A is for admission

Parents Forum
41

<p>"AI is a formula, yes. But I thought (Xiggi) that Hernandez has said that the formula varies somewhat as to college."</p>

<p>The formula is established to ensure the integrity of the system among the members of the Ivy League. The same formula applies to each and every school. What Hernandez may have said is that the application of the formula for admission purposes may vary. This means that a school may rank the students from 1 to 9 while another from 1-5. </p>

<p>This said I do not think that there is anything magical about the AI. Students with 240 AI have no guarantee of admissions and the range to the floor (seems to be 171) is a very wide one. I believe that its best attribute is to give a pretty good idea as to where a candidate stands. Too many people tell very good students that they be shoo-ins at the Ivies although the AI may be around 200. And we all know that having the qualifications is only part of the admission puzzle. </p>

<p>NeDad, I have to agree with NMD on this one. However, please note that I posted the Yale information mostly to show that, while there is a meaningful difference, the same difference may not be as large as one would think. There is a Cornell study that addresses the recurring myth that Cornell admits dumb hockey players while Penn loves dumb basketball players. While there may be rare exceptions, I believe that is hard to dispute that athletes at the Ivies are nonetheless among the most academically gifted in the country. </p>

<p>FWIW, I believe that the Ivy League would stand to gain more from releasing all the data to the public than from keeping an aura of secrecy. Obviously, I happen to believe that this should apply to every part of the admission process as well. :)</p>

42

<p>AAHHHH! If that were only true. But these colleges have nothing to gain and everything to lose by disclosing such information. Their selectivity is to remain as something they keep very close to their vests. Really, it's a crapshoot; and they got us all by the short hairs. All of the IVY's and elite LAC's have the same kinds of kids apply; high scoring SAT's, great SAT II's, AP classes with 4's and 5's, and pretty much across the board kids with damn good writing skills. The most important thing to them is the consistency which students perform over four years (did they take the hardest classes the school has to offer, and did they do well?) I believe that references can make or break kids at these schools; and really, they do not have much control over that part of the apps. An app. that is consistent; tells the same story about a student throughout and repeats their great performance over and over again in all separate parts of the app. is important. AC's want to see the same message in essays, references, EC's etc.</p>

43

<p>BJM8, it is also possible that additional disclosure might show that it is a less of a crapshoot than it truly is. With acceptances into the single digits, it will remain a very hard selection process. It is also a process that very few of us know or understand in great details. We rely on anedoctal and individual cases all the way to regional or national statistics. What we do not have in front of us is the 20,000 to 25,000 files nicely dissected and arranged to fill a class of 1600 according to an ESTABLISHED set of criteria. There is an element of luck involved as one could be the second best oboe player in a given year but would have been the best in the next five years. </p>

<p>However, it is far from being as random a game as crapshoot is.</p>

44

<p>Xiggi, if only we knew what that established criteria was? Is it different for different schools? Why? Does it just depend, as you say, if they are looking for the best oboe player that year?</p>

45

<p>I read a former Ivy admissions officer saying there were 30-40-50 criteria being evaluated in putting together every class. </p>

<p>To me this suggests a fuzzy logic kind of process...you can't be looking at 30-40-50 criteria for every file and many of the criteria are necessarily subjective. "Best oboe player?" </p>

<p>I do think that class rank is the most overlooked criterion; the stats I've seen where schools break it down show a significant difference between top 5 percent and top 10 percent and one can extrapolate upwards from there if you get a datapoint for valedictorians.</p>

46

<p>D is currently at Amherst as a freshman. She received early write, and her stats were a bit better than the OP's. However, I believe the OP has a good chance. D was flown out for Accepted Student's Diversity Weekend, and because her flight was delayed and the bus left, she was picked up by two adcoms. During the 45 minute ride, she asked what her "hook" was. They said what really stood out in her app was that she was really smart. Interesting, because she had lots of EC's, community service. But she won state 2 years in a row in an academic competition. It would appear that that, reinforced by GPA, class rank and SAT scores really was the "hook" that I thought it would be. Amherst doesn't interview, so the app is crucial, especially the essays. The Pres called D, and referred to her essays, showing that he had read them. Amherst is also really big on diversity, so geographic location and financial status will play into the final decision, as well.</p>

47

<p>A few further comments, after I recover from the shock of agreement with xiggi...</p>

<ul>
<li> There are very good reasons why the elites do not give more specific details on their admissions process, the stats of various subgroups and so forth. First, consider what positive benefit would accrue to the college by doing so? All negatives, IMHO. Yes, parents gain, and yes, some prospective applicants would see how high the hurdles are, thereby not buying the lottery ticket (sorry, thereby not sending in an app...), affecting admitted percent etc.</li>
</ul>

<p>Second, a number of the preferences given, to legacies and athletes, for example, would lead to controversy. They get enough flack now, even with the data quite hidden.</p>

<p>Remember that the purpose of all public communications by admissions is a marketing purpose. Colleges pay consulting firms big $ to help in this process, even the top ones. And most of the juicy data leaks out through other channels, probably to the regret of admissons!</p>

<p>Final note:</p>

<p>Last week, I had an interesting discussion with the head of admissions at U. Chicago about institutional research, and whether they look back at their admissions decisions to see how they correlate with college success. He said that while Chicago doesn't do as much as other places, they have found that the best predictor by far of college performance is the subjective numerical ranking assigned by the readers. They don't use a formula - it all counts in some subjective way.</p>

<p>They also found that the only quantitative measure that seems to matter is undergrad GPA (and probably class rank - we did not delve into that level of detail). He said that test scores add virtually nothing on top of HS transcript.</p>

<p>Interesting.</p>

48

<p>"He said that test scores add virtually nothing on top of HS transcript."</p>

<p>This wasn't true at our hs. We have had quite a few hard-working top students with less-than-stellar boards. Students here knew that these students did not necessarily exhibit creativity or intense curiosity in class discussion or in life, but they would get excellent grades because they worked so hard. The test scores outed them. They were not admitted to the elite schools to which they applied. And often kids who were ranked slightly lower because they were less willing to cater to the teachers but who had top board scores got in. </p>

<p>It is clear, as you say, that the process has a strong subjective component. The readers are, after all, human beings, and the applicant who can convey not only a certain intellectual sparkle but who gets them excited as someone they'd like to get to know and hear more from is more likely to be admitted.</p>

49

<p>One top IVY (HYP) took only one student from our school last year - an athlete with a B- average, mediocre sats. Denied a straight A student with 800 boards on every SAT and SATII and tough classes. Another similar Ivy took a B student who had published in major magazines. It's not just test scores and grades - often they are looking for a particular talent.</p>

50

<p>"A few further comments, after I recover from the shock of agreement with xiggi..."</p>

<p>:)</p>

51

<p>Since you guys are talking about my book, A is for Admission, I thought I'd make a brief Marshall Macluhen appearance to say that the Ivies still use the AI. The main difference from when my book was published is that you have to scale DOWN as there are more highly ranked kids. So while a 9 might have been a certain admit, now that 9 better have some great extras, letters, etc... But the AI calculator is still useful as long as you realize for HYP just being a 7,8 or 9 is no guarantee. 9's are still not that common at Brown, Dartmouth, Cornell, so the odds are good, although not quite as high as the calculator spells out.</p>

<p>Bascially everythign Xiggi has said in this thread, as usual, is 100% accurate. All schools use a ranking of some kind. If you really want to understand why legacies and athletes have such a pull, I highly recommend a brand new book by Jerome Karabel called The Chosen which is a brilliant social history of the Ivy league admissiosn process at HYP. It's shocking to say the least (if you didn't believe there was that much Anti-Semitism, think again), but you'll gain a real insight into how institutional factors have ALWAYS been weighted.</p>

52

<p>A Williams Econ major, with Pres. Morty S*c*hapiro recently wrote her senior thesis on socio-economic factors in admissions at Williams. Taylor E. Lindsey, "Low-income students and college admissions: a case study of Williams College", available here:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.williams.edu/library/theses/%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.williams.edu/library/theses/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>She studied data from the incoming enrolled classes of 2000, 2001, and 2002 -- the entering freshmen of Fall 96-98. Admissions gave her all of the relevent breakdowns, except racial/ethnic data.</p>

<p>Fascinating insight into admissions at an elite liberal arts college. For that three year period, the breakdown of actual enrolled freshmen on the academic index scale was:</p>

<p>Academic 1: 15.3%
Academic 2: 27.1%
Academic 3: 15.7%
Academic 4: 13.1%
Academic 5: 10.6%
Academic 6: 11.3%
Academic 7: 10.7%
Academic 8: 0.1%
Unknown: 2.1%</p>

<p>Flags were applied by admissions office for notable EC strength. The flag is for varsity sports participation in high school, participation in the arts, community service, and so and so forth. This is not the same as athletic department designation and includes more than hard-core athletic department or music department recruits.</p>

<p>Some of those percentages:</p>

<p>Varsity Sports flag: 72.8% (male), 57.1% (female)</p>

<p>Varsity Football flag: 13.4% of male freshmen</p>

<p>Legacy flag (parent and/or grandparent): 13.7%</p>

<p>Overall Arts flags: 25.7%</p>

<p>Specific arts flags included in above:
Dance, 2.0%, Music 17.4%, Theater 1.7%, Writer 1.8%, Studio Arts 2.6%</p>

<p>Community Service flag: 10.0%</p>

<p>Student government flag: 7.7%</p>

<p>Political involvment flag: 2%</p>

53

<p>But aparent, newmassdad had asked Chicago administration about post-admission performance, not admissions results per se. </p>

<p>And of course, Chicago was echoing what many of us have stated for years. (A classroom-to-classroom, curriculum-to-curriculum model) I see scores as a possible check against rampant grade inflation, and as aparent reveals, high achievement in h.s. could indicate the "d" word versus intellectual giftedness combined with a work ethic. The problem is, the kind of intellectual facility required for upper-level college work is not necessarily tested by SATs/ACTs. And that's always the major problem I've had with it. Nor do the test results predict the sustained, independent work commitment required in most 4-yr colleges.</p>

<p>Simulate college-style work in your high school classrooms (standards, level, amount, grading rubrics): there is your closer predictor of admissions worthiness & college performance, i.m.o. Whether that means an AP course, a seminar-style teacher-created course, or a college prof brought in to be paid on a per diem or per hour basis by the district or the private h.s., recommendations from teachers of such courses should be valued by adcoms more than other kinds of recommendations.</p>

54

<p>Well, that doesn't make any of us feel better! Thanks for replying to this post. If it is the case where 7,8,9's still have to have great extras, in addition to their already stellar academic achievements, what then is the "magic pill?" After reading many books on the subject of admission to elite schools (and by the way, I still find A is for Admission" the best one), what really is the answer to the admission puzzle? These kids (and parents) still do not know how to make their applications stand out. If it truly is up to each individual reader to be "wooed" by the essay; how are students to respond? Just when you thought it might be getting a little easier, the elites change the rules. Just what does it take for a kid to get in?</p>

55

<p>"Morty Schapiro" I-dad, thanks for pointing out the correct spelling of the name. Lats year, I spent a few futile moments trying to find a few of his papers and not understanding why google did not bring them up! The Williams website is a gold mine of information on higher education, and the financing of higher education is particularly well discussed.</p>

56

<p>BJM8</p>

<p>Your most recent post troubles me. You make the process sound like some sort of contest to be won, or perhaps a marketing and packaging problem, where the product is the applicant.</p>

<p>Given how little, on an absolute basis, separates a broad swath of schools, I'm not sure such an attitude is justifiable, IMHO. Given that most serious research has shown that the outcome post college is mostly student dependent, not institution dependent, what is the concern?</p>

<p>Yes, it is easy to view this as some sort of contest, where the rules are not published or disclosed, but perhaps discerned. I think that is futile, however. Rather, I think adcoms are quite adept at identifying packaging. After all, they have far more experience at this than we do.</p>

<p>It reminds me of why it is so hard to beat a car sales person. We buy a car once every few years. They sell every day. Who do you think has more experience, knows more tricks? Similarly, an admissions officer sees hundreds of applications. We parents only see a few.</p>

<p>I think there's something to be said for letting our kids be themselves. If they don't stand out, so what? If they don't go to HYSP, so what? </p>

<p>Not everyone can be a star. Mine is not, by most standards, but we are still proud of her, brag to friends about her, and, most importantly, she's happy.</p>

57

<p>
[quote]
Just what does it take for a kid to get in?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I believe the answer to that is that the application must be successful in presenting a tight, clear "identity" that the admissions office can get its arms around. Somehow, you've got to get them to think, "You know, this sounds like a kid who would really add something to campus life..."</p>

<p>The need for a clear identify is why the applications with a three-page laundry list of ECs and awards often don't work. These apps would be more effective if they were pared down and focused in a way that allows an adcom to summarize a distinct identity in three bullet points on an index card stapled to the front of the folder. The laundry list approach is like trying to order dinner at a restaurant with eight pages of entrees. It's just blind luck if the adcoms really focus on your specialty dishes. The whole "list of stats and ECs" we see posted here should really be an internal document. Take it to the dining room table and kick around the question, "now, out of all this mess, what do I really want to feature...." Answering that question will lead to potential groupings of some stuff, cutting room floor for clutter, all with an idea of a concise, digestible application. "Staying on message" as the politicians would say.</p>

<p>Of course, it's also useful if you do a careful job of matching your "bullet points" to likely "hot buttons" at specific colleges -- which is where "fit" is so important. Some colleges are going to respond more to community service. Others to varsity sports. Still others to super-high SATs. It's important to understand that, not just for the application, but for identifying schools where the student will actually be happy for four years.</p>

<p>"A is for Admissions" is an excellent book, especially for the nuts and bolts of the adcom game. But, I actually think that "The Gatekeepers" does an even better job of learning how to think like an adcom and visualizing how an effective "identity" is the whole ball of wax (assuming you've made the cut stat-wise for consideration). If you can create enough of an identity to earn yourself a "nickname" in the admissions office, you'll probably be accepted (assuming decent enough stats). Everything on the app needs to be there for a reason. </p>

<p>The essays are really the opportunity to communicate this identity. I don't think enough students think strategically in selecting their essay topics. Ask the question, "what is the number one thing that adcoms should know about me that would help them visualize how I would be a vibrant member of the campus community". Nine times out of ten, the answer to that question should be the topic for the main personal statement essay and the lead item on the EC list and highlighted one or more recommendations.</p>

<p>The application writing shouldn't even start until you have a concise list of perhaps three key "bullet points" that you want to communicate. Then, it's a matter of placing those bullet points around the app, much like hanging ornaments on a Christmas tree. It doesn't necessarily take world-class awards; it takes bringing a particular interest to life so the adcoms can embrace a living, breathing, likeable, engaged teenager.</p>

58

<p>For elite admissions, I'd go by Chuck Hughes's Book ("What It Really Takes..."), which has by far the most specific info of any book I have seen; he is a former Harvard adcom and really helps you see how colleges sift through the excellent and stellar applicants. Also Dave Berry's book offers very useful details on the art of filling out the application itself.</p>

<p>As I have said before, when we visited Yale the adcom there announced he didn't know how Michele Hernandez slept at night, given how full of misinformation he believed her book to be. It is one to read in order to recognize that admissions are more challenging than most people think they are, but the details are not to be taken as gospel.</p>

<p>To the OP: of course, there is no "magic pill." Or bullet. Or anything. A top student and school leader who fills out the app carefully and, well, shrewdly, is likely to get into an excellent school. Banking on one school is not a good idea. Good luck to your d.</p>

59

<p>Thanks for the book ideas. However, what does filling out the application "shrewdly" mean? We tried very hard to make sure that there were connections in the EC's to the recs. to the essays. We wouldn't know what else to do. We think we sent a well planned application package to Amherst, but now after reading these posts, I'm not so sure that we didn't do "something right." Suggestions for the rest of my D's apps if no admission?</p>

60

<p>Sounds like a shrewd Amherst app to me. Making those kinds of connections so that the app is cohesive automatically makes the app better than half of what they get.</p>