclassman tends to make it seem as though it is, but I promise you it’s not.
Breathe, people, and read this post in the NY Times education blog, Mom U. Regular columnist, Caren Osten Gerzberg, had her daughter write the post. Nicole is a high school junior and makes some excellent points with regard to the college admissions process and how it relates to the grand scheme of things.
Seriously, you are a single, unimportant speck in the universe. No one actually gives a rat’s ass which institution of higher learning chooses you for matriculation. And in ten years, neither will you. Perspective is a priceless tool.
Kay M. McClenney, whose day job involves being the director of the Center for Community College Student Engagement, is a contributing writer for the NY Times blog, The Choice, which focuses on college admissions advice. Dr. McClenney just posted part 5 of a week-long series answering readers’ questions about community college.
Setting really far over to the side the fact that I think everyone (even the humans I don’t particularly want to hang out, drink coffee, and chat about politics with) is entitled to an affordable college education, here’s a new take on calculating students loan factors. U.S. News and World Report has a piece about the different tools available for students to use for figuring out their potential future earnings and what that might mean vis-á-vis paying back their student loans.
Included in the list of future-salary calculators is the soon-to-be-launched Human Capital Score. It’s in beta right now, and can therefore currently be accessed for free by anyone who’s interested. (Once it’s officially launched, I’m assuming it’ll cost you in some way, shape, or form). Unlike traditional FICO scores, the Human Capital Score figures out a given student’s future ability to pay back the money they borrowed for college using the student’s SAT scores, their high school GPA, their undergraduate major and their undergrad GPA.
It’s interesting in so far as HCS is utilizing a different set of variables when calculating student loan factors. However, while I do appreciate it when the system tries new and exciting approaches to measuring people’s potential, I still tend to take issue with the obsessive need to measure people in the first place, especially when it comes to deciding who deserves how much education based on test scores and possible future earnings. Again with the standardized test scores meaning more than they should and the in-it-for-the-potential-to-do-good careers getting shafted.
While I’m usually one to veer away from technology, I have always maintained that it does have its place in the education realm. Kids these days (is there any way to avoid sounding like my grandmother when I use that phrase?) rarely separate themselves from technology, and as much I adore a Ticonderoga #2, they tend to see paper and writing implements as inefficient and old-fashioned. It’s fortunate that I’m a confident enough girl to not take umbrage at what that may imply about me and my doddering 35-year-old-ness.
Technology is not my favorite item on the menu, but I absolutely see its usefulness, especially in terms of educating the tech-savvy younger generations. Kaplan has just launched a Facebook application for their SAT prep tools that melds nicely with the whole education/technology/whippersnappers-glued-to-their-laptops era. It saves trees, and users can challenge each other with the “Challenge a Friend” feature.
I’m not a proponent of standardized testing, but as long as the tests are being used, the technologically adept teenagers of today may as well have access to as much digital test prep as possible.
An article in The Boston Globe describes quite nicely how the admissions panels at Amherst College and Tufts University sit down and choose which student will be matriculating at their institutions. It’s not all numbers and robot-like perfection that the panels are searching for; a student’s whole picture is pondered.
All the successful applicants to Tufts and Amherst, two highly selective liberal arts colleges, boast impressive academic credentials, but so do most of their competitors. What they share is a spark that makes them stand out from the crowd, whether through singular talents and values, fierce determination in the face of hard circumstance, or force of personality.
For high school seniors aspiring to the nation’s top colleges and universities, the inner workings of admissions offices seem shrouded in mystery, a murky process that fuels endless angst and speculation. As students nervously await their decision letters, the two highly selective colleges invited a Globe reporter to observe admissions deliberations firsthand. The sessions reveal a complex, nuanced system that is at once analytical and intuitive, rigorous and forgiving, impartial and deeply personal.
The article goes into detail about what happens during the process—what the admissions panel sitting in the meeting room together go through to decide which 3,300 applicants out of 15,000 will be attending their school in the fall. It seems to be an excruciating process.
Here’s the cool advice blurb that was included in the article:
It is hard to write while doing the Happy Dance. Or, it would be if I were a dancing girl. Which I’m not. I’m pretty much only graceful in the water, so I’ve never felt compelled to express myself in a River-Dancing-ish manner. I am dancing on the inside though, and this is not only more conducive to typing, it also avoids getting me into trouble with the Grace and Coordination Police.
Many smart, powers-that-be types in the realm of higher education are having an open-to-the-public conference on April 15th and 16th, 2009 to discuss building a better College Admissions mousetrap. It’s been somewhat biased and lacking over the past few decades or more, and it would be grand if they could make it a little spiffier.
One of the items on the agenda is standardized testing and the good, the bad, and the ugly wrenches it throws into the college admissions works. See? Happy Dance. Progress, forward thinking, and not putting everyone into boxes—all good stuff.
On April 15 and 16, 2009, Wake Forest University will host top admissions officers and leading researchers from Berkeley, Duke, Harvard, Ohio State, Princeton, Texas, Virginia, Yale and other universities along with the director of data research for U.S. News & World Report for the Rethinking Admissions conference. Participants will present papers and discuss the latest research on standardized testing, diversity, creativity, college ratings and how to evaluate success in college. The two-day event will be followed by a public lecture on April 21, featuring Robert Sternberg, Dean of Tufts University, who will report on Tuft’s experiment with essay questions as predictors of success in college.
