Re: Holistic, of course they are all holistic. But I think OP’s point is an interesting one: could some programs be less holistic than others? Specifically, could engineering be closer to “rack and stack” than other parts of the highly selective colleges? This data (if we can call it that) suggests that the “soft” stuff (recommendations, essays, leadership, etc.) matters less for acceptance to Engineering than to other parts of Duke.
I don’t think the soft stuff matters less- it’s just that people focus MORE on the stats if their kid gets rejected from engineering. Easier to admit that the 700 math score is in the bottom quartile than to recognize that your kid came off as a “grade-grubber” without any intellectual leanings!
Yes, I think you got the gist of my post that it is interesting to see the different weighting used based on the two different colleges when applying to universities like Duke and if an applicant is aware of “how the game is scored” should help them a little bit in the application process.
Re: Solomom, I couldn’t care less about whether they are worth the money or not (I won’t use them) but I only mentioned them as this was the first time I have seen someone breakout the metrics used in the application review process specifically for Duke and I was curious if you have seen this at other top colleges?
Lastly, I know CC members like to bash private college consultants but we used someone locally for D20 with great results and she did have some important insights into D’s target colleges not easily available to the general public that IMO were well worth the $$ spent for this advice.
Increased emphasis on factors relating to academic strength does not necessarily mean that the process is less holistic, especially at colleges where many applicants are near the maximum possible in quantifiable indicators (GPA, test scores), so an admission reader’s evaluation of all academic indicators is still very holistic.
However, colleges where admission readers give separate subscores for academics, extracurriculars, etc. would be less holistic than those where admissions readers just give one overall score. Recall the definition of holistic: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/holistic
There are a lot more ways to succeed in liberal arts. Perhaps it’s what you choose to study or research, perhaps it involves thinking creatively about an issue. But if I have no knack for foreign language or math, I can still knock it out of the park as a government or English major.
If an engineering student can’t handle the quantitative material, there is no way that they’ll be successful. So it totally makes sense that the admissions standards for engineering students try to assess the aptitude for handling this kind of work at a demanding pace. It’s hard to find a way around that kind of weakness when the curriculum is more rigid and sequential.
Believe it or not, colleges want their students to succeed! And overall, engineering programs – everywhere,
no just Duke - tend to look for signals that a kid will have what it takes.
It’s my understanding that Duke applicants are given a numerical rating in the listed categories, or at least they were in recent years. However, I haven’t heard of the claimed weightings used and am skeptical about the accuracy.
Solomon lists a similar type of description for other selective colleges. Solomon’s description for Harvard appears to have some glaring inconsistencies with the lawsuit documentations including for class of 2023, which does not inspire confidence. For example, Solomon says:
They seem to be confusing the personal rating with the EC rating. Personal rating more relates to “character.” EC rating more relates to ECs, such as the ones described above. It’s also not a simple 1 to 6 scale with 1 = highest and 6 = lowest. For example, the Harvard Reading Procedures list the following descriptions for EC ratings of 5 and 6. The descriptions for 5 and 6 are both codes with special meaning. The regression analysis found that a 5 was associated with a greater chance of admission than both a 3 and a 4.
Solomon claims Cornell also “rates every applicant in two separate areas: (1) Academic Rating and (2) Personal Rating,” but they also claim “unlike the other Ivies Cornell has no numerical rating system.” This statements seem to obviously conflict with each other. Someone may have posted the thing about a 1-6 rating scale in academic and personal to various Ivies after the lawsuit, not taking the time to see that it conflicts with their earlier statement about Cornell not using ratings.
I expect that Solomon is operating as a business. They appear to be more valuable, if they can spell out a clear way to get admitted. They want to sounds like they have former admission officers at all of the listed colleges who can tell you exactly how Duke, Harvard, or other colleges admit students, and can tell you exactly what you need to do to be admitted, with nearly everything within the students control.
Harvard’s “personal” rating being based on ECs rather than a vague “character” assessment increases Solomon’s value as a consultant, as would Harvard using a simple 1-6 scale in 2 categories. Duke admitting students based on a weighting formula that only Solomon seems to know would also increase Solomon’s value as a consultant. I wouldn’t put much stock in the accuracy, unless there is a validation with an external source…
“…They want to sound like they have former admission officers at all of the listed colleges who can tell you exactly how Duke, Harvard, or other colleges admit students, and can tell you exactly what you need to do to be admitted, with nearly everything within the students control.”
That’s my objection to many of the consultants, not some knee jerk reaction to all. They come on strong with the right spin, playing on the fear that 'you can’t do this without us." Then, in so many cases, I look at who’s doing the actual client “consulting.” Often, their “admissions experience” is little to none. In cases, all they did was graduate from some big name college (and too recently to have garnered much perspective.) Even the fact of having been an AO…well, it still depends on where, when/how long ago, what role, and how current they’ve stayed. And let’s add, whether they get their hands dirty or are really just there on the letterhead, in name only.
Harvard uses this scale 4 times: for academic, extracurricular, and personal, and requests a separate overall scale. Unless they have changed it in the past year or so, extracurricular and personal are two separate things.
I have filled out maybe 200 of those forms over the years and read ma y many more