<p>Why can’t colleges be more open about, as “Soozievt” puts it, “Admissions is not just about merit”. All I have ever heard from college reps is that admissions is all about merit and equality.</p>
<p>Might it not be better if all that stuff is cut out? When I applied to college I thought it would be inappropriate to write an essay about being an immigrant in the USA and about my ethnic identity. I’d imagine one’s ethnic identity or religion is a personal matter that colleges would not be interested in. Not only, but I would feel like I didn’t deserve my admission if I got into college with an essay that that tried to convince them I would add diversity to the campus.</p>
<p>Also, what about the potential of deceit involved in context? Isn’t it difficult for colleges to check if the things one says about their ethnic and social context are even true.</p>
<p>If anyone on CC can change my mind with a reasoned, sober and thoughtful analysis, it’s 311710rvmt . I’m a fan.</p>
<p>The point 311710rvmt made way back on this thread, that we have not reached the point where Legacy admits have closed the doors of opportunity or hurt these great universities, hits home. As much as I don’t like it, I feel a whole lot less strident, and well, we live with imperfection.</p>
<p>I want to thank 311710rvmt publically again, and point to the post from this wise person, #719.</p>
<p>He had applied regular decision and was accepted right after his mid-year report was sent out. This is, I suppose, on an entirely different schedule than athletic admits, but it still serves the purpose of front-running the other upcoming decisions and putting those colleges in the spotlight. It’s all too easy to ignore the fit of each individual school when all the decisions come in over 3-4 days; getting an early-admit nod – which includes a personalized letter – is like getting a special pat on the back and allows the student time to really explore that school’s EC groups and course catalog in isolation. I have no doubt that such practices improve both yield and future alumni loyalty.</p>
<p>“Unveiling” the impact of the AI had a lot to do with the success of Michele Hernandez seminal book A is for Admissions. Since then, it has been covered by many, sometimes with accuracy, sometimes with a tad of speculation. There is no doubt that the AI rules impact the recruiting of Ivy League athletes through the maximum standard deviation allowed. There is more speculation about the use of the AI for all students. </p>
<p>xiggi, indeed it is old news. There are newbies on this thread, as well as those who have been around the block and also are familiar with Hernandez’s book. My D brought it up in the context that I was telling her about some attitudes about athletes at schools like hers and she mentioned this point about the standards they had to meet to even be in consideration for recruiting. In her case, there was no speculation as she was sharing with me discussions she had with coaches there, given her own coaching position there this season.</p>
<p>Unfortunately, no matter how one tries to water down the definition of “holistic” it remains that it means “emphasizing the importance of the whole and the interdependence of its parts.” The direct opposite of a holostic review is an … incomplete one that allows for applicants to omit a number of listed criteria. </p>
<p>The basic tenet of a holistic review is that everyone is expected to provide truthful, accurate, AND complete information.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Could you consider that whoever introduced the concept of the holistic review did it for the specific purpose to eliminate or reduce … a bias in admissions, as well as make it accessible to a great number of people who had been overlooked historically?</p>
<p>Agree with you, Bay. Xiggi was saying AI is old news but not to everyone reading this thread. My point was in relation to posts about the “low academics” of athletes at Ivies. I provided some facts that my D shared about Ivy recruiting as she was on the coaching staff this year at an Ivy and discussed this topic with coaches there.</p>
<p>Fwiw, I was not suggesting that Soozie’s D (or Soozie) was speculating about the AI. My comment about speculation was directed at other sources (read the web in general.) For instance, one would be hard-pressed to find the exact AI indexes, let alone the exact cut-offs for individual schools. However, it is obvious that admission officers and recruiters do know those numbers. </p>
<p>As far as being old news, I wanted to make sure nobody believed that it was yet another deeply buried and secretive tool used by the bad Ivies.</p>
<p>They’re extremely open about it. I don’t see what the big controversy is. What, did you think that they claimed that they lined up people by SAT/GPA and took the highest? They are very clear on how it works. It just is unpredictable, that’s all. Like any selection process that involves human beings. And it’s quite possible that the same thing that attracts one adcom one day might not attract a different one the next day. Human beings are reading these files, and they will have preferences and prejudices. Welcome to life.</p>
<p>Education IS accessible to all. Every single state in the country has a state university that provides a decent education. There are many directional state u’s, and community colleges for those on a lower budget. </p>
<p>The days when the handshake, the cigar and the slap on the back got you into HYP were the days when “education wasn’t accessible to all.”</p>
<p>Harvard is pretty open about legacy being a boost in the admissions process. It’s a quote from Dean Fitzsimmons citing the 30% figure that sparked this whole thread. Plus you can read about legacies having an advantage right on the Harvard Admissions FAQ: </p>
<p>"Are a student’s chances of admission enhanced if a relative has attended Harvard?</p>
<p>The application process is the same for all candidates. Among a group of similarly distinguished applicants, the daughters and sons of College alumni/ae may receive an additional look." </p>
<p>Who’s hidning the ball here? Certainly not Harvard.</p>
<p>Say, xiggi, post #726, I’m fairly sure that historically, holistic review was instituted so that Harvard did not have to admit too many people from groups considered “undesirable”–at the time, primarily Jewish students who had outstanding academic credentials. I think this was also NCL’s point in post #732.</p>
<p>Holistic admissions may serve an inclusive purpose now, but the intent was far from inclusive when it was first introduced.</p>
<p>Paradoxically, the emphasis on admissions tests such as the SAT <em>was</em> intended to be inclusive: When Conant was President of Harvard, he was especially interested in admitting students with academic talent from regions of the country (and socio-economic classes) that rarely sent anyone to Harvard. The SAT was intended to be a test on which a student could score well, despite the disadvantages of lacking a prep-school education. It would be easy to design different admissions tests that would greatly advantage those from a prep-school background.</p>
<p>I’m glad it is holistic and not just merit. It seems some wish that they just took the highest stats off the pile of apps. But the college wants a mix of different types of students (and I don’t just mean racial diversity)…but different traits and talents…backgrounds, etc…to make up the class. One of the great values of attending a school like Harvard is not simply that everyone is smart (“has merit”) but the mix of the student body adds a great deal to the total educational experience for four years. Further, besides having academic merit, there are qualities the college is seeking in candidates…qualities that the adcoms feel are indicators of potential for success. It is one thing to have smarts but it is another to have certain traits…examples: drive, initiative, leadership, creativity, problem solver, organizer, inventiveness, passion for learning, etc. So, they look at the whole person, not just their academic merit in terms of choosing individuals but also in terms of selecting the class as a whole.</p>
<p>While most everyone who read or simply thumbed through Karabel’s The Chosen learned about the questionable practices at the Big Three in the 1910s and 1920s, one should not draw easy parallels to the restrictive policies of admission of that era and what has become labeled as holistic reviews. </p>
<p>Inasmuch as Harvard, Yale, and Princeton seized the opportunity given by the extended admission questions posed to applicants and Hs counselors to restrict the number of certain classes (read by establishing discriminatory quotas) the current policies are not based on similar exclusionary and narrowly defined objectives. For instance, the inclusion of a “character” and “leadership” requirements were meant to exclude Jews (and especially recent immigrants from Russia and Eastern Europe,) as it was commonly accepted and understood that such “lower” members of the human race could not possibly possess such qualities. In the systems that were finally adopted by the Big Three (after much resistance by faculty) the definition of merit was narrowly defined and the potential candidates who were to possess the sought-after qualities easily identified. </p>
<p>This is no longer the case, and has not been for generations, as the demands placed on admissions offices have changed through the decades. Examples of such changes are the admittances of minorities and … women. Fwiw, it is easy to forget the formidable battles that had to be won by this latter group. </p>
<p>Today, defining what constitutes merit in terms of admissions is no easy task. All one has to do is read the final words of Michael Young to understand how misunderstood he and the term “meritocracy” has been. For reference, it is on Pages 556 and 557 in The Chosen. </p>
<p>"“Many very talented students from low- and middle-income families cannot compete with their more auent peers in the apparent level of cultural or athletic extracurricular pursuits reflected in their college applications.” </p>
<p>Doubtless true. But it is only because cultural or athletic extracurricular pursuits considered of value are those valued by the upper classes. It doesn’t HAVE to be that way (but it is quite understandable why it is.)</p>
<p>Yes, my daughter’s chemistry teacher, who wrote one of her LOR, said this was the brightest class she had taught in her 35 years at the high school. The Vermont Rep who advocated for her was quite interested in her for her arts, as in jazz, poetry slams, song writing, theater. I thought this was quite an interesting take! And the interviewer, who came from a rural high school in Maine, herself, really clicked w/my daughter.</p>
<p>I have always maintained that you can get into highly selective colleges coming from any high school as the kid is the one who is accepted, not the high school from where he/she came. Seems to be the case with your daughters and mine. :)</p>
<p>Over the years on CC, I have gotten the impression from a number of people that they would never consider sending their kids to a high school like ours. One parent this year posted that I was an example of bad parenting to send my kids to a rural public school!! LOL</p>
<p>Yes, soozievt! My brothers all sent their kids to private schools, across the country from where they lived, no doubt. It is debatable as to whether or not one could call that bad parenting! Just kidding…
We feel really lucky to have had them at home those 4 years and been able to share in their triumphs and bumps in the road along the way!</p>