There is definitely an admissions parlance that you start to pick up if you hang around long enough.
How about ‘Interviews are non-evaluative’
What 's not said- non- evaluative unless the interviewer reports back with a less than stellar review
As a practical matter, for elite-admissions schools, applicants need to show top-end course rigor, grades, and test scores in order to have a non-trivial chance of admission. Of course, beyond that, applicants need something else that stands out, such as a top-end extracurricular achievement, or something that the school wants (e.g. recruited athlete).
There are a lot of comments I disagree with. Some more specific examples are belwo:
Different colleges have different admissions policies, but at some “elite colleges”, what’s not said at some elite colleges could go more like:
We rate all applicants on a scale of 1 to x in ~6 categories, one of which is scores. The other categories include “HS Curriculum, Academics, Recommendations, Essays, and Extracurriculars” at Duke and “High School Record, Support (Letters of Recommendation,) Non-Academic, Self-Presentation and Intellectual Vitality, and Reader’s Overall Recommendation” at Stanford. Admissions reviewers write a summary of applicants that goes in to more subjective reasons about why the applicant should or should not be admitted based on the full application, which is also influential. Among higher stat applicants, such as those that are common on CC, the additional non-stat areas of the application are often particularly influential in admission decisions.
For example, when I analyzed the Stanford decision thread on CC a few years ago, the admissions far more closely correlated with out of classroom areas, such as ECs and award than any other factor. There was actually a slight negative correlation with test scores, among decisions thread posters, even more so with class rank.
Again different colleges have different admission policies. I believe some test optional colleges have more altruistic reasons for going test optional, which is consistent with the history of admissions decisions at those colleges. However, admissions decisions for some other test optional colleges suggest scores are highly influential in admissions decisions among high stat applicants, as if they were trying to pull up their reported test score percentiles.
AdmissionSpeak - Every application is read in full by multiple readers.
Translation - Our readers are given a Herculean task - they literally must get through dozens per day, and quite often get to spend less than 7-10 minutes per application. We often sort applications geographically and by demographic status first - so if you are a first gen under represented minority from an under represented state we will actually read your application thoroughly. Otherwise, we yawn as the applications all start to look alike, here is another 3.9 UW GPA, 4.5+ WGPA, valedictorian with 2200 SAT and a half-dozen AP classes from the East Coast or from CA. On a rough day, we may only skim though most of these applications in under 3 minutes each because we know we have to reject most of them anyway.
Or the multiple reads might be translated more like a former Cornell admissions officer explains in the quote below:
One element of this discussion that bothers me is the advice that students should select extra-curricular activities that make them stand out as different. On another thread I made up the example of “rutabaga curling,” only to learn that it actually exists as a team sport with national competitions!
Playing the violin is a life-enriching activity. As the parent of a cellist, I can tell you that it is also a great deal more convenient to transport a violin than to move a cello around. If a student has a real interest in the violin, and less interest in the French horn, then I think it would be counter-productive for the student to go for French horn in the interest of looking “different.” It’s also quite possible that the student does not have a mouth shape suitable for the French horn (the embouchure issue). I don’t know whether the level of playing that is required to be competitive has risen a lot on the coasts in the past 20 years or so, but out here in flyover country, it has risen quite a lot, due in part to Suzuki programs. I think I read on another thread about a student who started violin at 18 months and piano at 4 years. It is great to be technically accomplished at a very high level, but it is not actually necessary to be Carnegie-hall level in order to find playing the violin to be life-enriching.
Playing tennis is a good life-long sport. One might gain more variety points by playing field hockey or rutabaga curling, but when the student is 30, is she likely to find enough people to continue playing competitive field hockey? Maybe in some locales she might, but not around here.
Students in 4H who raise cattle, pigs, chickens, rabbits . . . tend to be disadvantaged by the comparative uniqueness of their interests, rather than helped, due to stereotyping of “farm kids.”
One of my cousins rides a unicycle. He is not interesting because he rides a unicycle. He is interesting for other reasons.
In my experience, one violin-playing tennis star is actually quite different from another. If the admissions process were really “holistic,” these differences should be detectable. I think it is fairly superficially holistic, just due to lack of time to spend per application and the convenience of categorizing students into boxes.
Also, with regard to Data10’s post about Cornell admissions: multiple quick-ish readings of a file followed by discussion is not the same as even a single serious consideration.
Thinking about an analogy with work in my field: If a group of collaborators all work quickly and superficially on a problem, their subsequent discussions rarely advance the field.
^The student who fiddles with bluegrasss bands is going to be different from the typical violin or cello player – can still do something musical, but not the same as everyone else. And my kid who got in everyplace? She was a 4Her – she did wildlife bio and entomology projects, and won ribbons at the state fair multiple times. It wasn’t all she did, but I think it helped her.
Why should schools try to differentiate between all the violin playing tennis stars, when they have kids who have struck out in areas of interest that are different? Any school can find lots of people who want to stay on the beaten path in life. What they want is students who have the talent to succeed at a high level, and might come up with some idea or project in life that changes the world. People who follow the rules are less likely to do that.
Prof2dad fabulous question, I hope we get an answer.
QuantMech I fully agree, underwater basket weaving can get you into a Columbia but can you entertain friends at home after Thanksgiving dinner, like you can do with ease if you have a $1000 piano?
The way the elites are headed, I bet you 15 years from now, underwater basket weaving will no longer be unique. left behind by hair braiding or stringing flowers
Admissions speak: We are need blind.
What’s not said: Of course we care if you check the box (or not) about financial aid – on page 1 of the common app. It’s one of the first things that we see! We have a sense about your financial need well before we even look at your course rigor, grades, test scores, and essays. Do you think that we’d admit an ENTIRE class of students that require financial aid? Get a grip. We are not going to ruin our endowment by doing that! No, to us, need blind means that if you fit into one of desired demographic groups we won’t care if you are full pay or not. For everyone else, that checked box about financial aid matters a lot.
Admissions speak: 80% of our applicants are qualified.
Truth: but despite being “qualified,” they wrote an uninteresting app, never stretched, make mountains out of their minor same old activities, can’t seem to tell this college from another of the top ten, don’t seem to have an idea what that major is about, and more. Their chances are slim.
Lots and lots of misinfo and assumptions showing up on this thread already.
But this, to QuantMech: Right! There is NOTHING wrong with certain kids playing the violin or tennis. Period. They are enriching, require effort and presumably a student improves over time. They can show commitment, even responsibility. There can be accomplishments, even if you never make Carnegie Hall (which, btw is not all about special merit.)
Admissions speak: we want to see your passions. My version of Truth: we want to see what you did with your interests, whether you think, know what challenges are out there to be attempted and go for them, what you make of the experience. Most kids seem to think “passions” is one big blanket for any old thing.
You do not need to be “unique” as CC defines it. “Standing out” is very often a matter of what you do with what you do, not how different it is. You wanna be STEM, for heaven’s sake, do math-sci things. (No matter your identify!) You want to be a doc, sure, vol in the health field in challenging ways. Do not back off from these steps because someone tells you it’s stereotypical. Think.
(edited typo)
“Of course we care if you check the box (or not) about financial aid”
But you realize the school can choose not to download whether you checked this box?
“so if you are a first gen under represented minority from an under represented state we will actually read your application thoroughly. Otherwise, we yawn as the applications all start to look alike…” NOT. Or not because you are or are not URM.
Your app is either a yawner or not, by your own hand, your own choices.
Many of these posts perpetuate the unnecessary and damaging first world problem that it’s hard to get into elite schools. The solution is to excel at State U or SLACs as most successful people across the US have done.
Your app is either a yawner or not, by your own hand, your own choices.
I once heard an adocm say that he reads 1000 essays/apps per admission cycle. Only about 10 of those essays stand out to him
“So, the best essays are written about small things in every day life.”
meaning, You have to take the ordinary like a trip to Costco and turn it into the extraordinary, like an expose on your appetite for learning a variety of topics
In other words, don’t take the bait. The ADCOM is not interested in your conversation with your friends at the bus stop unless you include imaginary debate on illegal immigration, the state of the union, and ISL nihilation and your leadership role in all that.
New topic: “Can you translate CC parents gripe-mode comments about elite colleges?”
Comment–this is a nefarious, underhanded system where everyone lies and it’s tilted against my white, middle-class never-saved-the-world or cured-cancer kid.
Translation–my kid didn’t get into that school.
Please start a new thread instead of hijacking this one. We are discussing here “admission speak.”
I love Sally’s introduction of this topic. It’s a good reminder that as in anything in life, don’t believe everything you hear. Dig deeper and look at the evidence. Don’t get taken. The stakes are too high.