1980 SAT got into Harvard. How awesome is this?

Applying to College
181

<p>QUOTE:
"derrick, I mentioned Caltech as a template of a college that uses one kind of excellence as the measure, as an example of a purist place. This is not my ideal model. obviously, it has its flaws."</p>

<p>Well as you see, even the "purist" model is flawed. Because this is life; this is reality. If human beings were all machines (brains with no other variables), admissions committees could simply use a computerized method of selection. To pretend that subjectivity could ever not be part of the process is to deceive oneself about human nature. Historians and journalists are also not "objective" in a pure sense.</p>

<p>As to IQ, my own objection to the tests of measurement that I have personally seen in education, is that they have been shown over time to be quite inaccurate: they will capture some bright students & miss many others -- some of whom end up surpassing academically & career-wise those students who outscored them on "the IQ test." The tests I have seen are narrow in scope, concentrating heavily on math/science aptitude, but more importantly, math/science <em>interest</em>. Many students report not answering such "puzzle" questions because those bore them; they are frankly not interesting, not engaging to students who are far more interested in wrestling with ideas, words, visual art, and other kinds of intricate problem-solving exercises, comparisons, extrapolations, etc.</p>

<p>I have worked with a specialist in gifted education who is well acquainted with these IQ tests and similarly finds them flawed as an <em>approach</em>. Instead, she prefers to estimate IQ based on meetings with students, since that provides her with a broader picture of the range of their intellectual grasp. She then checks her private estimate of what their score would be if the written test preceded her guess, & finds that she is remarkably close, each time. However, she finds that a prior written test more often under-scores a very gifted student than a personal interview does.</p>

<p>I also think that most of this thread (particularly ramaswami's assumptions) proceed from a distorted understanding of the admissions process & its results. Overwhelmingly, each freshman class at an Elite is a prime candidate, <em>academically</em> and intelligence-wise. It's not as if a third of the class is being admitted based on excuses & soft analysis. First of all, there are rounds of review. You have to make the cut for the previous rounds, and that includes URM's as well. If you are "average," it is not likely you will make it to the final round: those are a very small percentage of any admitted class at a private. (Usually a major donor or some other politically chosen student.) I know that even that tiny percentage is not acceptable to rama, but unfortunately for him, private U's in this country are not pure academies. They are also businesses. If we had a system wherein our private higher institutions were state (federally) subsidized, then such political compromises would not be necessary. You're free to suggest that to the government.</p>

<p>Think about how counter-intuitive it is to believe that private U's, which are <em>highly</em> competitive with each other, have an interest in very soft admissions based on a hope and a prayer. They stake their reputations on being places of rigor, challenge, & selectivity, overall. They cannot afford to admit a significant number of underperforming individuals, or those likely to underperform. Success of their graduates is a HUGE factor for these colleges. It is a major aspect of their marketing -- not only in persuading similar promising individuals to apply & enroll, but also in continuing to attract alumni & other donors.</p>

<p>Back to intelligence for a minute: An additional problem with intelligence as the most important criterion for admissions (as opposed to observed academic performance as the most important criterion) is that some of the most brilliant people are emotionally impaired, which affects performance. This tends to be particularly true in the upper reaches of intelligence, because that often combines with creativity -- the brain dynamics of those two often creating byproducts which make coping difficult.</p>

182

<p>epiphany, Caltech admissions <em>is</em> holistic. They have high numbers because it's unlikely for them to find somebody who is truly awesome at math and science but can't break 700 on the math SAT.</p>

183

<p>epiphany, well said. RE your psychologist friend, in the 1970s Paul Meehl wrote a seminal paper called, I think, actuarial vs clinical prediction and established that formal scoring systems outperform clinical acumen. It is still true. I supervise a teting unit and a diagnostic unit and the tests are superior. Intelligence tests are fairly accurate, there are some type A errors, but few. But we are going away from the subject. The SAT is not a pure IQ test. Nor should students be admitted purely based on IQ; it would make a drab world. And as you point out some of them would be misfits. I have read repeatedly, for example in Dan Golden's book, that only 60% (can't vouch for this figure but somewhere around this) of spots are available for the academic 1s. The other 40% (or 30 or 50) is for the legacies, URMs, development candidates, athletes etc. I would like this section to be completely eliminated. Then I am comfortable with ECs, essays ,etc. I do understand that some of the aforementioned legacies and URMs may overlap with academic admits.</p>

184

<p>collegealum,
ramaswami's major objection is with the Ivies, as I understand it, not Caltech. (Despite his reference in that post, & my quoting of it.) My post was not about CalTech, but about his insistence that there is some "perfect" model of admissions out there, whether holistic or non-holistic. There isn't. A better model might be to admit the perfect scorers + the excellent students who are question marks, but there is not room in any freshmen class for all the students who apply & have proven their capability or likelihood of mastering the work at that Elite college.</p>

<p>As to the set-asides, I've covered that in a previous post. Part of the finances of staying in business when you, the institution, is not covered in main by government subsidy or resident taxation.</p>

<p>I'm all for more government subsidy of education in general, & in particular of certain niches of education, on all levels. I'm also in favor of many more public institutions of higher education. An example of a use of gov't subsidy would be a Public that is a National University not tied to state residency, but to which any citizen could apply, and which would not involve extraneous preferences such as legacies, etc. However, be assured that any such Nat'l University would undoubtedly have a diversity or inclusion element of some kind.</p>

185

<p>epiphany, my quarrel with the Ivies is a mild one. After all 5 of them admitted my S. I am aware that I am possibly reacting to his rejection at HP. I hope you don't think I am too stupid: I assume the ad coms get lots of inservice training, I assume they get visits/lectures from developmental psychologists, anthropologists, experts in leadership, major recruiters, etc etc. If I were Bill Fitzsimmons I would be continuously training my staff on how to mine the data provided by the students. I am not claiming a perfect system exists: it does, in India, in the sense that in 50 years no questions from the IIT entrance exams have ever been leaked or publicly sold (as it routinely happens in all other colleges in India), no legacies, no holistic, all high scorers get in or rather no low scorers get in. But this "perfect system" has terrible flaws: one dimensional kids, social nerds some, introverts ,etc. The Ivies are probably looking at mix of temperament, intraversion/extraversion, risk averse/risk tolerant, etc etc. IQ or SAT will never guarantee success. A smart person has to get down from the attic; even one who writes a poem in seclusion has to sell it or starve, etc etc. I hope the Ivies will let in some of the garret types to see what they get up to, if some will be Mozarts, if some will mature and change, they probably take some risks, perhaps Kaavya Viswanathan was known to be a risk and Harvard took her in to see what if, we will never know. I see your point about legacies/subsidies, etc. A private school needs economic support to stay attractive but Caltech has managed it as have Cooper Union, etc etc. I believe if the colleges abandon legacies, athletic recruits etc tomorrow they will not lack for funding. Many entrepreneurs in America will gladly contribute to maintain a meritocracy. The museums and hospitals , the art galleries, the parks, etc survive and flourish. I do not buy the subsidy argument. That's all. Given the 22000 applicants for 1400 spots I believe the system is working well bar the athletic/developmental recruit/ legacy.</p>

186

<p>rama,
I don't have independent verification of this, but I think the Ivies would disagree with you that they would be just fine without athletics, etc. There are a variety of reasons why they want athletics, not all of them related to funding. </p>

<p>But I think the bigger point was made by an earlier poster. Why is it necessary for you or anyone else to try to remake the ivies in someone else's image? They're happy (more or less) with their identities. That is why I am glad that there are alternatives for those who do not approve of their admissions methods & priorities. A person can choose a public; a person can choose a Cal Tech. A person can choose Oxford, Cambridge (if they qualify, & many Ivy-qualified do indeed qualify for those), where e.c.'s have very little importance; note, however, that scores are not enough for oxbridge, either. They care intensely about the evident academics (such as submitted papers & academic recommendations), as well as how brilliantly, or with what expertise the applicant presents himself in the very serious personal interview. A person can choose one of the many 2-page, simplified applications to Canadian colleges, U's. A person can choose similar fine, but not Extreme tier colleges & U's in many, many countries. A person can obtain a very fine education at U of Chicago, at LAC's, and at hundreds of excellent private colleges.</p>

187

<p>ephiphany, yes there are fine colleges and lots of alternatives. Yes, I am aware that the ivies believe that sports are important, healthy mind in healthy body, the battles of England being won on the playing fields of Eton as Earl Wellington never said, the cohesion, team or school spirit that comes with it, the fact that athletes bring motivation, tenacity, drive and ambition that makes them successful traders who contribute back to the coffers of the school (!!) etc.
They have the right to be wha they want as long as they do not engage in discriminatory practices and I strongly believe they do, currently against Asians.I am not the only one saying this, there have been many many articles and at least a chapter in a respectable book the one by Dan Golden.</p>

188

<p>rami,
You keep citing Mr. Golden as if that proves anything. It doesn't. His work is controversial. Holes in his statements & in supposed parallels he makes have been revealed many times on CC & elsewhere.</p>

<p>If you look at the article I posted recently on Parents Forum, you will see what a strong component asians are in the nation's best universities. This is particularly true for South Asians and East Asians (and which is why, by contrast, <em>southeast</em> Asians are considered URM's & still coveted by Elites). Princeton, Yale, and Columbia are particularly generous in their acceptance of Asians. How many of those are Indians I would have to investigate.</p>

<p>I feel just as strongly on the opposite side of you: I see no support for how supposedly Asians are discriminated against in admissions. I see that Asians apply to a much narrower range of top schools, overall, than non-Asians, and have much more trouble, overall, accepting any negative admissions results. It is unreasonable to expect, from an institution which seeks a broad spectrum of nationalities & ethnic groups, that most of the applicants from a particular ethnic niche will be accepted there, even if the vast majority of them are "qualified." Anglo Caucasians learned this long ago, and have modified their strategy accordingly (ie.., seeking alternative U's as fallbacks). To examine the acceptance statistics alone is misleading. It is possible, for example, that approximately equal numbers of qualified asians as Anglo whites are accepted at Elites, yet that may represent 60% of the super-qualified Asian pool and only 50% of the super-qualified Anglo pool. Since neither you nor I has access to ethnic breakdowns of the full pool, we cannot know that. Further, to examine the matriculation statistics is even more misleading. I know for a fact that <em>last</em> year, most of the Asians who were offered spots at both Harvard & Princeton, chose Harvard. Princeton cannot be blamed for that.</p>

<p>HYP do not want to become "the Asian Ivies," and there is no requirement, including constitutionally, that they do so. But the bigger, more important, principles are that Asians are not being systematically excluded, they are not being passed over repeatedly for supposedly less qualified <em>non</em>-Asians, and that the Ivies do not consider scores to be the ultimate or higher qualifier than certain other academic & academically-related elements.</p>

<p>Every year the Ivies reject many Asians with perfect scores AND MANY ANGLO WHITES WITH PERFECT SCORES. And when it comes to choosing one highly qualified candidate over another highly qualified candidate, the person that student is most likely competing against, is a student of the SAME ethnic background as himself. That is information directly from admissions officers, describing the process. It has been written about in many articles & books, & several officers post periodically on CC. The bar for admission is very high & very risky if you are white competing with lots of well-prepared whites from Westchester, or Asians competing with lots of other similar Asians from Long Island or Northern Virginia. Regionality, and competition within one's region, is a powerful aspect to admissions. I don't care whether they don't do it that way in India. This isn't India.</p>

<p>The Ivies for a few years now have been moving away from the Northeast virtual monopoly on admissions, looking west and south. Similarly, some of the U's in the West have been looking eastward more than they ever did before.</p>

189

<p>It would be nice if <em>one</em> of the top 3 liberal arts universities (HYP) chose students based on academic talent and performance. They could leave AA, just choose people for the non-URM and URM slots this way. Would it be so bad if there was a diversity of selection criteria in the top 3 or do they all have to choose the same way?</p>

190

<p>"It would be nice if <em>one</em> of the top 3 liberal arts universities (HYP) chose students based on academic talent and performance. They could leave AA, just choose people for the non-URM and URM slots this way. "</p>

<p>I think the reason <em>one</em> of the top 3 liberal arts universities (HYP) doesn't chose students based on a narrower scale of academic stats is because then they would quickly drop from being one of the top 3 liberal arts universities. They are as sought after as they are because of the students they chose who are willing to take advantage of all they have to offer. And the proud alumni who are thrilled to help out their school and the new graduates because of it's tradition and heritage. </p>

<p>But perhaps I'm wrong. Why don't you build a university and offer admission on a straight GPA/SAT basis. See how fast it either rises to the top or fails. These universities, as hallowed as they seem, are deep down inside, businesses. If they thought they could keep their cachet by using the same standards for admission as IIT they would do it in a New York minute. It would save on admission counselors reading these essays and sorting through ecs. The class could be chosen by computer.</p>

<p>This entire argument reminds me of a local school. Before I had children we lived in a block from the district line for a school which was considered the best in the state. Houses on the good school side of the line would go for 50% more than the houses across the street. The school was extremely diverse. And the teachers were lauded on their creativity. Students of every level were challenged with unique projects that made them all shine. The reputation of this school started drawing students from Asia. Their parents would come to work in Silicon Valley, and the families chose to settle in this school area just to send their kids to this school. And then their kids started at this school. And the creative projects were found to be more subjective than the parents liked. And the teachers were not giving enough home work. And they wanted more rote work to hone skills such as times tables and vocabulary. The parents wanted this fabulous school. But they wanted it to teach like the schools back in Asia. The creative teachers left to go to schools that would let them be creative. Star testing came in, and found the school didn't shine when it came to objective testing on subjects they may or may not have gotten to yet. The school is still considered good, but it is over shadowed by neighboring schools and neighboring school districts. And the creative educational system that once flourished there has been replaced by a curriculum teaching to the test, because that's what the parents want.</p>

191

<p>UCD alum,</p>

<p>Totally agree with your paragraph 3. I've said the same to students on various threads discussing "strictly" meritocratic-by-numbers admisions. Very little is accomplished by holding one's breath until a desired institution changes to your liking, so that you can become a member. </p>

<p>Same goes for this quote: "If they thought they could keep their cachet by using the same standards for admission as IIT they would do it in a New York minute." </p>

<p>I have also seen the pattern you describe in your paragraph 4, only in some cases it's been a vast majority of white Anglos demanding such changes, at other schools a mixture of whites + Asians, and in still other cases, a large predominance of Asians seeking to re-structure a school to be more like Asia.</p>

<p>I also think that certain aspects of Asian education have their own value, from which Americans can benefit by incorporating those aspects, but those do not necessarily include the process of college admissions.</p>

192

<p>epiphany, I would still do admissions holistically...I would just base admissions on their academic talent and performance. So it wouldn't just be straight GPA/SAT. And also, as I said, they would still be ethnically diverse as I would keep AA. </p>

<p>CalTech does it this way, and it is still a good school. I think a big reason they aren't even higher than like top 6 is because they don't really have humanities majors. They also hurt themselves in graduation rate and value-added because or the grading practices and because the classes are difficult. So the notion that a university would quickly drop from the top is erroneous I think. Also, the vast majority of people think Harvard people are chosen for their brilliance alone, with a few exceptions for the son of a senator and olympic athlete. (That's actually the biggest reason why they are surprised by admissions when they don't get in and the guy ranked lower than them gets in without having anything impressive like being president of the class or a better athlete or something.) And yet people still apply despite this image. </p>

<p>I think one of the flaws in the process is the whole notion of taking people who will "take advantage of the opportunities" and the whole weighting of community service. Like I said before, I did a little of this (~100 hrs.) but there is no way I could keep up with some others who basically did a thousand activities and let their academic work suffer. I was basically taking a college curriculum in high school (a year of organic chemistry, math through multi-variable calculus + number theory, real analysis, and group theory, etc...) Plus, I took my english classes very seriously because I had a real passion for the humanities. I have always planned on being a professor, and that demands that you get the most of your classes. I would hope to make real contributions to the community outside of research, but you can't really do something substantial until after you get tenure. Think about it: would it have made sense if Tiger Woods started his foundation when he was 14 instead of after he got established on the pro tour? That's the problem. Those who intend to develop a talent like that need to devote their time to it. They can do little things to round themselves out, but they can't like be starting up foundations and things like that left and right. And as a consequence, they are selected against. The only way to really ensure admission by being primarily an academic is to make top 50 in math team in the country, which is damn hard especially if you are spending more of your time learning chemistry than math.</p>

<p>Put another way, I think it's important for kids to concentrate on developing basic abilities, mathematical skill, science, and writing ability; rather than differentiating into adult-like professionals. When you are 16, is it better to take someone who works for a real adult newspaper over someone who just works for the school one if the school newspaper guy is clearly a better writer (as indicated by english recs...) Do you have to have a book published like Kaavya V.? I mean, I think they should look at basic talent at that age rather than who has the adult job. If they got something published, look at whether the book is actually any good. </p>

<p>Another point is the vast majority of these "community service" admits are only doing these activities to get into a good school so they can make money. There are people who are genuine, but most are not in my observation. The couple of people who had definite leadership ability but were just ok students in my high school did not do well at all in college admissions, anyway. </p>

<p>Anyway, I think you might be surprised at the amazing non-academic things that academic people end up doing after they become adults. One of my classmates, now a CEO, is beginning to do a lot of community outreach now. My high school itself was founded by a Nobel Laureate as both a place to test new teaching methods, to hold training sessions for high school teachers in the state, as well as to provide a challenging educational environment to the smartest kids in my state. My bet is that the nobel laureate didn't have community service when he was in high school. </p>

<p>I don't really expect to change any people's minds here. Either they agree with me or they don't. I hope that you at least understand my perspective. The bottom line I hope to communicate to young high schoolers is that aspiring to intellectual greatness may not be rewarded in undergraduate admissions, but it is still worth it. They have a responsibility to themselves to hone their God-given talents. I think it is useful for them to know ahead of time so that they are not disappointed when they see their results and possibly lose their motivation.</p>

193

<p>epiphany, I cited Golden as one opinion, I do not research admissions to the extent other people on this blog have done, and I am aware that any book written for mass consumption will rest on some questionable and flawed assumptions. Yes, you have eloquently described the Asian phenomenon, we do have difficulty accepting rejection because as collegealum points out HYP give the impression they select on academics when they don't. You are also correct in saying that asians apply to a narrower range. I cannot agree with you that these schools will lose their cachet; Caltech has not, nor Cooper Union, OK they are tech schools, UChicago has not nor has St. John's (to a certain group).</p>

<p>Re the school presumably in Calif that was too Asian, I read about the white flight. For a century Anglos and Jewish people have had influences on public schools, shaped the curriculums but when Asians do it there is a hue and cry. I do agree with you that the IITs are not the ideal model, have cousins who went there and I would not consider them educated or cultured beyond tech/vocational training.</p>

<p>Collegealum makes a terrific point: I too asked my S to concentrate on basic building blocks, community service and broadening involvement hopefully will follow. The assumption that those who do activities in school will follow them thru life and those who concentrate on academics will not is erroneous. I am not saying any of you are saying this.</p>

194

<p>"epiphany, I would still do admissions holistically...I would just base admissions on their academic talent and performance. So it wouldn't just be straight GPA/SAT. And also, as I said, they would still be ethnically diverse as I would keep AA."</p>

<p>So.....do......the.....Elites. It <em>is</em> based on academic talent & performance. Why does anyone think it isn't? If you really think that a significant portion of students are obtaining admission to HYPSM based on comm. svc. AS A SUBSTITUTE for academics, then I don't know which comic books or tabloids are being published somewhere alleging that. In fact, there are plenty of Asians & non-Asians who post on CC, who have racked up large quantities of comm. svc. hours in the hope that the quantity of those will get them admitted, along with high scores. Yet they have not been admitted, because it's not quantity of hours, or lists of clubs, that the Elites want, or even long lists of AP courses in & of themselves. </p>

<p>Real off-campus <em>achievement</em> will get you at least noticed in admissions, presuming also a substantial level of on-campus academics. But that achievement is not necessarily just any community service, or a large quantity of it. It might be:
-off-campus research
-off-campus awards
-off-campus initiative that has clearly grown organically from either a long-standing personal passion and/or tied to a clear academic interest: that could be service, it could be employment; it could be an extension of the student's existing performing art or sport (development of an off-campus club, or league or activity)
-academics in a setting other than one's high school (such as overseas; such as comm. college leading to a relationship with an instructor there, who has offered opportunities for some joint research; such as early work at a 4-yr college)
-off-campus journalism
-writing opportunities off-campus</p>

<p>QUOTE:
"I did a little of this (~100 hrs.) but there is no way I could keep up with some others who basically did a thousand activities and let their academic work suffer."
....and, after describing what you did (in the way of college curriculum), your classmates who did the above (compromised their academics) got into an Elite and you didn't? I question that.</p>

<p>I agree with your Paragraph 4. I've never said otherwise. I, too, think that what you describe is a product of maturity, & I question whether very many precociously entrepreneurial students actually get admitted to Elites, UNLESS their academics also truly set them apart from their classmates.</p>

<p>QUOTE:
"The couple of people who had definite leadership ability but were just ok students in my high school did not do well at all in college admissions, anyway."</p>

<p>^^ My point exactly. They are NOT getting into Elites over fabulous students. So why are you worried that leadership or comm. svc. triumphs over academics? It clearly doesn't.</p>

<p>QUOTE:
"I think you might be surprised at the amazing non-academic things that academic people end up doing after they become adults."</p>

<p>Why would I be "surprised"? My daughter is a super-academic, accepted to all 3 Ivies she applied to, with outstanding non-academic achievement as well. That's WHY she was accepted. Because she has BOTH, not just one or the other. And she had both in abundance, just like the vast majority of those accepted to Elites. And I fully expect her to continue her pursuits into adulthood, because she wants to. And it was clear she wanted to, before she applied to college. I have never once claimed on CC that non-academic applicants ("soft" applicants) are preferred at Elites, or should be preferred at Elites. Nor are they in fact preferred. It is YOUR (artificial) fight, not mine. And btw, my daughter was not a stand-out comm. svc-wise. She did the same number of hours you did. <em>Some</em> of those hours were an outgrowth of one of her beloved arts activities. It may have helped to reinforce that she did indeed truly love the activity enough to bring it to others, but I hardly think that was the major draw in her application. </p>

<p>QUOTE from ramaswami:
"The bottom line I hope to communicate to young high schoolers is that aspiring to intellectual greatness may not be rewarded in undergraduate admissions, but it is still worth it."</p>

<p>^^Why do you think that message is not being received? You don't think that the Elites value intellectual greatness over community service hours? Who told you that? Actually, that's fine if highschoolers really believe that the reverse is true. That will just make the work of the admissions committees a lot simpler: the pool of serious contenders will be far smaller in that case. This mythology needs to stop. Now. </p>

<p>QUOTE from ramaswami:
"HYP give the impression they select on academics when they don't."</p>

<p>Sorry to be so rude, but you're full of it. When I get back in a couple of hours, I will PM you. How dare you state that the thousands of students, whose files you have not seen, have not been admitted to the nation's premier Universities based on academics?</p>

<p>But before I leave, because I have to go now briefly, I also want to state that one of the major sources of disappointment by students esp. in the Northeast (already overpopulated with students desirous of "only" the Elites), is the similar overpopulation of the same specifically interested in math & science. Not only do HYP have no intention of becoming Asian Ivies, they also have no intention of becoming technical institutes. None. You are not going to remake them in your image. And yes, CalTech & Cooper Union are niche schools. They are NOT major research universities with numerous specialities, etc. And btw, if you think anyone from the West coast has a prayer of admissions at Cooper Union, boy are you wrong. It is a heavily East-Coast-preference school. </p>

<p>I'll PM you later. I've had it.</p>

195

<p>"Re the school presumably in Calif that was too Asian, I read about the white flight. For a century Anglos and Jewish people have had influences on public schools, shaped the curriculums but when Asians do it there is a hue and cry."</p>

<p>The school is not too Asian, and there is no hue and cry. And I wouldn't say Asian immigrants have any sort of monopoly on trying to change institutions. My point was the school was highly desired for it's curriculum. And people were drawn to it, but then tweaked the very essence of the school to be more to their liking. And now the school doesn't have the curriculum, or the cachet, that drew people to it in the first place. That's why I don't think the Ivies are going to change their admission processes to be more stats based. Their cachet is building student bodies based on whole brilliant individuals that have experiences they can bring to the table. The brilliant athletes that can help build school spirit, the brilliant scientists and mathematicians that have questions as well as answers, the brilliant musicians and actors and artists that promote culture, the brilliant social scientists that bring the life experiences of growing up with challenges, and yes, the brilliant legacies that bring respect for heritage and institutions (and money), all are needed to build these student bodies. And these diverse student bodies are the reason so many bright students want to join the club. You take away that, you take away the cachet.</p>

196

<p>ucdalum, I see your point, the unintended consequences of tweaking and changing the character that made it attractive enough to start tweaking in the first place. Epiphany, so I am full of it, eh? Go ahead, be rude, I can handle it. Does it occur to you that by thinking aloud and seeking rebuttals I may actually change my thinking? Like your fine daughter my S too has got into 5 Ivies. The irony of the matter is this: my S took 2 foreign languages (latin and French) to AP Lang and AP Lit, took both AP Hist courses the school offered, both Engl Lang and Lit, etc. At end of junior yr he had not taken the toughest science / math courses, due to nature of curriculum, that was yet to come in senior yr. We saw him, because of humanities emphasis and honors sci and math (with AP sci and math yet to come) and varsity tennis as Ivy material. That is, I told the school counselor that in holistic admissions he won't look Asian (math olympiad and violin!!), for Pete's sake he has studied 2 Western classical languages + varsity sports, but counselor pushed MIT, wrote to MIT and called him a nice geek, pushed MIT against our wishes, he was rejected at MIT and waitlisted at Princeton (shd have applied ED over counselor objections but we didnt have the guts to do so) and accepted at Cornell, Dartmouth, Columbia, Brown, UPenn, Duke, rejected by Harvard. So, in fact, holistic admissions worked superbly, the colleges saw him as making focused contributions, varsity tennis, but valued his scores (2350) and curriculum rigor highly. In other words, I have the evidence in front of me: the Ivies have valued academics highly, over comm service (he had none except the mandatory 30 hrs required by HS), various club memberships, etc. He wrote superb essays, the admit letters quoted the essays, one on flying an aircraft in order to overcome fear of flying, the other on Lawrence of Arabia rescuing the Bedouin. My S would not have been admitted to the IITs (the admits would have had perfect SATs and research and math olympiads), the Ivies saw his academic strengths and beyond. I am reassured that the holistic admissions worked as it is intended to. Of course we are disappointed at Princeton. But tell me: why did high school characterize him as geek? He did not get a single college book award, all given to students supposedly thought holistic by high school but none of them got into an Ivy. And to cap it all, yesterday the school said he is getting the Comp Sci prize and that is one subject he does not like! My beef is with his high school, it seems. Thanks for clarifying my thinking ,special thanks to epiphany.</p>

197

<p>QUOTE:
"In other words, I have the evidence in front of me: the Ivies have valued academics highly, over comm service (he had none except the mandatory 30 hrs required by HS)."</p>

<p>and further:
"the Ivies saw his academic strengths and beyond. I am reassured that the holistic admissions worked as it is intended to."</p>

<p>^^ only 2 of the many times you have contradicted yourself from previous posts. Are you just playing with us, or what?</p>

<p>QUOTE:
"why did high school characterize him as geek?"
"My beef is with his high school, it seems."</p>

<p>And perhaps recommendations (counselor and/or teacher) carried that flavor with them, too? If so, yes, your beef IS with the high school, not with Princeton, who receives tons of "geeky" apps every cycle. Regardless, it may be that his own self-description overrode whatever "geeky" label was put on him, but that P had in front of it, in the final round, your S's app as well as a similar app from someone of any ethnic group who was also from his region but more economically impacted. Or they had an app in front of them comparable, perhaps even better than his, FROM A DIFFERENT REGION while even being Indian. Lots of Indians on the West Coast. </p>

<p>I know what you mean about the "insult," shall we say, of getting the award you least want, & which least expresses who you are, let alone your target colleges. It's only happened maybe 4 times to my younger D in her current school. Extremely aggravating. As to things like school-based awards, they are indeed sometimes more political than anything else. It really depends. If you are a well-loved & respected student universally by faculty & administration, those awards are often quite deserved & meaningful, & helpful to apps. But if you are favored by only key people in certain decisive positions, that favoritism can unfairly advantage you over more objective merit. In our school, National Honor Society & student government are entirely driven by administrative decisions & are NOT based on merit. As to student government, LOL, you don't even get to be SB Prez if you're the most popular. Even social standing doesn't help you. If the Dean loves you, you're in. She "recounts" the votes after the students vote, and "corrects" their decision. Thoroughly corrupt. She often installs her own relatives.</p>

<p>In any case, it is often confusing to parents of students who seem to have achieved so much, yet still do not get admitted. why? someone else has achieved even more, or has achieved the same, against greater odds. I'll PM you.</p>

198

<p>I think if you met this person in life, you'd be quite wowed. Who cares if she can't get great SAT scores? The thing is, when she leads, people follow. She is a great leader in our school, and many people at the top of the class look up to her, despite her SAT scores. She is incredibly personable, makes great speeches, talks with conviction---and I think she qualifies in every aspect except for her test scores.</p>

<p>I know this girl is truly intelligent, despite her numbers. She is going to do great things in the future, and everyone who knows her thinks of her highly and looks upon her with respect.</p>

<p>I wanted to make the point that scores shouldn't matter, especially when someone has such a great personality and is definitely bound to do something great later in life.</p>

199

<p>PFr,</p>

<p>IMO, you probably nailed the reason this girl was admitted. </p>

<p>Many people on this board tend to over-analyze every detail of a candidate's credentials in order to "unlock" the reason for his/her admittance and judge whether it was warranted.</p>

<p>In my somewhat limited, but intimate experience (my D was admitted to H), there seems to be a certain "je ne sais quoi" about some Ivy admittees that makes them highly desireable, and the average CC parent cannot discern this just by analyzing the candidates' printed resume or known credentials.</p>

<p>Ivies have been admitting students for literally hundreds of years, and unless I am unaware of current negative trends, they do a superb job of selecting outstanding admittees. If someone has evidence that their methods produce sub-par graduates, I have not seen it.</p>

200

<p>Re: post 199. Good point. While the je ne sais quoi may result from a combination of concrete factors, I think it's particularly the aspect of "fit" that may be the most difficult to articulate or reduce.</p>