Admissions is a crapshoot for NOBODY

Applying to College
1

I posted this in response to a thread in the parents forum, but was wondering how my peers might respond to this:

To suggest that those who aren’t athletes, musicians or URMs face a crapshoot is LUDICROUS!!!

I’ve recently gone through the college admissions process and will be attending Stanford in the fall. I am white, upper-middle class suburban, was not recruited for athletics or music. These are my thoughts:

Leaving aside special consideration for certain students whom schools recruit for non-academic talents: sports, music, prior poetry/writing, drama, race (debatable), college admissions is NOT a crapshoot, not even for Harvard, Yale, Princeton and Stanford.

Among my 20 or so good friends (whom I have met in all sorts of contexts) who will be attending Harvard, Yale, Princeton or Stanford this fall, most, if not all, got into AT LEAST two of those schools if they did not apply early to one and remain contented with just one acceptance. Additionally, of the admitted students I met at Princeton, Yale and Stanford’s admit weekends, I can say that a significant plurality had also been admitted to AT LEAST two of those four. My friends were from all different parts of the country, of different races and socio-economic background, and with one or two exceptions not recruited for anything. As far as I could tell, this was also the case for most of the people I met in April. But what did unify these people beyond showing passion (work ethic?) was an intellectual spark. There is a certain degree of intellectuality - a thirst for knowledge, a jocular quality, playfulness, questioning - that surpasses simple academic ability and DOES separate one 1600 from another.

I would further posit that this is an important differentiator, as it draws a line between who will simply be smart, who can work well within a given paradigm and apply information, who will become the competent technocrat lawyers, doctors, bureacrats, teachers our country so sorely does need, and those who will contribute to society’s intellectual exchange in more meaningful ways. At age 18, you cannot predict who will play this role, but you can forecast. Those who show a certain spark at 18 that surpasses good grades, intelligence, and even simple passion assume their role in the pantheon along with great musicians and athletes as people who are truly unique and whom schools like Harvard and Stanford really want.

Furthermore, the college application serves as an (admittedly imperfect) tool to decipher whose cranium (and not heart) might operate on this level. Essays convey one’s cognitive modus operandi, recommendations and past activities back up such claims, and grades and scores establish the sine quis non of academic competence and knowledge.

As an aside, let me note that plenty of people who do possess this quality don’t necessarily get accepted to Harvard or Stanford. It is no binary whose presence is always openly and readily discerned, but you can tell…

This is not the only quality top schools look for. Passion, and intangibles of the person (personality, moral fibre) DO matter. As do traditional measures. But when many more apply than can be taken possess not only good grades but also passion and moral fibre, harvard and stanford not only must but SHOULD discriminate based on this intellectual spark. And it is my observation and hypothesis that they DO.

2

<p>I extend my sympathies.</p>

3

<p>You sure are harsh in judging folks who had all of the qualities you describe and did not gain an acceptance......luckily all of your friends are just like you. ICK!</p>

4

<p>That's an interesting idea. I can't really comment on the true veracity of it, as I haven't been through the admissions/essay process yet.</p>

<p>As far as the Ivies being a crapshoot...I think part of what you said illustrates the random nature of top-tier admissions. Like, here:

[quote]
Additionally, of the admitted students I met at Princeton, Yale and Stanford's admit weekends, I can say that a significant plurality had also been admitted to AT LEAST two of those four.

[/quote]
Why, then, if these students had "the intellectual spark" did they not get admitted to all 4 of those colleges? Because, as many people on CC say, selective college admissions have a significant luck factor involved. </p>

<p>That's not to say that there aren't things you can do to maximize your chances...like, ace the SAT, be valedictorian, have killer ECs, write an awesome essay...but there will always be a level of unpredictability (the "crapshoot") involved.</p>

5

<p>I hope Stanford teaches you how to construct a better argument.</p>

6

<p>Icky believes that if you have the qualities and you apply that you will get in.....gee, sounds pretty simple to me.</p>

7

<p>I tend to disagree with the OPs main point. Although there will be people who are qualified enough to get a sure shot at all HYPSMC, many are not so qualified. Cases in which people are admitted to HYP but not to the lower Ivies is not uncommon. There's always a factor of randomness to admissions. </p>

<p>No offense, but I feel that there's a hint of arrogance in the OP to show that he got in not because of luck.</p>

8

<p>How kind you are.....I'd say smacks is greater than hint. I like the name 'tho Iki pronounced Icky....fits.</p>

9

<p>First, to reply to JimmyEatWorld:
Suppose it were a crapshoot. These schools admit around 10% of applicants. Once you discount recruited people, some legacies and URM, the chances of getting in for non first generation middle class non-recruits should be well below 10%. I find it quite remarkable that most all of these people would have at least a 50% success rate. Additionally, bear in mind that many didn't apply to all four. I'm lumping people who applied to stanford and princeton and got into both with people who applied to HYPS and got into only two.</p>

<p>to MomofWildChild: What precisely is wrong with my argument? If you're going to attack me, do more than Swift Boat Veterans for truth. Make some contentions!</p>

10

<p>Why are you removing "some" legacies when the admit rate for legacies is much greater than 10%. You don't mention development admits....are you familiar with them??</p>

11

<p>Sorry to keep on posting rapid-fire, but it's late where I am and I'm trying to procrastinate before going to sleep:
sorry to have left the first letter of my username lowercase, but it's Lki, not Iki. STill, clever, and I tend to agree: </p>

<p>Mine IS an icky argument.
It's nasty and mean and goes against all our feelings of fairness, meritocracy and egalitarianism. For the longest time, I too subscribed to the crapshoot theory. I only recant because I cannot reconcile a belief in randomness in the clearly repeated pattern I see. For a certain set of people not united by athletic talent, legacy, URM, wealth, geography etc... to all get in at most of these places suggests something else is at play.</p>

<p>Was there a normative element to what I wrote? Yes. Maybe what I wrote smacked of triumphalism. There are many reasons, though I don't want to launch into a dissertation on oedipal complexes (baloney...), socially reified pressuers etc... But it doesn't negate my substantive claims.</p>

<p>Finally, a theory as to why these people might not get into lesser ivies: i've heard it postulated that the "lesser ivies" look much more closely at numbers (grades, scores etc...). Perhaps precisely because the can't be as picky they can't look primarily for these characteristics. And of course, there is no necessary linear correlation between grades and SAT scores and the qualities i've mentioned, so that a 1600 might come out on top at Cornell, but not at Harvard (which gets so many 1600 applicants anyway).</p>

12

<p>I completely agree with the OP. Great job explaining it. Fact is, there exists a world of superlatives~ there's always the good-to-great student in the local context, but when compared across the country as well as international applicants, some people simply aren't as amazing as their friends, families and teachers (and themselves!) might imagine. There's always the good applicant that has a relative shot at the best schools, the great applicant that might get into one, and the best applicants that get into most of the top schools.</p>

<p>We can't sit here and dissect the minds of the admissions officials. However, one aspect I've always been concerned about is with the actual application, itself. Having gone through the process, I spent a SIGNIFICANT amount of time just working with the Common Application- and only Common App- to best strategize how and in what light that best represents me as the type of student the particular schools were looking for. I've seen many students on these boards with the intent on applying to a TON of schools with varying application forms, and I can't imagine how poorly constructed, how poorly executed their applications are. Does it make a difference? Of course it does- Stanford's application is a world's apart different from MIT, and it's quite obvious that these schools are looking for different characters. It would make sense that many of the "great" applicants (as I've described above) would get hurt by the minor differences in criteria between these schools, but the top, top applicants are simply the ones no school would reject. </p>

<p>I've always advised the best students on these boards to simply do a "solid application." If you have everything- great extracurricular activites, solemn efforts in community service, great grades, high scores- then the best schools WILL accept you- however, your job on the application is to 'close all gaps'- that is, block your weaknesses through the Personal Statement or Interview and don't give the schools the opportunity to reject you.</p>

<p>A lot of people will always cite "I know someone who got rejected from such-and-such school with such-and-such scores.." cases, but the fact of the matter is, you don't see their applications. You may or may not have read their personal essays. What it really becomes is what many on these boards have done and are doing all along- judge people, in large part, simply by each other's numbers.</p>

13

<p>Actually I agree with those who think the arguement is poor, and so is the way it is presented. "It goes against our fairness, meritocracy......". It does just the opposit. Your arguement would support fairness, meritocracy and the idea that the way schools choose makes sense as opposed to being random.</p>

14

<p>Interesting viewpoint.</p>

15

<p>I would agree that it is not a crapshoot in the sense of being totally random - literally like shooting dice in a game of craps. Random, by its very definition, means that all possible outcomes have an equal chance of occuring. All applicants do not have an equal chance of being admitted to high-end schools. </p>

<p>It's not random because humans (the adcoms) are making a CHOICE, not flipping a coin or spinning a wheel. Each student who is admitted is admitted for a reason. It's just that, to an outside observer, the reasons for the choices are often not apparent, making it SEEM random. </p>

<p>Now how many, if any, of the admissions decisions are based on finding that certain "spark" that identifies someone as possessing that quality "that surpasses good grades, intelligence, and even simple passion assume their role in the pantheon...." is highly debatable. I know far too many Harvard students that are basically very smart "regular kids" to take this notion very seriously. "Pantheon"? Gimme a break.</p>

<p>While I don't believe that getting in is random, I do believe there can be a significant degree of luck involved. Luck that you got assigned to an interviewer you clicked with instead of the other available one who would have disliked you. Luck that the adcom read your app on Monday instead of on Tuesday when he could feel a migraine coming on. Luck that the school was looking for someone with your ECs to round out the class. Luck that you were the only kid applying from Alaska that year. And on and on....</p>

16

<p>I can confirm the OP's point--at least anecdotally. I teach in a well known prep school, the kind of place where the average SAT score is high and many students go on to elite colleges. I've noticed that these colleges are very good at finding those kids who are not just academically accomplished, but especially brilliant and distinctive in their thinking. There are plenty of people out there with excellent, even perfect, scores; however, not all of them are brilliant in the way I describe. In my experience, those who are almost always find their way to the top places. A few years ago I had a student who was admitted to Stanford with no ECs--none at all. And I wasn't surprised. Why not? Because she was an extraordinary writer, one of the best I've ever taught. </p>

<p>That said, HYPS do let some great minds slip by from time to time, and there are always admits that baffle and surprise. Over the years, Harvard has surprised me the least, Stanford the most. Yale and Princeton are in the middle.</p>

<p>Finally, a bit of advice to the OP: Surely you understand that the truth of one's position doesn't guarantee its persuasivenes. In this case, ironically enough, passion and intellectual spark may have worked against you, leading you to present your argument in a way that has alienated many of your readers. More tactful diction, less forceful rhetoric, fewer exclamation points--these changes certainly would have helped given the conent of your claims.</p>

17

<p>I fully agree with coureur. The OP needs to make a distinction between "random" and "having some basis in chance".</p>

18

<p>The quality of the average Stanford student has been slightly lowered.</p>

<p>"Those who show a certain spark at 18 that surpasses good grades, intelligence, and even simple passion assume their role in the pantheon along with great musicians and athletes as people who are truly unique and whom schools like Harvard and Stanford really want."</p>

<p>Had Stanford known of your blatant arrogance and conceit, I doubt they would have deemed you an individual of much "moral fiber".</p>

<p>Wake up:</p>

<p>No one is impressed by your sloppily thrown around Latin terms.</p>

<p>No one is impressed by your pathetic attempts to sound sophisticated.</p>

<p>No one is impressed by your use of SAT words.</p>

<p>No one is impressed by your "observation and hypothesis".</p>

<p>Let me just say that the charming, humble, down-to-earth kids I know who are going to Harvard, Princeton, Dartmouth, Columbia, and Brown would be ashamed to have such a pompous and self-satisfied post associated with them. If you have this so called "spark", I don't think I want it- even if it cost me an acceptance to Harvard.</p>

19

<p>Oooh, buuuurn</p>

<p>;-/</p>

20

<p>I think whoever wrote the statements in the OP got into Stanford and is pretty proud of himself for having done so, and doesn't want luck to be involved because he is obviously so great and Social Darwinism is working. There has been a lot of books and newspaper articles about lottery aspects for the extremely qualified applicants at the extremely selective colleges. There are a huge number of applicants and the number of open slots is the same as it was decades ago. I suppose that if he was accepted at Harvard and rejected at Yale, then he is a big winner at one and a pathetic loser at the other, because, God knows, everybody who deserves to get accepted is accepted.</p>