<p>I find it interesting when I hear the statement that most public schools do admissions by the numbers. My non-flagship state school does holistic admissions.</p>
<p>Well, BB, I was focused on the notion that one or two readers, who may have had bad food in some city, hold a kid’s future in their hands and are disrespectful or arbitrary. My view is ime. The kids tossed from round one are clearly and measurably not qualified (far less able to manage that college than what kids diss on chance-me threads) or submitted grossly incomplete apps or have serious other issues. That still leaves a huge, challenging, very able pool.</p>
<p>To make a long story short, ime, after that initial round, multiple reads, cann be 3-4, and occasionally a faculty member is asked to review some for that dept. Then group. YMMV. Obviously, the consistently low rated kids, with unenthusiastic comments, stand little chance. But, a too-large pool of great kids is still left.</p>
<p>Ime, if an adcom had bad food in Buffalo, he or she wouldn’t dare reject the kids from there based on that- and risk missing a great candidate. However, they might try to get out of the next Buffalo visit, hand it off to someone else.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>FWIW, when I spoke to an Ad official at a state school she highlighted how her university did not do holistic admissions unlike, she said, Xxxxx University. A few months later, a different Ad official from the same school said they do, in fact, use holistic admissions.</p>
<p>:confused:</p>
<p>So, I take whatever any admissions official says in public with a very little grain of salt.</p>
<p>And, as I’ve stated elsewhere, it is my firm belief that the admissions at any somewhat selective school is just a bit more accurate and scientific than throwing darts at a board.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is certainly true but this “life beyond studies” also confirms a certain academic reserve where you are not using all your energies to maintain that 4.0 GPA and to study for that 2300 SAT. Kids who do those interesting and time intensive ECs are likely to have more flexibility to meet increased academic demands in school and outstanding time management skills.</p>
<p>If I may interject: the “likeability” of any applicant is, for the most part, self portrayed. In personal statements, teacher and GC rec letters. I interview for an HYP. In 20+ years, I’d say very few students I met sunk to the level of “unlikeable”, meriting my mention of it in my report.</p>
<p>Plus, I’m under no illusion that my reports are anything except the least important sliver of the kids’ files.</p>
<p>If a kid is deemed unlikeable, then look to the essay or “rec” letters.</p>
<p>interesting article.</p>
<p>I don’t see a problem with any of this.</p>
<p>i disagree</p>
<p>"this admissions officer likes the athletes; this one prefers the quiet, creative loner type; one person cared a lot about SATs; or another would be more likely to excuse things like teenage arrests than other colleagues.
So it is luck to get into college</p>
<p>This is a really old article.
2009</p>
<p>^It’s more true now than ever.</p>
<p>If you are interested in the ivies the best book is A is for Admission by Michele Hernandez.</p>
<p>I remember readng the ad com & food poisoning in Buffalo story a few years ago. </p>
<p>Just check the date on the story 2009 & the source, the Daily Beast is a bit sensational anyway but fun reading…</p>
<p>Hey guys, I just went to cornell for a college visit last weekend and met with an ROTC rep who had this info: apparently, cornell doesn’t put that much stock into SAT scores (sadly, as I got a 1600). So if the college you are looking at says that, then what it means is this- they choose a specific number of essays they want to read. Say cornell has 32000 applicants, and they only want to read 3000 essays, they raise the min. SAT score until they get that many. Then, they read the essays and look at other stuff. However, once they get to the end, they are left with a bunch of people who are all qualified. Apparently, one year they decided to just go odds and evens on the kids social security number. yeesh. I think all college admissions have to be kind of dodgy on how they get that final list of kids, because honestly, there are just so many talented people out there…</p>
<p>Your SAT score was 1600 out of 2400 (it has been a 2400 scale for many years now)? Just wanted to clarify, because your sentence suggested that you had a high score, and 1600 is not very high (no offense).</p>
<p>knringwall: it’s your info that’s a bit dodgy. They read all completed apps, essays and all. Of course they’ll have more qualified people than slots available. And then very random ways might be designed to whittle it down. But no offense but either you misheard the ROTC rep, he/she was misinformed or something else. </p>
<p>Academic potential/achievement is the first hurdle. And ACT/SAT is a solid portion of that. What the rep meant was that once a certain threshold was met in terms of GPA/scores, then the comparision of scores becomes less important in forming the final group. But grades/scores is the first step and unless one meets minimal requirements, that application is rejected.</p>
<p>That’s too dirty. Northeastern.</p>
<p>EarthPig wrote:
</p>
<p>An admissions officer at UNC Chapel Hill advised students in an admissions information session to make sure that their recommendations discuss what they are like from an academic standpoint in the classroom. He said that the teacher shouldn’t write about your character because, and I quote, “We don’t care if you’re mean.”</p>
<p>That’s extremely appalling…</p>
<p>Scary for those who work so hard.</p>