Writing the college app essay in a proctored setting is a great idea. It’s not right that there are essay writing companies that ghost write for the applicant. That’s just another advantage for those with financial means.
Lol, you think most esays are that good? Or even offer relevant insights?
THis is my frustration. KIds on CC all the time, asking if they can get into Stanford or Harvard and it’s clear they never explored what the schools have to say. Kids who can’t, in their apps, answer a Why Us. Poster advice to just win a national award, lol. Or write a killer essat that screams “you,” even if it’s got nothing to do with the college review goals.
You want these kids to get to the lottery based on stats? ECs that sound nice to friends and family or even no ECs related to the proposed major? It goes on. So Inag them to become better informed. And the blowback is often, “They can’t.”
I think there are too many meaningful ECs to list. And I think there are ways to describe many more ECs that show they are meaningful.
I respect the diligence that AOs use to pick classes. I also think they have human bias and the app may or may not be truly representative of the kid, so they’re using their bias to select based on thin, faulty data. So while I agree that stats alone aren’t enough, there is little reason to assume that the current system where humans with human bias pick based on very scant, often misleading information is the best system.
That’s why I’d like to see some research done on this topic. See what differences, issues, benefits would arise from introducing an unbiased, random sample. What would be truly interesting is to see if one or more of the top selectives would be willing to set aside a few (say 50 - 100) spots for this type of experiment, so they could compare how those randomly selected students do compared to the ones that were selected during the holistic process.
Exactly…
“It’s about assembling an interesting class. It is not about the individual. A lottery would not achieve the goal of a class made up of individuals with varied interests and talents that can interact and contribute to the mix.”
What exactly makes an athlete or olympiad winner interesting to the class they’re joining? I pick these two because admittedly they’re at the extremes of engagement. Even though the ncaa sets maximum on practice time, athletes say their sport is their second major, it takes a lot of time, especially to balance both academics and athletics. A lot of times they have their own dorrms as well, further inhibiting real interaction. Olympiad winners will typically try and find a professor and continue their work in labs and really make it their second dorm.
Look, athletes and olympiad winners make the college look good, no question, but concluding that they interact more or have more varied interests or add diverse viewpoints is flawed. And note the parents on cc ,who on college trips say they look for whether races stick together (happens even on elite campuses) or there’s an attempt to mix.
It’s interesting to see the different approaches countries give to college admissions. For example, China has a national higher education exam (Gaokao) taken over 2 or 3 days (9 hours) that determines who goes to college.
Glas we’re not in China. Or the European countries that put you on a college or no college track at a young age.
Even China’s system has “holistic” elements. Quotas for students in the urban areas where the best colleges are that disadvantage rural students, backdoors for athletes and those with other talents.
It would be interesting to see a school (or group of schools) use both systems and track results over time. For example, a school with a 2000 person admitting class would admit half by lottery and half using the traditional “holistic” system.
Another iteration could be to admit half by lottery and then, after seeing the characteristics of the lottery class, use holistic admissions to fill in the gaps. This method would not allow comparison of the two groups as the second group would have biased selection criterion.
Assuming they have a multi-tiered winnowing process that has an automated “mandatory minimum” stage, they could proxy that with existing data. Something like the following would be an interesting experiment to do in parallel with the current process (appropriate caveats for blindness):
- take the "you must be this tall" pool and randomly simulate N acceptances.
- when the actual acceptances are complete, compare the actual set versus the simulated one.
From an academic standpoint, I can only really see one downside–certain majors would undoubtedly have even worse over-subscription and others would be even more woefully under-enrolled. From a social standpoint, it would have implications at the edges that would horrify the colleges–an overabundance of whites/asians as they’d drown others out and coaches/directors/conductors would have a difficult time staffing their teams/plays/bands. Financially, it would probably be a minor win as admissions staffing could be lower. The bigger issue–financial aid–is hard to reason about as interesting arguments could be made on either way.
I would expect savvier admissions departments already do something like this as a way to explicitly show they’re executing on the organization’s priorities as it’s an easy way to prove you’ve put your thumb on the scale. In general, I do think an experiment like yours would be compelling–admit 5% of the “tall enough” kids via lottery and randomly sample another 5% from the holistically admitted ones, take the names and put them in a 4 year time capsule and see what happens. Intuitively, I’d be willing to bet my own money that we’d be unable to measure any significant differences in outcome.
Forgive me for this rant.
Is this all just a devious plot to eliminate holistic, lol? You get kids “tall enough,” but without the social strengths (sometimes even admitting so, oops,) kids who state they intend to transform into the greatest thing since sliced bread, but nothing shows they ever took a risk or climbed out of the narrow hs box. Kids who want majors they can’t even explain. Kids who, in the Why Us, state reasons they want this college that don’t even exist there (a different school does that.) Kids who can’t do their part in an interview. It goes on.
Top hs performers are not a uniform group of savvy, critically thinking, activated, mature, adventurous sorts. We need to face that there’s an application process and it’s theirs to master or not. It’s the vehicle and the test. For a tippy top, they need to be on their game. It’s that fierce a competition.
And you want to put these ones in a lottery? Why? Because you think the process somehow needs to be more “fair?” Fair to whom? What’s that really mean? That kids who present in an off way get the same chance as the savvier? Because you believe being “tall enough” really is enough and is all that should matter? The rest can be left to chance?
Ironic, since so many think it’s already a lottery.
Of course, we can look at the rack and stacks and compare. Plenty of kids chosen based on stats will do well and graduate. But the principle in holistic IS that more matters than grades.
Btw, the “tall enough” analogy is interesting. Rarely do you get to be on a top notch basketball team just for being tall enough in real life. Of course they need the stats, but they also need the team skills, the ability to follow the rules. Some are shooters, some are the set up players. No lottery.
I would argue that much of the current process is already a matter of chance. In a large part, this is due to the Common App and ease of multiple applications. Hiring and training the staff necessary to holistically evaluate the thousands of applications received is not trivial. Even schools with the best intentions will have inconsistencies in their evaluation process. As a result, the outcome has elements of a lottery in that it depends on which reader(s) actually review a given student’s application.
@lookingforward You’re arguing against things people haven’t said. There is no plot other than the curiosity to see if a random process could do as well, worse or better than the current process. If the current process were perceived as selecting the most savvy, critically thinking, activated, mature and adventurous sorts then most people wouldn’t be at all curious. As it is, the process is based on scant information that people know can be manipulated so is of dubious value.
The idea that the current process results in the best “team” of students is questionable at best. Especially if we want to compare the student body selected to a basketball team. If basketball teams were selected using the current holistic admissions process, there would be teams with 4’9" tall rich kids, kids of varied races and from all states (regardless of if they’re the best basketball players), kids who paid others to perform their tryout and kinda skilled but not top notch children of former ball players in addition to some basketball stars. Not how we pick a basketball team yet we’re willing to defend that process to the death for picking a college class? Seems odd.
Don’t the basketball coaches pick the players that they want and feel will give them the strongest organization?
Don’t admissions committees do the same thing?
How is it different?
Nah, I disagree about the short, rich kids. 
They choose per their values. Basketball wouldn’t need the same sorts of things a tippy top wants.
The plot comment was tonge in cheek. Milee, I’m trying very hard not to criticize applicants. The stats and accomplishments are impressive. These are good kids. But what the TTs want and what the kids do offer is not always in sync. Many of the errors are avoidable, if a kid tries to process what a college does say. Even on recent threads where posters are encouraging, I feel it’s clear the kid hasn’t even looked at what the college says.
There’s so much speculation about what is happening and then it spins on itself into assertions. And unsubstantiated.
You don’t just get to have a great high school record and expect to walk into a college that accepts 5-10%. This isn’t transferring to another, better high school. It’s the leap to college- and we’re talking about mighty competitive colleges. Some savvy is required.
It’s funny that on one hand, many feel all kids are great, have not just stats/rigor but the array of ECs noted above. But at the same time, insist the better apps can’t be accomplished by these kids, without substantial help. I do believe they can get a better idea. But they can;t just cling to the hs mindset.
Not necessarily. With a lottery, there would still be a lot of kids interested in sports for the experience. They might need to drop out of Div 1 if they can no longer field competitive teams at that level.
Let’s hope the writer of this “Most essays confirm what the rest of the application, including teacher recommendations and stats say about the kid.” article can propose to the Washington Post to select next crop of its journalists by lottery after the candidate pool passes certain credential (degree, internship, IQ test). Or if anyone can write and interview people, they get a shot since these days we got our news from social media.
“You don’t just get to have a great high school record and expect to walk into a college that accepts 5-10%. This isn’t transferring to another, better high school. It’s the leap to college- and we’re talking about mighty competitive colleges. Some savvy is required.”
Your responses imply that I’m looking for some advice to get my kid into a top selective, because you keep giving tips about the current system. Only one of my kids would be interested in and a fit for that type of school and he’s already there, so I’m not looking for tips. And I don’t disagree the current system works like the colleges want it to work.
I think there’s room for improvement in the process - because that would benefit the applicants and society at large by making admissions more attainable across a broad range of society. Plus, it would be an interesting experiment to see how such a change would impact the programs - for better or worse. I suspect some of each as far as the programs at the colleges go, but on the whole positive for “outsiders” (nonwealthy, unhooked, not connected) and negative for “insiders.” I’m curious.
Not at all. I trust you. We just disagree on some bullets.
I do see room for improvement. I disagree it’s impossible to get a read on what they want. It does take work. But where there is fierce competition, the effort matters. It’s not the same effort as mastering high school. And it’s not a lot of the common advice CC gives. But it’s a free space and the anecdotes confuse many.
Personally, the idea that’s stuck with me the longest is to close the window sooner. If kids could apply to fewer colleges, perhaps their focus and research would improve.
Legacies get a massive boost in admissions rates. That strategy may be successful or even necessary in growing the university’s endowment, depending on how much you think alumni donations are tied to legacy preferences. In no way, could this be described as fair to the other applicants, who didn’t have the privilege of being born a Harvard legacy.