If everyone read that and “Where You Go Is Not Who You Will Be” by Frank Bruni, our work would be done. 
9 Likes
Amen.
1 Like
You might enjoy perusing this thread which discusses your query about expanding the capacity of elite schools. It’s not always easy to do and there doesn’t seem to be much incentive to do so even if it is easy or available.
But who will be the first students to turn away from the game and not apply? It’s almost an addiction. It’s like gambling…if you don’t play you can’t win, so I’m taking my chance even if my odds of winning are infinitesimally small.
1 Like
This is true, but it’s also misleading.
The fact remains that the number of excellent students really doesn’t change much year to year. And to a large extent, those excellent students end up at the level where they belong. There is some randomness but as long as they have a range of schools, that person who was an excellent candidate at Stanford but rejected, likely ended up at a someplace like Vanderbilt, possibly with a full tuition scholarship.
What’s different now is that many more applicants aim higher than they should, and as a result, they mostly get rejected. But this increases randomness which in turn causes everyone to apply to more places.
I disagree. If they had met/exceeded the admission expectations of the school, they would have been admitted. What you are describing is the fact that the admission expectations are intentionally vague.
5 Likes
I’m having trouble understanding what the problem is. In a market-based economy, competition is highly desirable–it generally leads to better products/services/etc–higher quality.
Applying to the top schools is very much like applying to the top jobs–it really comes down to fit. Nearly all the candidates are highly qualified and bring skills–but it really comes down to what the employer (college in this case) needs at the given moment. It really is not about you (the applicant), it is about the college (and what you bring to the table).
Just my 2 cents…
12 Likes
That’s an interesting comparison since nobody really considers how many graduating third years must get rejected yearly by top law firms or how many MBAs get rejected for top analyst positions. And, let’s not even get started on jobs in the theater. No one walks away feeling they were owed a glamorous job.
3 Likes
Bingo!
No one can know from the outside exactly what a certain school really wants. There are a few tells. Some like Harvard and Stanford give a boost to legacies, whereas Caltech and MIT don’t. Some, like the latter two mentioned and Harvard like USAMO qualifiers. For most though, there’s no way to prepare to the point that you know admission will be guaranteed. There is subjectivity involved.
3 Likes
Exactly!
I really think that the folks who are successful in getting into the top schools understand this. It’s all the other 1000s of applicants who are wondering why they were not selected (I say “not selected”, as opposed to “rejected”) that really should learn this. It will prepare them better for the real world, where they have to get a job and deliver on the bottom line.
1 Like
This thread seams to speak to our current societal disdain for failure. Rather then saying applicants are entitled to acceptance (no one would be so vain) what is really being suggested is kids should be protected from their natural inclination to take risks and sometimes fail.
Several posters seem to suggest that applicants are unaware that the odds are stacked against them, that admission criteria is highly subjective and or that even if accepted to a dream school it might not be a dream. Reality is this info is readily accessible and reinforced by social media and the kids older peer experiences.
All those that apply whether rationale or not think they have a shot. My opinion is that as much can be learned by rejection as success consequently the system works albeit in an idiosyncratic manner.
3 Likes
I disagree once more. It isn’t a meritocracy. Even if someone has a superb academic and extracurricular profile that impresses the Yale admissions officers, that doesn’t mean they will gain admission to the school. Meanwhile a less impressive applicant who has a particular niche they need, say, an oboe player, may be admitted over the former applicant, not because the former applicant didn’t meet/exceed their expectations, but because the admissions team have their own agendas at stake.
6 Likes
Yes, fit is absolutely crucial to gaining admission. Unfortunately that’s when admissions become MUCH more subjective and luck-based, relying on what the admissions officers are looking for at what time.
I realized we are agreeing here actually, @hebegebe. We both believe the admissions process is subjective. However, I would choose a different word than meeting than “expectations” of the admissions officers. Of course you have to meet the expectations of admissions officers to get in, but you also have to be what they are looking for at that moment. Everyone who gets into Harvard (ignoring those who spent millions/billions to get in or have some other insane circumstance going for them) meets the expectations, but not everyone who meets the expectations gets in. It’s more like meeting the agendas of the admissions team.
5 Likes
The premise here appears to be recursive. You have, through context, defined top colleges by their competitiveness. Change the premise, and you will find a more genuine place where students match themselves to suitable, appealing, top colleges based on their achievements, interests and goals.
7 Likes
Agreed. I purposefully put “top” colleges in quotes to define what is traditionally considered top colleges, selectivity being a HUGE factor in those distinctions.
I absolutely agree that the quality of the institution will significantly differ based on the needs, interests, and character of the student. Using myself as example, Princeton has significantly less value to me than Oberlin or Sarah Lawrence, because I know I would not be a good personal or academic fit at the so-called “#1 university in the country.”
5 Likes
Here in our low income school, kids are applying to the schools listed above that meet full need because it’s basically free when you have a very low EFC.
The kids have no idea what these schools want and they don’t have a college counselor so they apply to a lot of these schools hoping one will accept them. Only our very top kids even apply to these schools, usually the top 1% of the class. Now with QB they are getting more help and guidance.
7 Likes
Thank you for mentioning this. It is super important to note that a big reason these schools are so selective is because they provide the best financial aid to those they admit from poorer backgrounds, attracting a lot of applications from low-income backgrounds. Being both need-blind and meeting full-need is something that applies almost chiefly to the most selective schools in our country.
4 Likes
Yes, that is why I like the analogy to getting a “top” job here. Why don’t we have ChanceMe posts for people trying to get a job with MBB consulting? Somehow, people have convinced themselves that applying to college is somehow different from applying for a job. Lots of people work hard, but most of success in life comes from luck/connections anyways.
2 Likes
No, they do not. They give the best financial aid to those that demonstrate need. They give zero to those who don’t. It’s why many schools can simultaneously be the best deal AND the worst deal.
10 Likes
In the not so distant past, when the parents and grandparents of today’s applicants were applying to colleges, the acceptance rates at “elite” schools were 4 - 6x higher than today.
Was everyone who was accepted back then “worthy” of acceptance in the sense used in the posts above, or were they just the lucky recipients of an opportunity granted because “more worthy” applicants were unaware that they could even apply?
At my HS reunion a few years ago, I sat at a table with a bunch of “kids” who went to IVY’s and comparable schools. Our consensus was that not a single one of us would have been accepted applying now with our 1970s stats even accounting for the fact that an SAT 1450 then was about as common as a 1580 is now.
None of us had anything close to a 4.0. One or two of the particularly geeky were Intel semi-finalists. There were a handful of National Merit Semi or higher, and that’s about it. Nobody published papers in real journals, no Olympic level athletes, no national level mathletes, no summer internships, no fancy summer research programs, nobody soloing at Carnegie Hall, just average very bright kids who put one or two “fancy school” applications in for a lark but fully expected to go to the state flagship and didn’t give the whole thing much thought or planning.
Where we the “worthy” or is it the flood of applicants of the sort that never would have applied back-in-the-day who deserve the spots?
YMMV…
4 Likes