I do find in humorous how all posters in chances threads seem to think their essays and letters of reference are stellar. There’s no way they all can be good. 
When perfect kids get rejected parents can’t conceptualize kids that are “more” perfect.
The fact is that HYPS turn down very few URM’s with perfect scores and grades and good EC’s. They turn down many many many non -URMs with those stats. I think it is this that fuels the “ unfair” outcry. But is it unfair. Not really, for many reasons. And even if that URM wasn’t accepted your “ same as every other kid” isn’t going to be the one to fill the slot.
“More importantly however blaming these groups isn’t consistent with the realities of the current admissions process. Hooked kids compete with other hooked kids and the best prevail. Similarly the unhooked kids compete against one another for albeit a smaller percentage of total spots. Yet to be clear unhooked kids do get in for those that are selected as the best candidates.”
Agree, as the Harvard case is revealing, the competition and discrimination is happening within demographic groups, athletes vs. athletes, URMs vs URMs, Asians vs Asians, etc. It would be good if the colleges admitted that this was happening so students and parents would know what their real chances are, but that’s not happening anytime soon. As I’ve posted elsewhere though, even if you told an ethnic group that their chances of getting in was 1 in 200 or 1 in 500, that would not stop the applications, as they would all think they’d be the one. Good point.
Perhaps people just need to have more realistic views on chances for admission. For super-selective colleges:
- Development case? If yes, based on agreement with donor.
- Recruited athlete? If yes, based on coach's assessment (note: likely letter is likely, not safety).
- Top-end academic credentials (4.0 or very close to it unweighted GPA, top 1% rank, top-end test scores, counselor will indicate "most demanding" schedule and at least "outstanding" overall)? If no, unrealistic reach.
- Attending elite prep school with privileged connection to college? If yes, counselors can give realistic assessment.
- Legacy, URM, achievement despite severe disadvantages or barriers, or national level achievement or recognition? If yes, reach.
- Otherwise high reach.
*If considered by the college.
I think you mean top academic credentials with a solid and compelling full app package. If yes, still a long shot.
Most applicants have little to no real visibility into whether their full application package (beyond stats and check boxes) is “solid and compelling” in comparison to the applicant pool at a super-selective college (those in who say yes in steps 1, 2, or 4 are exceptions). I.e. all of those “chance me” posters who say that their essays and recommendations are great may not truly know how they compare with those in the college’s applicant pool.
The lack of such visibility into whether their full application package is “solid and compelling” means that (except for those who say yes in steps 1, 2, or 4) super-selective college should be considered reaches or higher by all applicants, based on known and comparable factors.
Yes! ^. And students and parents think too narrowly when considering their child’s accomplishments. Big fish in a little ponds forget there are great big oceans.
Yes, our val was not accepted at any of her reach schools (she & her parents thought they were a match!). She was overheard running down my son and a couple of his friends who were “less” academic than her and how unfair it was that they got into their top choice schools. My son got into a school with 23% acceptance overall but applied ED which had a 90% acceptance rate! His friend, who got into a highly selective top 20 university, had a really unique internship at a company that directly related to his intended field. He wasn’t the val, but he stood out because of this opportunity that he got through his own efforts. The group just distanced themselves from her and let her stew. It’s weird how people feel that if they are valedictorian they should just be handed an acceptance. The val ended up at a state school’s honor college, but several of the other top 10% students go into much higher ranked colleges.
If it’s not someone else’s fault, then it must be their fault, or their kid’s fault, right?
Unthinkable.
Nope, gotta blame someone ELSE. It doesn’t matter who, as long as it’s not them or their kid.
I’m a numbers person. If that athlete hadn’t gotten the spot, I can promise you: Your kid was NOT next in line. So some other unhooked kid would have gotten the spot.
Those single digit acceptance rates mean that your wonderful, special, smart, very smart, very talented kid probably still won’t get in.
The only one to blame is whoever told your child that he or she was so very wonderful, special, smart, very smart and very talented that he or she would beat the odds.
Yes. They have no perspective. But equally so, they don’t go looking for it. That can be a big mistake, both in terms of improving their apps and realizing the final results are in someone else’s hands, not a matter of just your hs fame. Or your own “dreams.”
The worst of the competition really is ridiculous. The smallest thing can set one aside. Or it can be a sort of linchpin that catches attention and gets a deeper look.
Why does there have to be “fault” at all? I’ve never understood our persistent drive to assign blame for any and everything.
Because if it’s not some one’s fault, then their kid simply wasn’t good enough.
Someone else’s kid got in and theirs didn’t.
Many of the rejected do have the total package, but it’s that their package is just too much like others’ packages. I remember the film making industry in Hong Kong in the '80s and '90s, when a blockbuster movie was such a hit, many more movie directors would produce the same topic movies for the next three to four years. It would be a whole series of gangster movies for a decade, ten Kung Ku movies in the same year, or zombie movies with exactly the same plot with different cast members. Can you imagine how boring when you go to the theater and most of the choices are “have seen, have done, already figure out”. Similarly, there are few cultures that people would take a successful story and make it a legendary model. The local college coach would take this model and use it as a standard app for all his/her clients. Applicants from the same back ground would likely have the high states, similar spots, arts, contests, awards. Yes, the total package is great for each candidate, but it’s still a boring package. I empathy those AOs who have to read many many of these perfect package. Just an observation.
^ Maybe. But sorry, I don’t think most have the total package. Their thinking is their hs context. Because they focus on stats and some glory ECs (cancer research, founding things, lots of titles/any titles, awards/any awards, etc,) they miss the range of other attributes that are key. You see this on chance me threads, too. They want to come across as “best.” And that’s a hierarchical notion, not qualitative.
You see kids who only do things related to their majors, and people swoon. But tippy tops are looking for balance. Or, Great, man! Just win a national award and you’re a lock. Not. You see kids who do nothing related and people say, super, just write a killer essay. Many will tell them not to refine their ECs, it’s phony or padding and, in effect, “Don’t do what he college looks for.” Just be yourself. But it’s an application and you’re competing.
And then all the conflict about essays. I do think if all these smart kids took their understanding just a step further, then they would be in better shape.
This is my non-PC thoughts on the matter. No one “deserves” anything in life: not the ORMs, URMs, legacies, athletes, kids with best test scores and GPAs. I definitely do think there is some luck involved in the college admission process. My kid was fortunate in that out of all 500+ kids in his high school, he was the only one who participated in certain outside school EC activities and might have stood out for that reason. And from what the adcom said after he got admitted, they really liked his essays – he’s not even a great writer. I think top schools have a strong argument why they should take many legacies to build loyalty and bring in more money. I think a complaint is though that a more transparency should be sought after.
In short, I support the holistic admission process that is not tied to any race or financial status. I think as an option they should have something like 30% or 40% of the spots for Any Hooks category. If I were an adcom, if I have two applicants before me (a poor URM and white kid from a very wealthy family) but I am way more moved by the essays of the white kid from a wealthy family, I am going to accept the wealthy white kid over the poor URM kid. That’s just me but I don’t think that’s the way college admission works at top colleges. Also, since most of the adcoms at top, liberal colleges are white, I have no doubt that the admission process favors certain types of applicants.
Personally, I am thrilled with the admission results of my ORM kid (no music or athletic endeavors) whose test scores and GPAs were less than perfect but got into every college he applied including Stanford REA.
However, let me say one thing: Telling all the applicants with perfect GPAs and test scores that they can always go to other colleges is disingenuous because you can also tell all URMs and athletes that they should not apply to top colleges. There is nothing wrong with kids who want to get into top colleges. Honestly, what bothers me more than or just as much as the ORM kids with perfect GPAs and test scores complaining they didn’t get in is URMs thinking they will or should get into top colleges because they are . . . URMs or legacies or athletes. No one deserves to go to HYPSM in life; and there are more ways to skin the cat.
I would suggest the parental trend to blame others, claim victimization and entitlement is a societal trend. Kids are now competing for club sports teams, taking expensive act/sat prep, paying for summer leadership credentials, and taking private EC lessons to name a few. For those that are pursuing elite schools every grade counts, every week of summer break is an opportunity to separate from the pack, and no cost is to great for college coaches.
Then once a 36 or 4.0 GPA is in place the mindset shifts to; we have done the work, paid the price, results are perfect… if not my kid who else, because no one else has worked as hard, paid as much or been so emotionally invested. We have industries in place who perpetuate this mindset and make you feel like a poor parent if you don’t support your kid.
When the failures arrive is impossible to process that all of that effort was “wasted”.
Up until this point I have complete empathy. Heart wrenching and understandably frustrating, although from my observations most of these kids wind up in amazing situations.
Then things go off the rails as parents feel stolen from, cheated and victimized. In all cases someone needs to be held accountable. People say amazingly naive and insensitive things in response. These are all pretty close to verbatim. “Well if James had been Jose he would have gotten in”, “those parents bought him a seat”, “so I hear he is majoring in ice hockey at Yale”, “well of course his letter of recs were better the administration loves the parents”.
Never do you hear worked hard, fell short… in our society today no one fails everyone is ripped of by their victimizer.
FYI I get a fair bit of this I suspect because my kid is an ORM and did pretty well. Those commenting don’t realize that it offensive as it implies anyone who did make the cut took a shortcut.
I agree the victimization/entitlement mentality is a social trend.
Parents need to be crystal clear with their kids and themselves that college rejections are part of the process if you have reach schools on the list and that it doesn’t negate any of their hard work. All these kids will land somewhere and have the opportunity to be successful.
And yes to it being offensive for those who did get in. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve been told my daughter got into some of her colleges only because she is a girl.
Lol, I don’t think others can fathom how my kids got in. (Not a tippy top but a great.) But from my pov, they matched the energies and interests the college wants to promote.
@websensation It rarely comes down to rich kid with a great package vs poor minority with a lousy package. (Nor a legacy with a lousy package.) But you have to trust that that white unhooked kid who does knock it out of the park (in the right ways) IS in contention. It’s his blander peers who are not. The full package, not just stats or titles or essays. Not just “standing out” for something odd or unusual. And then, yes, geo diversty and the rest of the balances play.
Yes, “nothing wrong with kids who want to get into top colleges.” The problem is they dont go in with eyes wide open. They talk about “dreams” and “passions” and career goals and all those things they do that they think are tops…and miss the point. They focus on stats and hs standing. Maybe they make some tactical errors. Or maybe they are just one of more than can fit into the class or that major or from that area.
It’s not a loss to try and then not get the goal. I’d like more emphasis on a sort of, “I fought the good fight,” regardless of results. Life does go on.
I think part of what they’re missing is that the colleges are building a class - not that different than building a cast for a show, or a sports team. You’re not going to fill your hockey team with the top 15 Centers, even if they’re all better players than any of your prospects for defense, you still need a goalie, defense, and wings. Your cast isn’t going to be all leading characters either. Some of these students and parents lose sight of being a member of the team when they focus so much on being “the best.”