Talk:College admissions in the United States/Archive 1

message: The ACT, which is the preferred test for the middle section of the country, is not mentioned here at all. Also, not all colleges require seperate aplications.  Case in point, colleges who accept the Common App.Ruairi irish 00:48, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Information Should be added

message: I think the assertion that Harvard University derives most of its prestige from its graduate
and professional schools is biased. Regardless of how Harvard, Yale, or Princeton actually do
stack up, Harvard's preeminent reputation was set long before any of these universities had graduate schools, by virtue of its age if nothing else. And Harvard (along with Yale and Princeton) held a unique place in American popular culture in the early 1900s even as their graduate schools were catching up to the standards held by Hopkins and Chicago. Maybe Harvard doesn't deserve the reputation it has, but I don't think that in most people's minds its stature derives from its graduate schools alone.
 
== NPOV ==
The fact that you wrote this all yourself is...well, impressive. I'm gonna try editing some stuff for NPOV risque language. EagleFalconn 06:30, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, please do, this is intolerably POV as it is. (eg "now more the province of less successful people who have failed to rise in life and must cling to the name of successful institutions.")  There really ought to be more citation as well.  68.124.22.75 22:54, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

text: The bit on the correlation between social class and number of applications can probably disappear, though it seems to be accurate. Since getting into top undergrads is very difficult for middle-class students-- even perfect SATs and top high school grades don't suffice-- and very easy for well-connected "upper class" students, it's actually true, but maybe not germane to the article. (Not everything that is true about a subject belongs in its article.) It's also not uncommon for people to brag about writing few applications, though not obvious that this is done to affect upper-class status; more likely, it's just general slacker boasting. Czar Dragon 20:57, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: ==

message: The fact that you wrote this all yourself is...well, impressive. I'm gonna try editing some stuff for NPOV risque language. EagleFalconn 06:30, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, please do, this is intolerably POV as it is. (eg "now more the province of less successful people who have failed to rise in life and must cling to the name of successful institutions.")  There really ought to be more citation as well.  68.124.22.75 22:54, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: When discussing the amount of applications submitted by students from their respective classes the author lacks empirical evidence to support his information, and seems to be extrapolating on his/her own experiences with high schools students and the relation of their economic class to their attitude towards applying to college. Although some of these attitudes might be prevalent in the U.S. amoung the classes mentioned, they are more stereotypical in their assertions, and should not be placed in an article in an encyclopedia unless they are labeled as such.
Example:
"Upper-class students usually apply to four or fewer, and may boast about how few applications they wrote or how little (if at all) they prepared for the SAT."
Armcpeek 04:10, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The bit on the correlation between social class and number of applications can probably disappear, though it seems to be accurate. Since getting into top undergrads is very difficult for middle-class students-- even perfect SATs and top high school grades don't suffice-- and very easy for well-connected "upper class" students, it's actually true, but maybe not germane to the article. (Not everything that is true about a subject belongs in its article.) It's also not uncommon for people to brag about writing few applications, though not obvious that this is done to affect upper-class status; more likely, it's just general slacker boasting. Czar Dragon 20:57, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV 

message: I think this entire paragraph needs to be removed or seriously rewritten:
"The college admissions process is intrinsically unfair, despite what major universities say. Many students sacrifice their adolescence to gain acceptance to these prestigious schools only to learn that those sleepless nights and solitary Saturday nights were in vain. Often, these students end up attending colleges where they are overqualified because they cannot gain admission to schools that are at their level. Thousands of qualified applicants are turned away every year on the whim of an admissions bureaucrat. It is widely agreed that the system needs to be reformed, but in the last 20 years, universities have become so powerful that it is unlikely such reforms will ever occur."
This paragraph was probably written by a frustrated rejectee, and while it is probably true, it is highly subjective and its tone is not suitable for an encyclopedia article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.50.250.229 (talk) 15:40, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biased writing 

message: == POV and unsourced material ==
This material is not sourced and is POV reading like original research. It needs to be sourced and re-written as NPOV before being restored back into the article. See Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:Attribution. -Classicfilms 16:04, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: =

message: This material is not sourced and is POV reading like original research. It needs to be sourced and re-written as NPOV before being restored back into the article. See Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:Attribution. -Classicfilms 16:04, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV and unsourced material