Admission Factors Outside of Numbers

Applying to College
1

<p>Hello all,</p>

<p>I was thinking today, how much weight do schools really put on the parts of your application that can't be "calculated", so to speak? I know there are probably several topics like this, but I thought it might be interesting to start a conversation with people who might actually know the answers.
The reason I ask is because personally I am average or slightly below on paper, but speaking to people who know me and have no positive or negative bias against me they would tell you that my numbers are not reflective of my ability, for lack of a better word. The truth is I am/was lazy throughout most of high school. Speaking honestly, this is an attempt to get some reassurance that my poor statistics won't land me in some college that mimics high school and junior high more than a place of actual higher education. However, I'm sure I'm not the only one who is genuinely interested in the topic. </p>

<p>To get started, does anyone think that, regardless of how well written and composed your essays and application are, that if your numbers are low, whoever it is evaluating you subconsciously puts you lower in the stack? I'm not saying like, instant denial, but a subtle lowering of chances.
This is how I feel, if I'm wrong let me know. </p>

<p>I think, depending on the college --I hope --they look at all parts of the application equally. This mostly stems from the fact that my numbers suck while my writing is more-- though not completely-- reflective of my ability.</p>

<p>Anyone else with questions, opinions or answers?</p>

2

<p>Also, do you suppose your selected intended major affects how they address your application? In any capacity?</p>

3

<p>You raise an interesting topic. There are schools that say they are looking at the applicant’s profile “holistically”. That is, they look at all the pieces you send in, and explain what kind of a student you are: recs, scores, transcript, etc. While those statistics about you (the NUMBER/Grades) tell one part, it also tends to indicate others. In addition, all this has to include the school and its selectivity as well. For instance, if you have really “low” numbers, you most likely shouldn’t be a candidate at an ivy league school. That’s not to say you don’t “warrant” a school, but rather, that it may not be a good fit. (too much emphasis on academics?) </p>

<p>But, there are certainly other factors that play a role, so you can’t automatically rule out certain colleges. How competitive is your school, are you low income, first generation? These add another dimension to who you are.</p>

<p>In the end, it comes down to the school and the fit. There are plenty of students who have “poor” test scores but do well at a top level school, if that’s really what you want to know. But, on the other hand ., if you expect to accomplish as much in college as you did in HS, be sure to consider that too. Students initially choose the colleges, and then it’s up to the college to determine if they think you’re a good fit.</p>

4

<p>Thank you Lima. The particular instance that generated this thought was my interview for Harvard. I hate talking about it because I feel like an over-confident ****** bag (pardon the course nature of my speech). All the same, after I finished the “interview”–which was really more of an excitingly intellectual conversation-- I felt as if a college of that quality (note, quality, not caliber) was really the place to be. That being said, numerically speaking, I probably don’t “belong” with the large majority of people who will be attending a place like that. This area is really to address that idea, which you generously put to words for us. </p>

<p>The idea of being the right “fit” for a certain college. How can we really define that? I’ll be honest, and please don’t take this the wrong way, I feel that I belong in a place like Harvard. Not to say Harvard specifically, but I assume you’ll grasp what I’m meaning by all of this. Intellectually belonging somewhere, and statistically belonging somewhere. How exactly do we go about meshing the two together to better express the true value of where any one person might go?</p>

<p>Excuse my rambling, it happens more often than I am comfortable admitting.
I feel as if a true holistic approach is perfectly acceptable, unfortunately how holistic can something be when it’s judgment is left in the hands of someone who is naturally predisposed to some form of bias-- which we all are. We can trust that the people evaluating our paper selves are experienced and, in the case of any “exceptional” academic institution, well enough informed to overlook any bias that might come up. </p>

<p>To simplify all of what I have said, because I am insecure and feel like it was too much of me talking to myself, I’ll put it like this:</p>

<p>The man who interviewed me was able to see beyond my numbers, which are in fact low. (I promise, I know half of you are suspicious that I am really some top of the line student with nothing better to do than sit around on college forums and strike up lofty conversation for his own benefit) So he can send in his review of me, which, aside from any formal kindness, was probably at least decent. That is one “piece” of me.
My essays reflect my personal qualities and hopefully my passion for life. Really, I wrote about how much I want to be Robin Hood. It made sense, just in a weird way.
These things are another set of pieces.
Allowing for pessimism, the question of “missing pieces” comes in. </p>

<p>Say there is a wo/man sitting and reviewing the entirety of my application. They see the decent review, and the honest-- and hopefully --positive essays. Then they glance at the numbers. My question is, do poor grades create so called holes in me as an applicant? Or will the reviewer be able to piece together what they are given?</p>

<p>I just don’t know, but it’s so wonderful to talk about.</p>

<p>Edit: Terribly sorry for the long wait on a reply, I wrote this and erased it several times before settling here.</p>

5

<p>The thing is, at top schools there is no “safe” way to be substandard. They get lots of very qualified applicants, so there are almost always people who are just like you, except they also have what you lack.</p>

<p>Now, top schools have been known to admit people with lowish grades and test scores, when they have compelling other factors. But do realize that when you get into college, you’ll still be fighting for grades, which will greatly depends on your test scores in courses. If the adcom doesn’t believe that you’ll be able to do that work, it would be irresponsible of them to admit you.</p>

6

<p>I find it difficult, though reasonable, to believe that there are enough applicants to have any number of them be “just like me”. Not speaking for myself alone, I just think the idea of any two people in general, completely forgoing the idea of a group of people, being similar enough to warrant one or two factors being key. I say this because the idea you present is that colleges only want to make safe choices, which I would regrettably agree with. My point is, shouldn’t colleges considered “top schools” be top schools because they are pushing the educational bounds? Without risk nothing new will come of these schools, it would simply be the continued refinement of smart people into smarter people, which is great, but if none of them are innovative who cares how smart they are, or how high their scores were? </p>

<p>I feel like it would be more beneficial to take a risk and admit someone based on a factor of interest, rather than take the safe bet of Mr/s. High Score. I think it allows for progressive thought, rather than perpetuated thought, as well as saying something for the security top colleges have in their educational system.</p>

<p>Basically, why should we want to go to the top colleges if they are only admitting people because they have the highest scores? Shouldn’t we want to go to a college that is going to challenge us intellectually, and hopefully give us the resources and personal depth to create something of worth? </p>

<p>I apologize for my wordy replies, I just hate the idea that a college would willingly ignore potential. Speaking in an entirely hypothetical manner,
say Student A is the typical perfect student, high scores, volunteer hours, basically everything they’ve been told to do to look good they’ve done. Suppose Student B is the “substandard” student who is creative/shows the potential to do something great given the opportunity. (Please ignore my obvious and grossly inappropriate preference for Student B)
Student A has probably been accepted to 3-4 colleges of equal stature
Student B is pretty much relying on this college to avoid poor quality state college.</p>

<p>Who do you think they would take and why?
(Feel free to suppose and add whatever qualities to Student A/B you’d like for the sake of argument.)</p>

7

<p>I can only wonder that why if “The truth is I am/was lazy throughout most of high school” you would want to attend a very strong academic college. After all, the colleges that are the most difficult to get into are academic. They have very high expectations of their students. The courses requires lots of reading, writing, analysis, study, review, work and re-work. For the student who isn’t up to the work, such colleges will be like hell.</p>

<p>So I think admission committees have a responsibility to make sure that someone who will not succeed at their college is not offered a place. It doesn’t make sense for the student. Colleges aren’t set up to hand-hold students who don’t have work/study habits that are essential for success.</p>

<p>So I seriously doubt the “essays” and “interviews” ever overcome a record that shows “laziness” during high school. And I think, that from a student point of view, that is a good thing.</p>

8

<p>I honestly don’t know the ‘extent’ of your laziness. Was it CC lazy or average lazy? Did you just not care for or do excellent in anything?</p>

<p>Interviews and such can help if you’re good at that sort of thing. So can essays.
But frankly, you’d have to be excellent, and/or hooked or desirable for some reason.</p>

9

<p>@Shadowkitt</p>

<p>I would admit Student C, the great student who ALSO shows creativity and great potential. </p>

<p>I don’t understand your argument. Nothing you said makes any sense unless people who have demonstrated academic prowess cannot also be creative… and that is simply not the case. I’m not sure how you could even come to that conclusion in the first place, and it’s frankly kinda offensive.</p>

10

<p>We don’t know the extent of your laziness in high school, but there are plenty of colleges where the focus is on academics that are more reasonable to get in to than a Harvard. If you even thought of applying to Harvard you must be a reasonable applicant, and in that case the middle level of LACs could be good match schools with you in terms of scores. You say you only care about the academic experience, but I come away from what you are saying as desiring caliber.</p>

<p>Also, you have to admit student A. Those things like volunteer hours and good grades are considered necessities because they are important to get. I’d much rather have a dependable worker than a talented but erratic one. In the NFL, would you rather have Tory Holt or Braylon Edwards. There are examples across any field where, at least personally, I would take the consistent preformer over someone with “upside”. Some admissions officers will be more prone to accepting students in your situation, but, for most, I bet that because their jobs could be in jeopardy if they let in enough high risk/high reward types who bust that their job would be in jeopardy, means that they would shy with the cookie-cutter mold student.</p>

11

<p>

</p>

<p>I think schools are considered top schools b/c they cobble together classes where they have the greatest potential, not just potential. It seems you certainly have potential but is it curious to you that a school, if given the choice, would rather choose a scholar that has Nobel-like potential versus a good kid who has potential to be a competent scientist? </p>

<p>If this school were given 5 applicants from each group and had only four slots, and only gave those slots to 4 of the proven students, denied one of the proven students and all five of the “normal” kids – who could blame them?</p>

<p>No one willingly ignores potential. However, a school can only educate a finite no. of students. As admissions officers, their job is to parse them out to those who will best utilize those coveted spots. Well what happens to those great potential kids who are denied? They go onto other great schools (there are many in the USA) and do fine there. No great social injustice is carried out – it’s the marketplace.</p>

<p>If you were an employer needing to fill four openings and get ten resumes – five from proven and well-qualified applicants and five from ppl w/lesser experience or fresh from college – what would you choose to interview first?</p>

12

<p>Shadowkitt, I think you need to check out some of the schools where the students are intellectual and creative, but they are also a little less driven-at least in the area of academic accomplishment. Look at Reed, for example. Very smart, intellectual kids, but often very angular-they are off the charts great in some things and couldn’t be bothered with others, resulting in what can be a spotty-or less than stellar-academic record, but with the ability to hold a really interesting conversation, write a great essay, and/or show great promise in their areas of interest.</p>

13

<p>I agree with M’s Mom. Look into some colleges that are off the beaten path, but still intellectual. Looking into the Colleges That Change Lives might be especially fruitful- they are known for the intellectual challenge and risk-taking admissions that you are searching for.</p>

14

<p>First, I’d like to point out that nobody needs to be offended. While this is a somewhat personal topic, I assure you most of the assertions and statements are for the sake of conversation. </p>

<p>To define my “lazy” nature, I got into high school expecting a lot and quite frankly it didn’t deliver. I came looking for some place to further my pursuit of knowledge and what I got was a bunch of busy work. So by lazy I mean I took on a cynical view of high school which led to my disinterest in half of the material. Homework, large packets of rubbish and often times the lack of interest teachers showed in their own class. Really, I saw too much being thrown at me with too little context and began to hate my surroundings. Now, when you hate something, you don’t engage it, often you just exist with it and count the hours until you can escape it. This was pretty much my high school experience excepting a few select classes. The reason I say I am below average, but I have plenty of self confidence, is because I am a Bish student with the capability of being an A student. </p>

<p>Unfortunately I lost sight of a reasonable approach to high school; looking at it as a four year explanation to colleges would have been much better than looking at it as a four year trial.</p>

<p>Enough about me, back to our discussion.</p>

<p>@amarkov
I’m not saying they can’t have excellent academic records and creativity, for the example I gave I was, but the example was sort of implying that these were some of the later students being considered. My point here is if you are so comfortable admitting people who will perform as expected, then where is there room for expansion? My issue with admitting only this level of student is the fear that they are so similarly geared that the extent to which their questions reach will not be far enough. I mean, it is entirely possible to be creative within the bounds of the norm, but great things come of creativity that reached outside of the comfort zone. It may go wrong many times before, but when it goes in the right direction it takes massive steps. I just don’t see that coming from people who spend their entire life studying what has happened and accepting it. Look at technology and the medical field, over the past years we have made huge leaps and bounds that were massively beneficial to society, but we have slowed down considerably, and I feel like it’s because the only time people with the educational and opportunistic facility to make these leaps only do so when it either becomes necessary, or is a completely safe bet. This is just my opinion, feel free to go on and expand or discuss.</p>

<p>@Books
I think the desire for caliber you might have gleaned from my words is coming from the fact that the only school I happened to list was the top academic school. Truthfully, yes, I do aspire to go somewhere that is worth going to in terms of numbers. However, there is more to be had than just a fine education. We need to abandon the term “academic experience” for something with a more friendly connotation. What I see a good college doing is giving the student the material and resources and education to learn whatever it is they are learning, but to be a great college they should also challenge the student’s beliefs (in terms of education) and give the student some uncertainty to overcome to better produce a desirable pupil. To be completely honest I just don’t see student A questioning what they were told as often as needed, I’d like to put emphasis on the “as often as needed” part because I’m sure if they are as smart as they are they have some level of curiosity. </p>

<p>@T26
How are you to judge potential and separate it from great potential?
How do you know who is naturally inclined to advanced thought
from those who look good on paper because 80% of their life was dedicated to maintaining a set of numbers?
Of course this begs the question who belongs more at a school? The person utilizing the materials to maintain numbers? Or the person utilizing the materials for some side project that might be great, or might be pointless? It’s a difficult call, and I feel it would be some sort of injustice to admit the person who had to obtain their knowledge over the person who could gain more from being at that school. </p>

<p>@M’s
I am driven academically, just when it is given context and meaning beyond “oh this is high school, I’m your teacher, do what I say because I say, not because you want to learn anything.” It’s disheartening when important or actually interesting questions must go unanswered to satisfy some shadowy curriculum that was designed for people who essentially need all the time given (or more) to digest the simple facets of an idea. Pardon my bitter tone, I like to split the blame from myself and heap some on top of the poor construction of public education and the inadequacies of others who caused my loss of interest in learning during crucial moments in my schooling.</p>

15

<p>

</p>

<p>Firstly,let me say that I concur with your main assessment that diamonds in the rough (kids w/great potential but maybe not have been able to express it to date) should be found and given great opportunities. </p>

<p>But — when you’re talking about the tippy top schools, one cannot escape the fact that there’s a multitude of applicants who have a fantastic proven track record of academic success *both measured in GPA/Scores AND glowing examples of their potential<a href=“astounding%20teacher%20assertions,%20national%20level%20accomplishments,%20etc”>/I</a>. To then insert a handful of great potential kids w/o the other academic accomplishments to back them – it’s not hard to see why these schools are under no compulsion to take the less proven applicant. That being said, I also assert that sometimes, these kids are granted admission due to something that just catches the file readers’ attention. As an example, I’d cite some transfer students (whose chances are lower than incoming freshmen) who maticulate from community colleges. Certainly, not a proven route to obtain entrance into the top colleges – but something about these kids grabbed somebody’s attention.</p>

<p>Finally, while there definitely are kids who work for the numbers, for you to say that the tippy top schools blanketly reward those kids is false too. I didn’t work the numbers. I didn’t care what my GPA was or my scores (one sitting, no prep classes) or class ranking. But what was plain was my ambition for learning (taking every advanced class possible including Saturday extra classes – b/c I wanted to) as well as my proven leadership roles. The schools that read my application holistically agreed that I was what they wanted. I was admitted at all schools applied, eventually matriculating at an HYP college – even me, an Asian kid w/o super SATs – imagine that.</p>

<p>Among my classmates, I didn’t find people who were hungry for numbers at all. I never knew a single other persons’ GPA or SATs once at my college. It never came up and it never mattered. I found kids who were just as hungry as I was for learning. For you to characterize Ivies as just full of kids who work the numbers to fool their way past the admissions committees flies in the face of what I know.</p>

16

<p>@26
I can see where you are coming from. It appears that we are both working off of what we have experienced individually. Personally, most of the people I know and see with high grades and SAT scores are the people who basically do nothing but make sure their grades are as high as they can be, seemingly more for the numbers than for the actual value of any given lesson. So please, I urge you to consider the possibility that this situation exists. </p>

<p>To be frank, I am, throughout this argument, comparing myself to the other example students given. I should however point out that I did not intend to imply that Ivies are simply filled with these people who study and that’s it, if I had then I wouldn’t have expressed any interest in them. What I am supposing is that it’s come to a choice between these two people. We’re not looking at where or when, simply this isolated incident where the two types of people described are vying for acceptance. What I am asking is should these two people meet, who looks more appealing to the college? Is it the person who might have hidden potential? Or the person who shows no great promise, but has an acceptable academic record?</p>

<p>The purpose of all of this is really to put my mind at ease, and to generate some interesting conversation, which for the latter, it has. Though I must say it seems to have sparked some discomfort because it seems as if you are reading my words too literally. These are very hypothetical, very what-if, questions and assumptions. </p>

<p>Back to the original idea of this post, do you think that a decent essay and an excellent interview, as well as wonderful teacher recommendations (essentially everything that has no numerical value) can save your chances at a worthwhile college from having an average set of numbers?</p>

17

<p>Does the term “a worthwhile college” truly only mean HYP to you? There are many good, intellectually challenging schools out there with admissions rates in the double digits, unlike those you appear to be dwelling on. I suggest you look into them.</p>

18

<p>By “worthwhile” colleges I mean the one’s that will most likely deny me. I mean a college that adequately fits my intellect. What I’m saying is, numerically, I am the typical applicant for a school like… I don’t know, University of North Texas? Don’t get me wrong, you can get a decent education from most colleges, but it’s like beating your face in with a book and reliving through high school. I say this because people don’t change like everyone thinks, so unless I go to a college with people who are naturally different from the people I went to high school with, it will be a lot of the same in another environment. It just so happens that the colleges in question, which are assumed to be the only ones I deem “worthwhile”, are a majority of the ones that satisfy my need for change. Just saying.</p>

19

<p>< I say this because people don’t change like everyone thinks></p>

<p>Are you serious? I strongly, strongly believe that people DO and CAN change if they wanted. Me, I changed tremendously. I went from a super quite, never-talking kid to a spontaneous as hell and almost annoying son of a and then from that, to a more cooled-down, no-longer-annoying-as-hell teenager. Also, I was in a super downward grade trend and would cuss the hell out of people. Now, I’m in upward trend, making more friends, and actuallY LEARNING about life. I don’t curse at people anymore, and most of the times I use them (rare) I’m laughing or smiling. </p>

<p>Yeah, sure, people don’t change, huh. Right… People can change if they wanted to. They just need the right mind and willpower to do so. And the desire to be better, and try out new things, yeah?</p>

<p>But, see, this is funny. Ever since I changed, I was having a split personality. But I learned to control it, and now I can switch from being very controlled, calm person to a very erratic and talkative one. What price did I pay? Being VERY self conscious of my own actions and choosing who I want to be.</p>

<p>Guess which personality I have now?</p>

20

<p>People don’t change fundamentally is what I mean. There are superficial personality changes, but there is also a point where you gain ideas and beliefs that don’t change, and it’s not something that can be changed without some great or dramatic occurrence within someone’s life. Also, I believe I already addressed the little matter of this not being a ***** measuring contest. There is no prize or recognition to be won by proving you are so much better than someone in this forum. If you want to discuss the idea of people changing or not changing, then that’s fine, but acting put off and disgruntled by some other person’s idea is not the way to go about it.</p>