Curious if you think the below is an accurate representation of the different criteria used by different colleges within the same university’s admissions. This is the first time I have actually seen former admissions officers specifically state this specific criteria used when evaluating student applications.
According to Solomon Admissions Consulting, Duke University applicants to Trinity and Pratt are scored in 6 areas but are weighted quite differently. To have the best shot at an acceptance you need at least 45/60 points for Trinity and 75/100 points for Pratt. Look at how Pratt heavily weights grades, curriculum, and test scores (70%):
Trinity:
Strength of Curriculum = 10 pts
Grades/Class Rank = 10 pts
SAT/ACT Test Scores = 10 pts
EC achievement with focus on national awards = 10 pts
Essays = 10 pts
Letters of recommendation = 10 pts
Pratt School of Engineering:
Strength of Curriculum = 20 pts
Grades/Class Rank = 20 pts
SAT/ACT Test Scores = 30 pts
EC achievement with focus on national awards = 10 pts
Essays = 10 pts
Letters of recommendation = 10 pts
I’m not sure how it matters which exact scheme, considering the overall decision is holistic. And that they will shape the class to their various institutional wants and needs. Problems with any one of those bullets can sink a kid.
Some colleges state up front what they consider, without having to get the secret sauce from an expensive college admissions consultant. For example: https://www.sjsu.edu/admissions/impaction/index.php
Note that while most frosh applicants to this college are evaluated on the basis of recalculated HS GPA plus points for local area, military status, first-generation-to-college status, and fee-waiver status (low income), those applying to engineering majors will have grades in math courses overweighted as well.
Well here is how it can matter in that if you want to increase your chances of getting into Pratt, you should make sure you are exceptional in most rigorous classes, highest GPA, and test scores (i.e. they emphasize high school stats). Those three areas are a little less important if applying to Trinity which also wants to see great essays, ECs, and LORs (i.e. the 6 criteria are equally weighted).
You don’t find it fascinating that for trinity that GPA has the same weight as the “essay” or “LORs”?
The bottom line is that your strategy when applying to Pratt might be different than a student applying to Trinity as they seem to weight criteria differently.
The other question I have is how is being “hooked” factored in. For example, are all legacy applicants grouped into a different pile and they are then compared against other legacy applicants or is that factored in after the first or second round of reviews?
Unless Solomon has a contact in Duke admissions I’m not sure how they would have that information.
In any event, for a school like Duke which has a single digit admission rate, an applicant would need to be absolutely outstanding in every single component that is considered regardless of how each one might be weighted. I also imagine that holisitc admission practices allows for some leeway.
Both are looking for candidates in the top quarter of the pile- the main difference is that standardized testing is weighted more heavily in engineering. Engineering in most colleges/universities is generally understood to weigh the more quantitative parts of an application more heavily than the Arts & Sciences side.
That Duke - Trinity weighs those 6 categories equally & most heavily is consistent with their Common Data Set reporting.
Maybe you missed my title of the thread but I was specifically asking about “highly selective colleges” and how they go about selecting applicants. Of course many less selective colleges will have a more straight forward application review that is all numbers driven (e.g. Cal Poly SLO).
According to Solomon, they have an impressive list of employees and consultants that are former admissions officers and application reviewers from pretty much all of the top colleges in the U.S. including Duke. I have not read anything that makes me believe that Solomon is incorrect in their assessment of the weighting of admissions criteria for Duke.
@socaldad2002 I think you could be over analyzing this one. For a highly competitive holistic, every piece matters. Ime, there is no saying one bullet can pull you up or make up for a weakness in another area (or a flub.) It’s not just about total points.
@happy1 is right: absolutely outstanding in every single component that is considered regardless of how each one might be weighted.
Mostly, on CC, kids/parents start witht he high points- stats, rigor, thinking the essay is great, etc. When it comes to any highly competitive situation, the crazy little slips are what’s to worry about.
What would be more interesting for schools that have “point” systems is to understand how the points are determined. The Harvard litigation did give us some insights to both objective and subjective criteria in how points were assigned.
They are not pro counselors to do a public service. It’s a money-making venture. The true quality of their advice lies in how current their read is on admissions now, not some time in the past.
In general, they can steer kids to the better matches and safeties, even help build some enthusiasm for colleges not currently on a kid’s radar or not the dream school. But they are not magicians.
They all promote basically the same pitch: trust us, pay us, we have inside scoop. Sigh.
And one of those guys on the Solomon page says he has “personally edited” Personal Statements, etc. Cringe. Guiding is one thing, taking over is another.
Ime, points are just a shorthand. Often, an attempt to pigeonhole different sorts of reactions to an app into something roughly quantitative. But it is a very holistic process.
OP- holistic means exactly that- holistic. The university reserves the right to accept the kid with a 1500 SAT over the 1600 because the 1500 kid is described as “Tom is the most interesting student I have ever taught in my 25 years”, and the 1600 kid is described as “Julie is a dutiful and conscientious student who never misses a deadline”. The points don’t matter at the end of the day- it’s a judgement call when you’ve got a huge pile of applications to cull and a high percentage of that pile represent kids who could do just fine at your institution.
Yes- the initial read- all things being equal, more rigor, higher grades, higher scores, a better written essay- more is better than less. But a holistic admissions process means that the true intellectual star may squeak through- even though she’s taken fewer AP’s, or gets B’s sometimes.
This is not “rack 'em, stack 'em”.
And I would not bet the farm on Solomon’s MO or knowledge base. There are lots of parents who realize- after the fact- that their true “secret sauce” is in getting the kid who loves Wesleyan to fall in love with Muhlenberg, or the kid who loves Penn to fall in love with American.
Regarding the way that duke determines admission, I remember reading a book a few years ago about duke admissions by Rachel Toor who worked in the duke admissions office. It described the differences in admission standards between trinity and Pratt. Maybe that is where Solomon consulting got their info because I seem to remember the book going into detail about points and weighting just like was mentioned above,
The categories and percentages from OP’s post are from Rachel Toor’s book Admission Confidential from 2001, pp 117-118.
Maybe Duke still rates applicants like that, maybe not. Doubt they will be using those formulas this year, what with a not-insignificant proportion of applicants applying TO.
Bottom line: Friends don’t let friends use Solomon Admissions Consulting. I hope they are giving Rachel Toor a cut of their revenues.
My understanding of admission is that the selective schools do use a system similar to what is presented here for Duke University. Whether the %s are exact, if there are a lot of exceptions, If things have changed etc, etc, we are not likely to know. For one thing, Duke has gone test optional for admissions as many schools have which throws off this model.
Every single one us can have “an impressive list of employees and consultants that are former admissions officers and application reviewers from pretty much all of the top colleges” by browsing Amazon. I would not be surprised that that is where Solomon gets its info. With a book costing $10, these consultants sure get a huge ROI. ?