A new (and larger) Chetty study on elite college admissions is released today

[NiceUnparticularMan]

@TheVulcan

Separate from volunteer work. Separate from extracurricular activities.

Of course not. Character is like anything else with kids, it is developed in part through experience. Activities are a critical part of developing various character traits.

I think the confusion is that by the time you are applying, you also need evidence of valued character traits, and that is indeed a tricky business.

But WAY too many people who generally grasp the concept of holistic review get this wrong. They basically think, “OK, from like grade 5 I will work on my academic qualifications and related achievements. Then when I am applying, I will try to satisfy the character stuff by doing a good job asking for recommendations and writing essays.”

And of course that sometimes works. And often does not. Because they didn’t take it seriously, they just viewed it as a check box thing they could clean up at the end with a little last-minute effort.

If they were instead taking it seriously, then like from grade 5 they would have been working on actually becoming a person of high character. And that involves actual time and effort all along.

And again, what you are saying to the kid who did that, who actually worked from grade 5 on becoming a person of high character, but that who doesn’t get into your hypothetical Harvard, is that they failed at being a kid because they didn’t have enough time left for enough gold stars, and they foolishly wasted time on things that developed character when there were so many more gold stars that they could have been pursuing instead.

And that may well be your values, but it isn’t Harvard’s.

[ucbalumnus]

@TheVulcan

But when I was a high school student in my old country, I had guaranteed admission to any university in the country as a winner of a national academic olympiad in my desired discipline and a 4.0 student. And kids were still kids.

One thing to note is that, in many other countries (other than China and India), the size of the most desired universities is much larger relative to the population of high school graduates each year. For example, in Canada, University of Toronto is about two orders of magnitude larger relative to Canada’s population than Harvard is to the US population. This obviously has effects on the level of admission competition and whether the universities have an overflow of applicants hitting the ceilings of the available academic measures.

[NiceUnparticularMan]

@ucbalumnus

One thing to note is that, in many other countries (other than China and India), the size of the most desired universities is much larger relative to the population of high school graduates each year.

Doing this for Oxford and Cambridge, I came up with something like that an equivalent share of the US four-year college population was at all of the Ivies, all of the Ivy+, and the top few LACs combined.

Obviously you can do different combinations, but I just thought it was an interesting illustration of your point. The sort of people who, say, value being at “HYPSM” over the rest of those schools are actually looking at a target like 1/4 the size of “Oxbridge” in relative terms.

We are really good in the US at finding ways to make the kids of prestige-focused parents feel like failures . . . .

[TheVulcan]

@NiceUnparticularMan

And again, what you are saying to the kid who did that, who actually worked from grade 5 on becoming a person of high character, but that who doesn’t get into your hypothetical Harvard, is that they failed at being a kid because they didn’t have enough time left for enough gold stars, and they foolishly wasted time on things that developed character when there were so many more gold stars that they could have been pursuing instead.

And that may well be your values, but it isn’t Harvard’s.

If deep passion-driven learning were indeed derisively viewed by “elite” academic institutions as “gold-star collecting”, then that would indeed be a clash of cultures.

I don’t think it is though. Not universally anyway. They still like them some gold star winners.

And that’s what makes the whole thing so vexing.

If they were nothing more than just finishing schools for rich kids, this knot would be a lot easier to untangle.

[Thorsmom66]

I’m not sure how a middle schooler works on being a person of high character (beyond the obvious - be kind, be a good friend, don’t cheat etc) - moreover, it is ridiculous to think college AO’s are in a position to judge someone’s character. Based on what? Their essays? Recommendations from teachers that know them primarily in a classroom setting?

[TheVulcan]

@Thorsmom66

it is ridiculous to think college AO’s are in a position to judge someone’s character. Based on what?

It’s a uniquely American conceit (with a very, very seedy past).

Ivy+ grads must be some of the most highly moral people in the entire world.

[hebegebe]

@NiceUnparticularMan

But WAY too many people who generally grasp the concept of holistic review get this wrong. They basically think, “OK, from like grade 5 I will work on my academic qualifications and related achievements. Then when I am applying, I will try to satisfy the character stuff by doing a good job asking for recommendations and writing essays.”

And of course that sometimes works. And often does not. Because they didn’t take it seriously, they just viewed it as a check box thing they could clean up at the end with a little last-minute effort.

If they were instead taking it seriously, then like from grade 5 they would have been working on actually becoming a person of high character. And that involves actual time and effort all along.

Completely agree with this.

After retirement, I became a volunteer college counselor, with a focus on STEM kids. What surprises many of the students and parents is my emphasis on the personal part. For example, I emphasize that fabulous recommendations are not given, but earned by becoming the type of student that teachers love. As an example, I teach that the biggest contributor in classroom discussions is not the one that has their hand up all the time, but rather the student the teacher can reliably count on to move the discussion forward when the class gets bogged down, by reinforcing and building upon the points that others have made.

I like to start working with kids in 9th grade. And one of the reasons I like to start early is that I want this type of behavior to become ingrained so that by 11th grade it is completely automatic.

[roycroftmom]

What a silly notion. The Ivies have graduated serial killers, rapists, and psychopaths, just like any other college. The idea that the AOs are in any position to successfully judge character is absurd.

[TheVulcan]

Don’t forget the Unabomber!

Wonder what his personality score was.

[MWDadOf3]

@Aimlesscat1

But the bottom line for all of this is applicant numbers. They are highly rejective because of the number of qualified applicants. Eliminate all preferences and double the size of Harvard’s incoming class and it is still single digit admit. “Dear Sally” still isn’t getting in.

The applicant numbers are high in large part because of the uncertainty involved. Lots of kids THINK they have at least chance in part because Harvard and the others make the process opaque and random-feeling.

And as to the surplus of “qualified applicants” applying: Of course lots of kids who get rejected could have been successful there. With, say 2000 admission spots, the difference between the 2000 and the 2001st applicant is neglible. (That’s true, too, for 100 admission spots, 1000, 10000, or 50000). But Harvard and others can adjust the level of academic pace and rigor up or down in response to changes in the capabilities/level of its freshman classes. A college can “dumb down” for larger/weaker classes, but it can also do the opposite, and likely has, as the more national/international applicant pool has allowed it to “smarten up” its average admit. That process could be continued/extended.

[Alqbamine32]

@NiceUnparticularMan

But WAY too many people who generally grasp the concept of holistic review get this wrong. They basically think, “OK, from like grade 5 I will work on my academic qualifications and related achievements. Then when I am applying, I will try to satisfy the character stuff by doing a good job asking for recommendations and writing essays.”

However, like the academics, Kids whose parents are thinking ahead about this stuff do have a leg up in being able to demonstrate their character in a way that is visible in a 15 minute read. And just like the athlete who starts their fancy sport at age 7, I think there are kids who have additional opportunities to have their personalities shine because of their wealth. It is part of what is being bought at prep schools —that is letters that highlight what the experience of teaching that particular kid is beyond their grade. My hope/belief is that most holistic admissions offices are savvy about how to read such apps in comparison to kids with fewer resources to help with college apps. However, I still think that if a teacher can’t write a positive rec about a kid as a learner and classmates, they should alert the kid to find someone else not torpedo the app. Not that I’ve read that many truly negative letters, but I have read a few where it is clear the teacher has concerns about the student’s (negative) impact on their classmates (despite awarding them a A). A little more common is the lukewarm rec that doesn’t say much beyond the transcript v. And then the committee has to discern if it is lukewarm because of an overworked teacher who doesn’t have time to write something glowing and personal to the individual kid vs. lukewarm because the kid is a pill and the teacher doesn’t want to say so directly.

[TheVulcan]

@MWDadOf3

The applicant numbers are high in large part because of the uncertainty involved. Lots of kids THINK they have at least chance in part because Harvard and the others make the process opaque and random-feeling.

Ding-ding-ding!

[NiceUnparticularMan]

@TheVulcan

If deep passion-driven learning were indeed derisively viewed by “elite” academic institutions as “gold-star collecting”, then that would indeed be a clash of cultures.

Based on what they have said in numerous contexts, Harvard and its peers are a bit skeptical about how many HS kids truly have “deep” academic passions, but they are also open to the possibility. However, they end up fine with many of their students just having explored a variety of things so far, and not having any firmly-fixed idea yet of what they want to study in college.

Again, I am aware students in, say, the UK have already been required to specialize in a course. Not only do Harvard and its peers not require that of HS students, they typically don’t require it until you are a junior in college, and even then you can switch (I did) as long as you can still satisfy the requirements.

So, most successful Harvard applicants in the current system have what are sometimes called “average excellent” profiles: they have taken the most rigorous core courses available in their HS and gotten near-perfect grades, and often (not always) they have scored very well on a standardized test. This in fact is how Harvard describes an academic 2: “Magna potential: Excellent student with superb grades and mid-to high-700 scores (33+ ACT).”

They may also have done some out of school pursuit of one or more academic interests, but there is no indication Harvard actually requires this. Because their model allows for people to still be exploring interests, and they are fine with that being done through classes in your HS.

OK, so what do I mean by gold stars? Well, if you want to devote time out of class to further study of some specific academic interest, great. What I would hope for you is that rather than have that be about “achieving” anything, or being “impressive”, or so on, it would just be whatever best allowed you to explore that interest. Like, it could just be reading books, for example.

What I think is not good is if you are doing that because you want to get admitted to a “top” college. I understand motives can be mixed, but the more you are looking at every possible use of your time through the lens of “How will this look to Harvard?,” and the less you are thinking, “Does this sound interesting to me?,” the less I think it will actually be helping you explore your interests.

And Harvard and its peers are doing what they can to limit the pursuit of “gold stars” in that sense. I really don’t think that if you are truly pursuing an academic passion outside of class, that will somehow be limiting to you. But you don’t need to spend all your time documenting your “achievements”. And indeed, to be blunt, Harvard internally was obviously quite skeptical about how much most HS students could truly “achieve” in terms of serious academic work.

[Data10]

@TheVulcan

"…rating applicants on non-academic factors favors the wealthy, even though it doesn’t predict success. But an even bigger problem with holistic admissions is its purposeful ambiguity. Nothing is guaranteed, and you never quite know where you stand. For achievement-oriented kids (and parents), that ambiguity means that no college preparation is ever good enough. We’ve created an unhealthy college admission culture centered around gaming the system and figuring out “who gets in, and why ?” That’s bad, and it’s likely to get worse as more schools go test-optional.”

It’s important to note that wealthy persons do better on every analyzed rating factor – not just the non-academic ones. Wealthy persons show the greatest degree of discrepancy on scores, rather than non-academic ratings. As such, it follows that making the ratings component on which wealthy persons typically have the greatest degree of advantage over non-wealthy optional hurts wealthy families on average, rather than helps them. Some specific numbers from the paper (appendix table 3) are below.

For example, 1 in 5 top 0.1% income kids gets a 1400+ score compared to 1 in 1,000 bottom quintile income kids – ~200x higher rate of 1400+ scores. In contrast the rate of high non-academic ratings is ~double lower income kids – a completely different order of magnitude and degree of influence.

Distribution of 1400+ Scores by Parents Income
0-20th Percentile Income – 0.1% of kids get 1400+ score
20-40th Percentile Income – 0.3% of kids get 1400+ score
40-60th Percentile Income – 0.5% of kids get 1400+ score
60-80th Percentile Income – 1.3% of kids get 1400+ score
80-90th Percentile Income – 3.0% of kids get 1400+ score
90-95th Percentile Income – 5.5% of kids get 1400+ score
95th Percentile Income – 7.5% of kids get 1400+ score
96th Percentile Income – 8.4% of kids get 1400+ score
97th Percentile Income – 9.8% of kids get 1400+ score
98th Percentile Income – 11.2% of kids get 1400+ score
99th Percentile Income – 13.5% of kids get 1400+ score
99.9th Percentile Income – 18.4% of kids get 1400+ score

[ucbalumnus]

@TheVulcan

Don’t forget the Unabomber!

Wouldn’t he be in the “serial killer” category?

He did give an entry for the alumni directory listing occupation as prisoner and awards as eight life sentences.

Ted Kaczynski, the Unabomber, lists himself in Harvard 1962 alumni report;...

[DigitalDad]

@DroidsLookingFor

should schools not at least try to screen for “nice” in an effort to weed out the jerks? Even if the jerk is the #1 student in some discipline(s)?

Assume all schools did - would jerks be denied education completely?

[MWDadOf3]

@Thorsmom66

Because the “unhooked” (i.e. the unwashed masses of very bright students) make up the vast majority of applicants, even if you remove all preferences you will still be left with an enormous pool and few spots. There is no way around that math.

But if you reduce or eliminate hooks that correspond weakly or not at all to academic and later-life outcomes, you open more spots for bright, ambitious future leaders and innovators.

A Harvard that admits 1000 of the very best, plus 700 who were not nearly as strong, but were hooked as legacies, development cases, faculty kids, or athletes can perhaps be improved by admitting 1700 of the very best, instead (or so some of us are arguing…)

@TheVulcan

@Alqbamine32

and there are kids who you don’t want to inflict on future classrooms no matter how talented they are in other areas.

I’ve been reading up on Oppenheimer following the recent Nolan’s blockbuster. Apparently, he was such an obnoxious type during his graduate studies in Europe that his fellow students signed a petition demanding that the professor silence him.

But he had no problem getting into Harvard for undergrad. Go figure.

I think of what a 17 y.o. Elon Musk may have been like. I think there’s a good chance that some of his teachers may have found him (or at least a younger version of the 2023 Musk) insufferable, arrogant, a jerk, etc.

Same perhaps for many others - Steve Jobs, in particular.

Brilliant people often have high opinions of themselves, ESPECIALLY when young (and lack the social grace to hide that behind false humility). Some teachers may recognize and appreciate the genius despite the rough social edge. Others may not. These students may be much more intelligent than some/all of their teachers…

[gardenstategal]

@NiceUnparticularMan

Most notably, it requires a high degree of standardization of courses and tests at the secondary level. This allows institutions at the tertiary level to meaningfully compare applicants in a very precise way.

Many districts relatively quickly reject the IB precisely because the idea of a curriculum developed by someone other than them (including foreigners) is highly distasteful. Standardization is a really tough sell in the US, and that’s tricky for colleges.

[DroidsLookingFor]

Except nowhere does it say that character is the most important factor, simply one of many factors considered most important. Sorry but those are two different things.

Nor is any applicant able to judge for themselves that they “hit all the measurable points on this list out of the ballpark.” Measurable how? By whom? Whose is ‘better’ - 800/770, or 790/790? What about the non or less measurable, i.e. subjective points? Or the ones they simply don’t see (e.g. recommendations)? Sorry, not possible to determine. Certainly not by an applicant.

@TheVulcan

Suffice it to say I would make sure I get all the 800, 800 ones in first.

Sorry but in fact it does not suffice because in your world, which I’ve granted, we’ve “fixed” the measurement problem by creating tests challenging enough and with enough tiers so as to make the necessary determinations. If there are so many 800/800 kids that you can’t take all of them, then the test isn’t good enough, by your own definition. Sooner or later you’ll run out of 800/800 applicants if the test is good enough, in your world. Therefore, sooner or later you’ll get to having to admit kids with scores below 800/800.

So which do you pick? I’ll put a finer point on it. Which do you choose:

A) 800/797
B) 799/799

Pick one.

[mtmind]

@TheVulcan

@TheVulcan

to every detail of an applicant’s life in a futile effort to discern who is most deserving.”

“The premise of holistic admission is that if we stare long and hard enough at a 17-year-old kid’s self-presentation on their college application, we can discern who is most worthy. I think that is folly, and our paper’s results back me up.”

@TheVulcan

“All else equal, applicants with high non-academic ratings don’t do any better in terms of earnings or graduate school attendance. However, academic ratings strongly predict later life success. The implication is clear, at least to me – the “extras” in a s student’s application privileged by holistic admissions policies don’t do a very good job of telling us who is going to succeed.”

Most deserving? Most worthy? Earnings and grad school attendance? Who is going to succeed?

What is this author talking about? These aren’t the goals of admissions at these universities. Harvard doesn’t favor a rural kid because that kid is most deserving or more worthy. The author either misunderstands or is intentionally misstating the goals of these institutions in order to fit with his preferred, alternative approach.