College Admissions Will Never Be Fair

Applying to College
61

@milee30

I think that most of that reaching and stretching is not something students do in the run up to sending in applications. Its more likely something they have been doing for a very long time. They are involved in their communities in meaningful ways. They are working creatively in their fields of interest. They are making a difference in their schools. They are looking for opportunities outside of just signing up for clubs and hoping to be president.

Then, it is up to them not to screw it up in the application. I imagine, you can have a kid who has all those things but simply doesn’t present herself well enough for the admissions committee to recognize her value. My eldest is a truly gifted writer. Her application materials were beautiful. D2 is not nearly the writer her sister is. It will be a struggle for her to make sure the schools really know who she is. But that will be her task. It really isn’t about what activities she can cram in between now and the fall.

62

@milee30, I use the term crapshoot, but I don’t mean to suggest that no thought is required in the application or vetting process. Nor do I mean that all applications are thrown in a hat and randomly drawn. What I do mean, is that students who do absolutely everything correctly that is in their control, are still far, FAR more likely to be rejected than accepted. From the perspective of the applicant, there is a certain amount of luck involved. They have to be lucky that their application resonates with the objectives of their target institution, which are unstated, except in the most nebulous terms, and that what they wrote in their essays resonated with the mood of the readers.

63

@gallentjill - I could be naive or could just know some outstanding, amazing kids but I think most kids with high grades and test scores have been doing reachy, stretchy things, they just don’t always instinctively know how to articulate that to top colleges in a way that’s immediately obvious and appealing. Very few of these kids have been sitting around doing nothing so most have some raw material to work with. Yes, some of the app is what they did, but I think a huge overlooked part is how the applicant describes the “what” on the app.

Think how many times we’ve seen posts here on the forum from a kid who writes that s/he has good grades and test scores but no ECS… but then when that kid describes some of the things s/he does, they are actually potentially awesome ECs depending on how that kid chooses to describe them. It’s more than just being a good writer, it’s about knowing what components are appealing.

In other words, many of these kids could compose their apps in a way to show their reach, stretch, right way of thinking if they had some coaching and properly targeted colleges that were looking for what that kid has to offer.

64

Ok, since people were asking about something actionable, here is the general approach that has worked with our first child, and hopefully will as well with the second (but with a completely different set of interests).

First, it hopefully goes without saying that whatever your child’s college “highlight reel” shows, it has to be your child’s interests and your child’s accomplishments. There is no point to pushing specific activities on your child unless there is a strong underlying interest. The best we can do as parents is help them shine in the interests they already have. In essence, I think of my role here as a supportive coach, guiding my children towards what will help them shine.

Step one with D was to assess what she both enjoyed doing and where she had real skill. I wrote in another thread that my D always loved art, but I didn’t really know where she stacked up relative to others at a national level. So in 9th grade, I suggested she attend National Portfolio Day with a collection of her best works. By the end of the day, we had highly positive reviews from multiple top art schools. RISD told her that she already had more than enough technical skill to thrive there, but only needed work on her art “voice”.

From this experience I knew that art would be a wonderful complement to her eventual college application, even through she had no plans to major in art. I encouraged her to spend more of her free time on art, and less on other activities (like martial arts). Which worked out great because every moment she spent on art was pure joy, whether it was creating it herself, or volunteering to teach it to others. She spent considerable time on both during her high school years, and it substantially lessened the other pressures she had.

She was also a major science kid in high school. She found a topic that she particularly loved during a summer at Hopkins CTY, and was able to leverage into doing three summers of research at a top medical school. I was the person encouraging her to apply to various places, but since we didn’t know anyone there, it was her talent that got her “hired” and called back year after year.

Her eventual Common App essay was a beautiful blend of her two main, but very different, interests. It was very much an essay unique to her, and her love for both came through. And these two interests were supported in other parts of the application as well (awards, etc.), and her art talent was validated via a submitted portfolio.

65

@milee30 I think you are absolutely right. I have seen those posts on here as well. The pressure is so fierce that kids start to devalue their own accomplishments. The lucky ones get some good help putting those applications together.

66

@hebegebe That sounds like a great approach.

67

This compares to job interviews and earning a spot on the roster of a sports team. Favoritism and qualifications are factors as well.

68

I think kids on CC tend to overvalue their accomplishments. It goes with the territory, they have little frame of reference. If you do x in your hs and few others do, you may think no one else, anywhere, is. If a kid raise $$$ in a fundraiser, he may think it’s hot, without stopping to consider more than the sum.

Perspective is a good thing.

Favoritism doesn’t mean you don’t have to think, put forth your best (as they see it.) You don’t get off the hook by pointing to someone else you think got some boost you really can’t be sure of.

69

^ then they come to CC and come to believe they have no shot at any college at all :smiley:

70

I worry as much about the ones told they’re shoo ins to single digits. “Just write a great essay.”

71

"I worry as much about the ones told they’re shoo ins to single digits. “Just write a great essay.” "

Yes, and… my worry is that many of them don’t really understand what a “great essay” actually is. I’m not claiming to be any guru on that subject - I’m not an AO and haven’t played one on TV. But some of the ideas of what is a great EC or what a great essay might contain sound iffy to me.

72

@eyemgh
I also use the term “crapshoot”, esp for non-hooked ORMs. There are actually many discussions about ways to make (elite) college admission process fairer, and quite often lottery (even though people who suggested it know it would never be used) was suggested.

73

I dislike the descriptions of “lottery” and “crapshoot” because:

  1. It implies all apps have equal chances so even if you have a weak app - toss it in because hey, it’s a lottery so your chance is as good as anyone elses (false)
  2. It devalues and insults the people who are accepted, as if they didn’t have the goods, they were just the holder of the randomly drawn lucky ticket (also false)

If I had to pick a terms to describe the process, I’d lean toward “long shot”, “unlikely” or “tough odds”. For all these schools the chance is low and there are definitely parts of the process that will be completely out of the control of the applicant. That doesn’t mean it’s a lottery or a crapshoot, though. There are things that increase chances, there are things the colleges are looking for. Applicants can increase or decrease their odds with their choices, it’s not just a lottery or crapshoot.

74

We often heard that the AOs of selective colleges could easily swap the admitted class with a new pool of equally qualified students and both pools would do just fine. I have absolutely no intention of insulting anyone, but to think that your admitted kids got into HYPMS (or any other elite colleges) just because of hardwork/talent, and not to certain degrees, luck, is kind of insulting to many kids who are equally hardworking/talented and didn’t get in.

75

Luck definitely plays a role, as do factors totally outside an applicant’s control such as race. That’ still doesn’t mean the process is a lottery or crapshoot.

All the students who are admitted had both luck and hard work/talent. Not just luck. That is not at all insulting to kids who are equally hard working/talented and didn’t get in.

76

This is misleading, as even within the admitted student body there are students that are more elite and considered more desirable than others.

The most visible distinction of this is at places like Duke and Vanderbilt, who offer full-tuition or full-ride scholarships to their most coveted students. Do you really think that these colleges would say, “Hey there are students just as good as these scholarship winners, but we decided not to admit them at all, because they all look the same to us!”

Or if you want to stick to the HYPSM level, there are certain accomplishments that seem to have very high admit rates, even aside from the normal hook categories (first generation, URM, athlete, legacy). These include national and international accomplishments in the humanities (e.g. TASP), mathematics (USAMO/IMO), and the sciences (Regeneron & Intel ISEF).

So, in summary, not really random.

77

Doesn’t it depend on your definition of “fair”??

For some people, admissions should be based on grades. Others think SAT/ACT scores. Or ethnic background. Or sports ability. Or great letters of recommendation. Or “potential”-- whatever that is.

I think that for many people, “Fair” translates to “In my best interests, or that of my kids.”

78

“could easily swap the admitted class with a new pool of equally qualified students…”
That’s finalists, not all the kids they eliminated. Harvard says they have 3x the number of them as seats. That says zip about the other 35,000 applicants they set aside.

79

“…could easily swap the admitted class with a new pool of equally qualified students…”

Why the applicant A gets accepted to H but rejected from YPS; why the applicant B gets accepted to S but rejected from HYP; why the applicant C gets accepted to Y but rejected from HPS; why the applicant D gets accepted to HYS but get rejected from P; why the applicant F gets accepted to HPS but rejected from Y; etc. etc. Happens all the time. Does “luck” play in this scenario? Yes. I remember seeing once this video interview of one top college admissions director who admitted that, at the finalists stage, things start to become blurry and that he has no idea whether he and his staff made the right decisions or not. I was really taken aback by his stunning candor.

On the other hand, what’s the likelihood of the applicant G with absolutely NO HOOK of any kind and with 3.3 GPA, 1380 SAT and 650 average SATII scores to be in the above mix? Hardly happens. Luck involved? I doubt it.

80

We are exactly talking about the “3x finalists” here, when only 1/3 of them could be accepted. In an imaginary world, lottery among the “3x (or whatever the number) finalists” for the coveted spots would be the “fairest” way, of course that is not going to happen.
Just wish the “winners” of somewhat arbitrary decisions by AOs would appreciate how lucky they are, along with their proud parents.