Ivy League interviewer commentary (friend): For the most part, the Ivies admit “stories.” Let’s underscore that word, “stories.” The Ivies will admit only so many similar stories – for example, violinist stories, Math competition stories, immigrant stories, etc. etc. You can be assured that almost all of the applicants to the Ivies have acceptable grades and SAT scores (and the class could probably be filled 3x over with just kids who got 780s on each section and perfect 4.0s). The problem one finds with Asians is that they tend to cluster overwhelmingly in the same “story” groups. Thus, the desire to build a class that only takes a limited number of the same stories will “discriminate” against those ethnic groups who overwhelmingly are represented in those stories. Critics of the Harvard admissions process need to understand that Harvard discriminates on the basis of STORY. The whole “math grind” critique is really the admissions office throwing its hands up in despair at the fact that it can only accept a limited of math grinds – not that the admissions committee can accept only a limited number of Asians. Do we really want Harvard to be 43% Asian, essentially rewarding Asian tiger parents? If the answer is yes, then yes, but seriously . . . .all the things that Asian don’t tend to cluster towards (theater, sports, literary magazine, etc. etc.) will be thinned out, if not depopulated, ironically devaluing the experience one goes to college to obtain. Understand that, in current Asian culture, “Harvard” or “Yale” is a brand, no different than a Birkin handbag, that one displays for social standing. This explains why (in another article on this subject) an Asian attending Duke could still feel disheartened (it’s not the right brand . . . )
Life is unfair for everyone, making life fair. It’s life.
Ime, never heard the “story” story from any adcom. Otoh, have seen plenty of interviewers for top colleges complain they don’t know how decisions are made, frustration that they are input, but not part of decisions.
Nor have I ever heard an adcom or seen written comments that some kids are grinds.
There is nothing wrong with violin, math, immigrant relatives or the rest. But there is an institutional need for geo diversity and balance in majors.
People should be aware it’s not always some easy explanation like unfair. There are lots of needs being met. All should be aware when 90%+ get rejected and that it’s not some high school competition for cum laude or NHS or rank.
And there’s this… report averages by race, gender, etc. http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/ny-oped-shine-a-light-on-college-admissions-20180619-story.html
First of all, that’s ^ a piece listed under “opinion.” You can easily see where he points fingers at “political” intentions, declares “quotas,” and “fist on the scale” efforts.
Second, there’s a typical misread of Espenshade, (even ignoring is own admonitions that the study was incomplete.) Asian American kids do not need additional points. It’s that he kids admitted, out of a vast pool, tend to be those with the higher scores. Folks still need to try to distinguish between causation and correlation. And, understand how taking a class based on top down, can mean lopsided from certain geo areas, wanting certain majors, and more.
And that study is quite old now. Nor is a 1972 study going to be, in itself, pertinent to today’s greater goals in the class. Back then, there was far less stretch in high schools, not the volume of AP, enrichment opps, mentoring, a strategic approach to ECs, and more. Even 20 years ago, Harvard had less than half the applicants it gets today, for the same number of seats. Best I can get, in 1971, there were about 7100 applicants. My bet is Cornell had similarly lower numbers.
To swish all kids of one group (or a composte group) into “ill-prepared” is shallow and off the mark. So what that, if the standards were changed, the compositon of the freshman class would be different? The standards are not that he with the highest scores wins, not matter how many think it should be.
The greater service we could do our kids is to try to understand the more that holistic asks for. Instead of telling kids they need national awards or to have (often empty) titles in a few more clubs, to write an essay explaining their stumbles or not to have diversity in their ECs because adcoms will smell “padding,” or to hide that you play piano, or a host of other misconceptions, (including just to be yourself, do what you want, not what they look for,) you could be steering them in a more potentially fruitful direction. Confused kids make mistakes.
What irks me, personally, is the idea that there’s some noble, better path through college- it needs to be STEM, that it’s not good to change majors, that what one sees as “easier” majors are not just worth less, but somehow marks of failure.
And the stereotypes some so willingly promote, that low SES or minority kids are, well, "ill-prepared. In the grad conversation that is college, the wondrous opportunity to grow and evolve, who say stats are king?
When I started posting here on CC, I thought I knew what this was. Now, I only know what it isn’t. It isn’t just stats. It isn’t awards, publications, or titles. It isn’t research. It isn’t a “story.” It isn’t to just “be yourself.” On many threads, you have alluded to the fact that we should somehow know what it is so we can steer our kids in a fruitful direction.
I now admit, I don’t have any idea. In our personal situation, I’m going with “just be who you are,” because I believe that who my daughter is, is perfect for the schools and the majors she is targeting. We will do our best to make sure that her application actually reveals who she is. I feel that if we get that right, the schools that want her will be the schools that are best for her. That is what happened with my older daughter, in any case.
Maybe the answer is what Glinda told Dorothy at the end of the Wizard of Oz — she had to learn it for herself. But my guess is that I’m not the only parent who is sometimes frustrated that everything we try to figure out is wrong. Especially when we keep getting advice that we are steering our kids in the wrong direction.
@gallentjill, the reason you have no idea what it is, is because no one knows, predictably what “it” is. Every year, students that are exactly the same in every regard as students who are accepted (LORS, stats, essays, etc.), are rejected. There are a few things that increase the odds at some schools, URM and Legacy being two of several, but there is no “do this and you’ll get in” formula. We have to dispense with the notion that the kids who get in to ultra selective programs are better, they are luckier. Something in their applications resonated with the readers, for reasons that certainly are not objective. That in no way makes them unqualified. There are simply FAR too many fully qualified students for too few slots.
What we told our son was to do the best he could grade wise, but to first and foremost, master the material. Never focus on how to game the system to get a grade, at the expense of mastery. We also told him to never do an extracurricular that he didn’t enjoy with the intent of pleasing someone who might be reading his application. Every extracurricular activity had to create enough joy to stand on that merit alone (he was a conservatory level classical musician, the captain of a state runner up soccer team, and a successful ski racer BTW, all things he continues to this day). If that impressed someone else, so be it.
GJ, I think you understand far more than when you started. Maybe because, in many ways, you’ve cleared out some of those misconceptions.
It’s true that some students with equal stats, etc, may be rejected or accepted. But I’m talking about the aspects you can exert some control over. Try to know your targets, what makes them click. It’s not that H has a stellar rep or that S grads many tech entrepreneurs. Or the XX sends a lot of kids to med school.
I’m not even sure why parents tell their kids not to engage in some things for the sake of their apps. If you don’t “want” to meet their expectations, why would College X be on your list? It’s real life: same as, if you want to work for Google, you form the set of skills and experiences the employer looks for, no? If you want to be a banker, you prep for that, right? Get the right learning, gain the right experiences.
There’s a profile of sorts that each college knows works for them and you can try to figure what that is. Columbia needs a different sort than, say, Grinnell. It’s often found in what they write about, how they desribe themselves, what’s available, what’s unique. And it’s often in the sorts of kids they tout.
Kids who know a bit more about their targets aren’t left to say, in a Why Us (or one of the pother questions that serves that purpose,) “You have my major” or “I want to write for the student newspaper and you have a student newspaper.” (I swear.)
I can’t answer this question for other parents, but I can answer it for our family. First, it makes no sense to pursue an activity that you have no interest in purely for the sake of applications, because why would you want a college to choose you based on something that you dislike?
Of course, that was easy for me to say because we originally weren’t targeting a specific school. At some point, each of my daughters developed a passion which did indicate a need for specific credentials. D1 needed certain experience and a portfolio to prove her qualifications. D2 wants pre-med. When she became serious about BSMD programs, she already had most of the pre-requisite ECs, but not doctor-shadowing, so we made sure to ad that. So, to some extent I understand what you are saying. A kid who wants to be accepted into an art program had best have a great art portfolio and a pre-med should have some medical experience.
On the other hand, if I had kids who were undecided, I would have no idea how to steer them to the ECs that Elite universities wanted. Because I have no idea what those might be. Its clearly not racking up titles (Although there is a video on youtube where a Stanford AO says that class president is the best credential you can have). For a truly undecided kid, I believe I would simply let her be herself, pursue what she enjoys and let her find the school that fits.
In other words, if I had a kid whose dream was to go to Harvard, but who had no particular major, I don’t think I would have any idea how to meet Harvard’s expectations for ECs. However, as I type these words, it occurs to me that I would want to know why my undecided daughter was fixated on Harvard – what about Harvard appealed to her and then I would probably try to help her develop those credentials that would prove she was a fit for what she perceived was great about the school.
@lookingforward said “There’s a profile of sorts that each college knows works for them and you can try to figure what that is.”
The problem is, no one except the college/university knows what this is. No one, except the college/university, knows whether or not that criteria is even consistent year over year.
Parents of admitted students claim to know the “secret” because they don’t want luck, legacy status, racial profile, etc. to cheapen their child’s achievement. Lay out the “keys to the kingdom” though and 90% who follow will still be rejected. It’s the nature of having too many qualified kids apply to too few schools.
Easy example. MIT isn’t particularly into unilateral kids. Serious creds are important, but they want some additional breadth, energy, interpersonal strengths, maybe verve. You can have your own heart set on MIT, but if you don’t want to do anything but the specific activities related to your major (or only some that interest you and not others, or loner, not collaborative…or not even math-sci activities for some reason, etc,) don’t count on MIT agreeing. Reconsider why you think you match what they want.
For BSMD, the closer she has worked with those in need or community needs/advocacy, the better.
If your kid didn’t know her major, she still needs to show the traits (!) It’s not just about career-related prep. You can show stretch, activation (which is more than clubs,) getting out of the hs box mentality, interpersonal skills, good will/compassionate efforts, openness and more.
Ok. Class president is nice (more often nice than not, but no guarantee.) As is editor in chief. (I suspect this one because it’s so much multitasking and interpersonal.) Sometimes varsity captain, depends. But those are just line items.
I find AO’s can say all sorts of things. Re: Stanford, one says passion is good. A former dean goes on about who really expects a 17 tear old to have developed passion, as we adults understand it? They haven’t lived enough to discern, acquire various in depth experiences and persist through challenges. Not yet. So I find what’s written to trump any one conversation. And the kids they showcase, what they’re up to, besides academics.
But you can count on S wanting resilient kids, able to take a high level of challenge, and collaborative.
@LookingFoward OK, don’t kill me…but what the heck is “stretch?”
You use the term a lot and I’m really not clear on what you mean. I’m pretty certain it means more then just “rigor.” Honestly, I keep imagining Elastigirl applying for college. 
I hope you know that I keep asking you because I truly value your opinions.
That’s a nice list of nebulous platitudes, but the fact remains that FAR more kids check every desired box than get in. The director of admissions at Brown (son didn’t apply, didn’t like the engineering program), specifically told us as much when we visited. Any one who specifically claims to know the secret sauce for any holistic school is a charlatan.
@Eyemgh read enough of what your targets have to say and a picture develops. Read it with the goal of forming that picture. Look at where they are, what they do. Their self presentation.
Stretch. Schools like H use the term. It’s in the picture of how you go for more than just what’s offered to you (and everyone else.) Flexing your muscle, so to say. But in the right ways that college might value. I’m not ready with exampes, lol. It’s a bit the opposite of just do what comes easy or just what you want, when it’s not really very remarkable.
@eyemgh While I think you are right that nothing can guarantee admission to any one particular school, I think there may be ways to significantly improve ones chances of getting into at least one elite University. Think of the low SES family with very little money to pay towards college. Their child’s best chance of getting a good education, and a better life is probably one of the “meets full needs” schools. Those also happen to be the top schools in the country. For that child, getting in somewhere is much more important then any idealistic notions of “fit.”
So, while I don’t believe there is a secret sauce for admission to Brown, there may very well be a way to maximize your chances at Brown and its peers. If @lookingforward is right, and I have no reason to doubt him/her, much of it is not exactly what most parents assume. Prior to extensive reading here, I would have been like so many others, assuming that HS titles, awards, high GPA and great test scores would do the trick. I now think there is more to it.
@lookingforward, The picture is still murky. Those are subjective terms. Still, do ALL that, whatever “that” is, and it’s still drastically more likely you’ll be rejected than accepted. To add insult to injury, if getting admitted to one of these schools is important to you, and it obviously is for LOTS of students, they don’t know objectively what “that” is. There are some ways to objectively increase the odds, at SOME schools. Those were previously mentioned. At Stanford for example, being a legacy is known, and acknowledged by Stanford, to offer a significant objective advantage.
@gallentjill, There’s no doubt that some things help, but most of those things aren’t available to the average applicant. Most can’t show resilience by having survived Compton, nor, I assume, would most want to for the privilege of attending an elite school. Nor can parents go back and re-choose their alma mater or race. What I’m interested in are modifiable factors. Mostly what we get is pretty squishy when it comes to those.
As I said, personally, I think the approach is simple. Get the best grades and test scores you can while taking the most rigorous coursework that interests you. Do ECs that you would do even if you knew they had zero bearing on your college admission (because it’s very likely they won’t) and do them well. Apply to a range of schools vetted not by ranking, but by the things YOU think are important, things like location, class sizes, who does the teaching (i.e. if you like the idea of being taught by undergrads, yes other undergrads, go to Harvard…want to be in a class with over 1000 of your closest friends, you can do that at Berkeley), job placement, support for your major, weather, sports, you name it. Have at least one in the hunt that you know absolutely that you will get into and that you will be able to afford. Know that “reach” schools aren’t de facto better and be prepared not to get in. That’s it.
@eyemgh You have perfectly described my philosophy for my own family. I am only pointing out that the calculus is different if you don’t have the funds to offer those choices. For some kids, the only question is whether they are going to get the FA they need. All those other questions of fit are secondary.
Eye, I don’t think you’re thinking expansively enough. Resilience isn’t about Compton. And few can have any sense of what “that” is without at least trying to put the pieces together. I’ve steered kids to dig a bit and they did develop a better view. And others still insist it’s a crapshoot. That’s up to the individual.
And I’m not reducing this to legacy at Stanford. Plenty of applicants mess up their apps, by their own doing. You can see it all the time on CC, for S and Wharton, in particular. But each person has his/her own goals and tolerances.
Yes, it’s about bettering your chances. In the end, I often say, it comes down to indtitutional needs. Maybe you’re the umpteenth from your area or someone equally good wants (and is prepared for) an undersubsribed major or all sorts of final determinants.
And if one goes in under-aware, and doesn’t hit the mark, you can’t blame some lackluster review on diversity or legacy.
If one goes in fully aware, but not as a URM or Legacy, and applies to a school where those things are factored in, they need to accept, they will be at an institutional disadvantage, and to be OK with that.