TroyBarnes

Here's a hot take on how I think academic institutions SHOULD operate in an IDEAL world. 

1) Admit any one who wants to attend based on a college entrance exam (kind of how its done in some foreign countries)
2) In specified periodic time intervals, there are qualifying exams to be taken. Those that fail below a certain cutoff will have to leave the school (analogous to PhD exams) 
3) Those that can finish all the coursework and pass all the exams are able to graduate (schools graduate too few/too many students a year should be audited for quality of education)
This is not to say problems with AA and gender bias would disappear, as those with the privilege of accessing resources from a younger age would still benefit - they always will. But this way opens up a larger playing field, where everyone has a chance to succeed, and whether a student can study at an institution is not dictated by a biased admissions committee who decide your capability to succeed based off of a few pieces of paper.
And this way, instead of diversity becomes a moot point, and they would admit you based on your capabilities that you will prove yourself rather.

This is just my hot take, please don't downvote me into oblivion. I understand that there resource constraints that render all of these steps infeasible. But something just doesn't sit right with me in the current way admissions in grad and undergrad are handled. 

Here's a hot take on how I think academic institutions SHOULD operate in an IDEAL world. 

1) Admit any one who wants to attend based on a college entrance exam (kind of how its done in some foreign countries)
2) In specified periodic time intervals, there are qualifying exams to be taken. Those that fail below a certain cutoff will have to leave the school (analogous to PhD exams) 
3) Those that can finish all the coursework and pass all the exams are able to graduate (schools graduate too few/too many students a year should be audited for quality of education)
This is not to say problems with AA and gender bias would disappear, as those with the privilege of accessing resources from a younger age would still benefit - they always will. But this way opens up a larger playing field, where everyone has a chance to succeed, and whether a student can study at an institution is not dictated by a biased admissions committee who decide your capability to succeed based off of a few pieces of paper.
And this way, instead of diversity becomes a moot point, and they would admit you based on your capabilities that you will prove yourself rather.

This is just my hot take, please don't downvote me into oblivion. I understand that there resource constraints that render all of these steps infeasible. But something just doesn't sit right with me in the current way admissions in grad and undergrad are handled. 

Here's a hot take on how I think academic institutions SHOULD operate in an IDEAL world. 

1) Admit any one who wants to attend based on a college entrance exam (kind of how its done in some foreign countries)
2) In specified periodic time intervals, there are qualifying exams to be taken. Those that fail below a certain cutoff will have to leave the school (analogous to PhD exams) 
3) Those that can finish all the coursework and pass all the exams are able to graduate (schools graduate too few/too many students a year should be audited for quality of education)
This is not to say problems with AA and gender bias would disappear, as those with the privilege of accessing resources from a younger age would still benefit - they always will. But this way opens up a larger playing field, where everyone has a chance to succeed, and whether a student can study at an institution is not dictated by a biased admissions committee who decide your capability to succeed based off of a few pieces of paper.
And this way, instead of diversity becomes a moot point, and they would admit you based on your capabilities that you will prove yourself rather.

This is just my hot take, please don't downvote me into oblivion. I understand that there resource constraints that render all of these steps infeasible. But something just doesn't sit right with me in the current way admissions in grad and undergrad are handled. 

I am well aware that test-taking ability as you seem to define it, is not the most important indicator of research ability. Your statement about those with learning conditions systematically underperforming is valid for those taking highly structured time pressured exams with closed ended problems, designed to be evaluated on a strict set of standards; there are plenty of studies about it. 
Nowhere did I suggest people should be evaluated on such exams, though today it very much is at the undergraduate level. One method for examination is in grant writing/fundraising, which should be a key skill of a researcher. In one of the programs in bioengineering, their qualifying exam consisted of writing a grant proposal in a simulated environment over a semester. The students were then evaluated on how well they were able to convey their ideas, and some could not proceed with the program. This would be one example of a potential "exam." Regardless of learning conditions, poor communication skills can only hurt.

Further, rec letters, GRE, and GPA are one of the biggest factors in admissions already, Typically, faculty prefer to write for students who perform well in their courses (scored well in coursework and made a good impression) - granted I have seen rare occasions when faculty write for poorly performing students (made a good impression). By your logic, do you suggest to remove all metrics based on testing? After all, those with the learning conditions you listed are at a disadvantage already in the current system. My proposed exam strategy, though ill-defined, is not restricted to exams in your narrow definition, and it is ultimately up to the discretion of the university on the content of the exams. 
Testing in the traditional sense is never a good way to assess research ability, and this is well known fact. Gradcafe is an online forum, where people may express ideas in an informal manner, and should never qualify as evidence for research ability. Your inability to discriminate where people state opinions and where research capability is demonstrated, as well as your amiss ad hominem statement about my research ability is highly uncharacteristic of a professional let alone successful researcher.
You're also missing the point too. stemstudent12345 rightly understood it to be a meritocracy based system. Adcoms trying to predict whether students will be successful the way it is done today, is subject to a lot of bias, e.g. being a certain race may cause certain members in the adcoms to view your application more favorably/unfavorably. Using your model analogy, what good is a model that evaluates covariates with a bias? I do not suggest throwing away all covariates, but replacing them with ones that are less subject to bias, and more indicative of merit. Exams take on many forms, and each one should be designed to indicate a student's research potential and likelihood for success, which should be determined by the universities and exam committees themselves. And I've acknowledged that there are resource constraints making this infeasible. 

I am well aware that test-taking ability as you seem to define it, is not the most important indicator of research ability. Your statement about those with learning conditions systematically underperforming is valid for those taking highly structured time pressured exams with closed ended problems, designed to be evaluated on a strict set of standards; there are plenty of studies about it. 
Nowhere did I suggest people should be evaluated on such exams, though today it very much is at the undergraduate level. One method for examination is in grant writing/fundraising, which should be a key skill of a researcher. In one of the programs in bioengineering, their qualifying exam consisted of writing a grant proposal in a simulated environment over a semester. The students were then evaluated on how well they were able to convey their ideas, and some could not proceed with the program. This would be one example of a potential "exam." Regardless of learning conditions, poor communication skills can only hurt.

Further, rec letters, GRE, and GPA are one of the biggest factors in admissions already, Typically, faculty prefer to write for students who perform well in their courses (scored well in coursework and made a good impression) - granted I have seen rare occasions when faculty write for poorly performing students (made a good impression). By your logic, do you suggest to remove all metrics based on testing? After all, those with the learning conditions you listed are at a disadvantage already in the current system. My proposed exam strategy, though ill-defined, is not restricted to exams in your narrow definition, and it is ultimately up to the discretion of the university on the content of the exams. 
Testing in the traditional sense is never a good way to assess research ability, and this is well known fact. Gradcafe is an online forum, where people may express ideas in an informal manner, and should never qualify as evidence for research ability. Your inability to discriminate where people state opinions and where research capability is demonstrated, as well as your amiss ad hominem statement about my research ability is highly uncharacteristic of a professional let alone successful researcher.
You're also missing the point too. stemstudent12345 rightly understood it to be a meritocracy based system. Adcoms trying to predict whether students will be successful the way it is done today, is subject to a lot of bias, e.g. being a certain race may cause certain members in the adcoms to view your application more favorably/unfavorably. Using your model analogy, what good is a model that evaluates covariates with a bias? I do not suggest throwing away all covariates, but replacing them with ones that are less subject to bias, and more indicative of merit. Exams take on many forms, and each one should be designed to indicate a student's research potential and likelihood for success, which should be determined by the universities and exam committees themselves. And I've acknowledged that there are resource constraints making this infeasible. 

So you believe that test-taking ability is the only important indicator of research potential? Did you know that many people with learning disabilities, adhd, or anxiety disorders tend to systematically underperform on tests, regardless of their intelligence, creativity (actually more creative individuals may very well perform worse in a testing environment, all else equal) or research potential? It seems you’ve only thought about yourself in writing this, which is uncharacteristic of a good researcher.

Here's a hot take on how I think academic institutions SHOULD operate in an IDEAL world. 

1) Admit any one who wants to attend based on a college entrance exam (kind of how its done in some foreign countries)
2) In specified periodic time intervals, there are qualifying exams to be taken. Those that fail below a certain cutoff will have to leave the school (analogous to PhD exams) 
3) Those that can finish all the coursework and pass all the exams are able to graduate (schools graduate too few/too many students a year should be audited for quality of education)
This is not to say problems with AA and gender bias would disappear, as those with the privilege of accessing resources from a younger age would still benefit - they always will. But this way opens up a larger playing field, where everyone has a chance to succeed, and whether a student can study at an institution is not dictated by a biased admissions committee who decide your capability to succeed based off of a few pieces of paper.
And this way, instead of diversity becomes a moot point, and they would admit you based on your capabilities that you will prove yourself rather.

This is just my hot take, please don't downvote me into oblivion. I understand that there resource constraints that render all of these steps infeasible. But something just doesn't sit right with me in the current way admissions in grad and undergrad are handled. 

Here's a hot take on how I think academic institutions SHOULD operate in an IDEAL world. 

1) Admit any one who wants to attend based on a college entrance exam (kind of how its done in some foreign countries)
2) In specified periodic time intervals, there are qualifying exams to be taken. Those that fail below a certain cutoff will have to leave the school (analogous to PhD exams) 
3) Those that can finish all the coursework and pass all the exams are able to graduate (schools graduate too few/too many students a year should be audited for quality of education)
This is not to say problems with AA and gender bias would disappear, as those with the privilege of accessing resources from a younger age would still benefit - they always will. But this way opens up a larger playing field, where everyone has a chance to succeed, and whether a student can study at an institution is not dictated by a biased admissions committee who decide your capability to succeed based off of a few pieces of paper.
And this way, instead of diversity becomes a moot point, and they would admit you based on your capabilities that you will prove yourself rather.

This is just my hot take, please don't downvote me into oblivion. I understand that there resource constraints that render all of these steps infeasible. But something just doesn't sit right with me in the current way admissions in grad and undergrad are handled. 

Here's a hot take on how I think academic institutions SHOULD operate in an IDEAL world. 

1) Admit any one who wants to attend based on a college entrance exam (kind of how its done in some foreign countries)
2) In specified periodic time intervals, there are qualifying exams to be taken. Those that fail below a certain cutoff will have to leave the school (analogous to PhD exams) 
3) Those that can finish all the coursework and pass all the exams are able to graduate (schools graduate too few/too many students a year should be audited for quality of education)
This is not to say problems with AA and gender bias would disappear, as those with the privilege of accessing resources from a younger age would still benefit - they always will. But this way opens up a larger playing field, where everyone has a chance to succeed, and whether a student can study at an institution is not dictated by a biased admissions committee who decide your capability to succeed based off of a few pieces of paper.
And this way, instead of diversity becomes a moot point, and they would admit you based on your capabilities that you will prove yourself rather.

This is just my hot take, please don't downvote me into oblivion. I understand that there resource constraints that render all of these steps infeasible. But something just doesn't sit right with me in the current way admissions in grad and undergrad are handled. 

Of course I generally agree that in a perfect world, a meritocracy would be ideal. An of course we should admit/retain all qualified students, rather than making weird arbitrary decisions about who gets to go to the best universities. See this podcast episode for a more eloquent explanation of my feelings http://revisionisthistory.com/episodes/32-the-tortoise-and-the-hare
Yeah, I think this is the kicker. AA is meant to level the playing field by accounting for those privileges. Some people (I'm thinking in particular of conservative economist Glenn Loury) think we should redirect all resources currently being directed at Afirmative Action at the university level toward correcting developmental disparities that occur earlier in life -- e.g. preK access, primary education, literacy, etc. I personally think AA is largely a good thing, I just think it needs to coincide with larger institutional commitment to diversity.

Here's a hot take on how I think academic institutions SHOULD operate in an IDEAL world. 

1) Admit any one who wants to attend based on a college entrance exam (kind of how its done in some foreign countries)
2) In specified periodic time intervals, there are qualifying exams to be taken. Those that fail below a certain cutoff will have to leave the school (analogous to PhD exams) 
3) Those that can finish all the coursework and pass all the exams are able to graduate (schools graduate too few/too many students a year should be audited for quality of education)
This is not to say problems with AA and gender bias would disappear, as those with the privilege of accessing resources from a younger age would still benefit - they always will. But this way opens up a larger playing field, where everyone has a chance to succeed, and whether a student can study at an institution is not dictated by a biased admissions committee who decide your capability to succeed based off of a few pieces of paper.
And this way, instead of diversity becomes a moot point, and they would admit you based on your capabilities that you will prove yourself rather.

This is just my hot take, please don't downvote me into oblivion. I understand that there resource constraints that render all of these steps infeasible. But something just doesn't sit right with me in the current way admissions in grad and undergrad are handled. 

Has any one else heard from Brown? I saw the acceptance on the survey site and I am very anxious. 

Where are the functional data analysts when you need them?!
My guess is that most variance is explained by recommendation letters. Other criteria like GPA, GRE scores, and statements of purpose seem to typically be used as binary predictors, i.e. some weight is given to an application if the general GRE Q score is above 165, but if it's lower, then there's a weight penalty. Maybe the form of our relationship is something like 
P(acceptance) = 0.01*1{GRE Q >= 165} + 0.01*1{GPA >= 3.3} + 0.01*1{SoP not terrible} + 0.1*(Rec Letters) + c
where the function 1A is the indicator function over the set A, (Rec Letters) is some enthusiasm score for the letters on a scale of 1-10, and c is a bias term.
My takeaway from conversations that I've had with my recommenders lead me to believe that my admission results are mostly out of my hands now. I've already gotten all the grades I'll have before they see my transcript. I've already done whatever research I could finish before they see my CV. They're also more interested in whether my professors think I'm grad school ready than if I am. So now I'm just filling out the paperwork and hoping for the best! It doesn't alleviate all the anxiety for me, but at least I can rest assured that all of the difficult parts of applying are either behind or beyond me now.