Anecdotally, CC appears to skew towards parents of STEM kids and STEM kids. With that seems to be the belief that test scores/GPA reins supreme. I’m curious, tho, if you believe that your kid has benefited from holistic reviews of students?
I’ve seen those parents believe strongly that high test scores correlate to leadership and strong ECs, which I haven’t seen to always be the case.
I’m a huge fan of holistic looks at applicants as I have kids in non-STEM fields with fantastic ECs, leadership and average math test scores.
Several strong leadership positions in and out of school, 10+ years commitment to a sport (with awards and leadership), website creations for passion projects, written a book, youth leader for a unique camp for 8 years, co-owner of a small company…
I’m not sure if CC parents correlate high test scores with strong ECs/leadership; I think rather it may be that test scores and GPAs are objective and comparable where ECs and leadership are not. They are also the metrics that are released by colleges and college experience systems like naviance. I think what some parents on CC miss is that those metrics reflect an initial hurdle and holistic admissions requires layers of other attributes beyond that hurdle. As results come back you see the parents (and students) that say - I don’t understand, my kid had a 15XX, a 4.xx (clearly using weighted), and 10 APs, why didn’t they (I) get in.
It is much harder to compare ECs and leadership and what those activities actually meant and provided to the student applying. I do believe that a holistic review was helpful for my kids. For the most part they did what they loved and loved what they did. I think when that’s the case and it shows, it is an advantage - even over a huge laundry list that “sounds” impressive in a CC chance me. I also think, right or wrong, writing skills make a huge difference. If the main weakness in your kids’ packages is average math scores, I don’t believe that will hold them back. You just need to find the schools that value the skills and qualities that your kids value. I believe holistic actually works! Good luck!
More information generally leads to more knowledge. For example, considering GPA in isolation is less meaningful than considering GPA in the context of what courses were taken, which courses had higher/lower grades, harshness/leniency of grading in particular HS, etc. Considering comments from teachers/GCs + essays + ECs/awards + … is more meaningful than looking at stats in isolation. I believe the importance of stats in isolation tends to be overemphasized primarily because they are more visible and easier to compare, rather than “reigning supreme.”
At highly selective colleges, admission on stats alone would mean anyone who has less than 4.0 UW + very near perfect SAT/ACT is rejected . I expect this describes a good portion of admits who post on this site, suggesting that they benefited from holistic reviews.
For example, I was admitted with Stanford, MIT, and multiple Ivies with bottom quartile of entering class stats in both HS GPA and combined SAT scores. That stats don’t explain that I took a higher level of rigor than likely anyone from my HS had ever previously done due to special independent mostly study designed by teacher and supported by GC, including being a half-time student at a nearby university where I received straight A’s and had a great LOR from a professor in a post-calculus math class. My non-A grades were generally in HS freshman/sophomore year English or foreign language. Similarly my test scores were distributed as perfect in anything related to math/science, while applying as a prospective engineering major and weak in things relating to vocabulary. I clearly benefited from the holistic context rather than going by stats in isolation.
Even my kids have several garden variety ECs :-). Managing editor of a school magazine, head 3-4 other important clubs in the school etc. Incidentally a STEM kid. These things are nice to have, perhaps even necessary, but don’t move the needle. The stuff that really moves the needle are the ones that have external validation and large scale impact. Let me give you three examples: a kid I know is the head of the high school democrats in our state, several cycles ago, organized actively in the elections, directed fund raising and voter outreach, wrote policy positions and drove the passage of some law in the state legislature. This kid got into an Ivy. In fact there are some 150 such kids that hold national level or state level office every year, and mostly they all get into an Ivy or a T10 school from what I hear. Another kid I know setup and edited an online literary magazine to give voice to dozens of writers on issues that are relevant for them, and over time built a readership of 10k (properly measured and documented) in over 60 countries. This kid got into an Ivy. I heard of another kid that went around Japan and collected stories from old people about their life and time in the past, wrote a book/diary, and presented it to the Japanese national archives as a gift. This is invaluable service to record the culture and times of a generation that is dying away. He got into an ivy.
So STEM parents can recognize extraordinary ECs from non STEM kids :-). But they need to be unambiguously extraordinary.
Those are certainly extraordinary ECs, no doubt. But perhaps not all kids are looking for an Ivy-level education. ECs can also help one get into top 20 public schools as well.
My daughter’s admission decisions have been better than you’d expect based on GPA and test scores alone. She writes very well, holds a leadership position (voted team captain as a sophomore), and has ECs related to her anticipated major. She did not apply to the most selective schools and is still waiting on a few regular decisions. Even though she exceled at the school and community level rather than state and national level, it seems like she has had an edge in holistic admissions. If I had to guess, I expect that her main essay and short essays stand out.
I am a test prep tutor and I know for a fact that high test scores do not necessarily correlate to leadership and strong ECs. In fact, I totally disagree with that premise. I also don’t agree that a lot of CC’ers believe this to be the case.
I personally know a LOT of leaders and active and involved students who don’t get super high test scores. I know a few high scoring students who have the whole package. Both kinds of students can do very well in college admissions.
Test scores are less and less important now. In fact, as many colleges have already stated they will be test optional again for next cycle, I almost have to wonder why colleges bother with test scores. Because right now, for the most selective schools, students are submitting only very high scores. It provides a measure of nothing when only high scores are being submitted.
My S definitely had better admissions than expected. 1430 SAT, unweighted GPA 3.8, a few Cs in 9th and 10th grade and had T50 admissions. Had music and performing arts ECs that were high level and connected to the schools at those departments.
I’ve seen many parents on here lamenting the holistic review process and feeling strongly that quantitative measures should be the only thing used in admissions. I’m mostly on the UC school pages so maybe that’s why I’m seeing that more.
I think some parents worry that holistic admissions allows colleges to give subsets of students unfair advantages. This would include the big boost that many athletes receive. Some students don’t have the resources to participate in extracurriculars or participate at the same level. For example, a student might be in the orchestra but not have access to private lessons.
I suppose that’s similar to the unfair advantages those with means have to raise their test scores and GPA with tutors and resources. I would argue, tho, that not all ECs cost money.my daughter’s strongest ECs are head of a school club and youth leader at a free camp.
Parents that don’t like holistic admissions don’t like them because anything and everything can be included under the umbrella of holistic. Sometimes you will like them. Sometimes you won’t. Nobody really dislikes academics, sports, ECs, leadership, arts etc. When you start adding other random things, then it becomes a problem. At some level the place you are going to is still an academic institution which is expected to give you an education.
@neela1-- why is it a problem? Because a parent can’t figure out how to shape their kid’s life to maximize their college chances as opposed letting their kids do what brings them joy regardless of it looks on their applications?
Why is it problem? If it is because a parent can’t figure out how to game the system to maximize their kid’s chance then I’d call it a positive feature and not an issue.
You are assuming that some other parent is trying to shape their kid’s life more than you or me :-). if all of us were not trying to guide our kids to some degree or other, we would leave them on the streets, and not bother having this conversation on CC :-). I am saying that certainly you agree that some things shouldn’t matter for admission to a college right? For example, if a kid is a juggler (I am trying hard to find an example), or a good cook, it shouldn’t matter for a regular college admission right? Because the kid is not applying to a juggling program or a cooking school. That is all I am saying. You can’t say my kid sings really well, and you should give her admission to the molecular biology major. That seems incorrect to me. At some level the notion of holistic is being abused.
Well if the kid was a world class juggler who was performing for kids around the world and brightening their day and making this into an amazing program to help others, that would be an amazing EC and a college would want that kid to improve their school and diversify their student body. This is why holistic admissions is important. Because schools want student bodies that are diverse and interesting. So my kids who are musicians and performers improve the student body and the college even if their GPA is .1 points lower than other kid.