hey, im half way through the book
some of the accepted students really dont seem that spectacular…by today’s standards anyways
could this be because it was published in 1998, and the world of admissions has changed a lot from then or am i just delusional<br>
…
<p>I don't think it's changed that much. Admissions works in mysterious ways. When you are applying, it seems like the only people who get into highly selective schools are the "walks on water" type. But once you are there, or start hearing about who got in where, you are always going to find students who "really don't seem that spectacular" but got into X, Y, Z highly selective college. And there will be people you thought would get in everywhere, who get surprising rejections. It's just one of the reasons that you should always apply to your "dream school" if you have one, but not take any rejections personally.</p>
<p>damn i hate lotteries(i never win)</p>
<p>I think there's no doubt it's harder to get into most schools than when that book was written. I think the idea is the same where ECs, character, how they look at high schools and such are concerned, but selectivity in terms of GPAs and SATs have gone up.</p>
<p>As a numeric guide it's not 100% current. However, it will give you a general idea of how intese the elite college admissions process can be.</p>
<p>Well do you still think that seniors with AI of 8 or 9 has a 90%+ chance of admission and the 7's still have 70%+ ? Can someone give me an educated conjecture...</p>
<p>Read Katherine Cohen books such as Rock Hard Apps. They're more up-to-date and in-depth than Michelle Hernandez. The essays on some of Hernandez's books were horrible, though claimed to be good.</p>
<p>formulas and guidelines may still be the same, it's just that it's gotten much more competitive to get in. i graduated in 2004 and i found the book to be useful and similar to many of the other books out there still, including katherine cohen's.</p>
<p>I don't think that the author, Michelle Hernandez, would think it is outdated, but I have a lot of problems with the book no matter when it was written. Ms. Hernandez seems to consider adcoms as the agents of Social Darwinism. She considers getting into an Ivy as the only worthy goal of a high school student. In the first chapter, she explains to the reader that the members of adcoms are not usually Ivy educated and that the applicants have to understand that they are being judged by people not as smart as they are (almost a quote). There are also odd things such as the time she spends on the AI number. This number is only used by the Ivies for athletes to ensure that applicants are not getting too much favoritism because they can help the team. The calculated AI may give some idea for the reader at home of their "quality", but it doesn't overwhelmingly affect admissions. Consider the effect of URM, legacies, athletes, development cases, VIP's, ED applicants, and "hooks" on the admissions process.</p>
<p>Good behind the scenes books are "The Gatekeepers" by Steinberg (Wellesley), "Admissions Confidential" by Toors (Duke), and "Harvard Schmarvard" by Mathews (numerous schools).</p>
<p>The one thing I found striking was how she downplayed the common app. According to her, it was designed to increase application availability to disadvantaged students who couldn't afford to call long distance and request an university-specific application and didnt' have a computer to request one online. In her view, when an upper-middle or prep school kid uses the common app they are abusing the system to apply with a scattershot approach. She says it sends the message that the applicant is not genuinely interested in X University but that X University is probably just one of many top schools to recieve a xerox copy of the common app in hopes of getting accepted to a few places.</p>
<p>I was thinking about applying to a few more match/reaches with the common app (mostly because I didn't want to bug my teachers with more rec requests), but now I'm a lot more hesitant. After reading everywhere that the common application is viewed in the same light as the regular application, her comments were quite a shock. Now I don't know what to think.</p>
<p>The colleges that accept the common app have agreed not to give any favoritism to applicants using the college's app over the common app. Of course, it might bother somebody somewhere. Some selective colleges do not have their own app, but only use the common app. Be aware that colleges that accept the common app may require supplemental forms and probably have their own additional essay questions.</p>
<p>I would recommend using the common app, but not xeroxing it. Fill out each copy of the common app using ink.</p>
<p>I actually think the selective schools pushed for and adopted the common app just to lower their acceptance rates. As always, the absolutely most popular school, Harvard, disproportionately benefits, resulting in higher yields than almost anyone else.</p>
<p>I would agree that the common app can be a tool employed by colleges to lower their acceptance rates (by encouraging more applications, hence boosting their selectivity). But what does that have to do with a school's yield rate?</p>
<p>
[quote]
She says it sends the message that the applicant is not genuinely interested in X University but that X University is probably just one of many top schools to recieve a xerox copy of the common app in hopes of getting accepted to a few places.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I've always had teh same guy feeling and it's good to see a professional voice it. Applying with a specific University's application has always seemed like a better option to me...the common app has always seemed like a scam.</p>
<p>Why would an attempt to simplify the process for high school seniors be a scam? Who is benefiting from it except from the high school seniors? Anyway it doesn't help that much. Each school still has its own essay questions as an appendum. Filling out the blanks on the form if the least of the work.</p>
<p>Once you fill out the first form and discover the general format, the CCB of your high school, your GC's phone #, your GC's fax #, and a few other items, filling in the rest of the application forms is easy.</p>
<p>I think acceptance/usage of the Common Application has changed quite a bit since Ms. Hernandez wrote her book, so I don't think her advice regarding what application to use is valid today.</p>
<p>I thought she said the AI was originally made for athletes, but now adcoms just use it for everyone.</p>
<p>Also, I thought they prefer to see the application typed rather than written...</p>
<p>"But what does that have to do with a school's yield rate?"
Kids are applying to more schools, and getting accepted at more places, reducing the yield of these institutions. Thus, one who is accepted to multiple colleges usually picks the most prestigious one. Don't hassle me about your own anecdotes or why its wrong to pick the most prestigious university, and instead compare Harvard's yield rate to others.</p>
<p>When it comes down to whether or not you type the app or not, you know its a lottery. At any rate, the author of "A is for Admissions, Michelle Hernadez, has another book that was published in 2002 titled "Acing the College Application". She not only says that you should use ink instead of at typewritter so that it doesn't look like your parents did it, but she recommends blue ink over black ink unless the college specifically requests black ink like Brown does. Okay......</p>
<p>I actually recommend "Acing the College Application" very highly. It takes you thru the application process from the viewpoint of the actual app. Two things about the book:</p>
<p>1) She says to "never attach a resume". According to her: "Colleges do not want resumes. In fact they consider it somewhat presumptuous on the student's part to think they are important enough to have a resume in the first place." She recommends that you attach an "activity list" which is in the same format as the chart on the app for the EC's. This actually makes a lot of sense to me and perhaps you should look at the book.</p>
<p>2) She still says not to use the common app, but it is more of a statement that you don't have anything to lose by using the college's app form instead of the common app. In her words: "why take a chance".</p>
<p>Concerning the AI. I've read several places that it isn't used except for athletes. The formula depends entirely on SAT I scores, SAT II scores, and class rank. It doesn't seem important when you think about all the talk about EC's, not to mention URM's, legacies, athletes, development cases, VIP's, and ED applicants.</p>
<p>Well some colleges only take the common app, so clearly they are not worried about getting messages from how the application was completed. </p>
<p>For reliability, cost (no postage), and neatness, nothing beats filing the common app electronically. Perhaps print out copies for your records, but they colleges will see a neat, tidy, complete electronic file, and they will not have to scan your application when they get it.</p>