<p>I understand why the top colleges stress such a holistic approach, as they get so many applicants with stellar grades and scores that they need something else to differentiate people. But with these colleges constantly reminding everyone that they spend so much time looking at you as an individual, with your essays, ECs, and recommendations and whatnot, it sort of changes what rejected students must face.</p>
<p>No longer is it automatically assumed that test scores or grades were subpar, but instead these things are almost overlooked: Stanford's SCEA "Slaughter" is a perfect example of this. Another college I can think of off the top of my head, Duke, claims that they focus on getting to "know" the applicant and they basically judge you as a person.</p>
<p>Now, that's all fine and dandy to hear, but when a student gets rejected by one of these holistic approach schools, and he/she takes all this into account, it's actually logical to feel that the school decided he/she wasn't good enough AS A PERSON. </p>
<p>That you aren't passionate or exceptional enough AS A PERSON. That your experiences weren't memorable or you didn't have enough of an impact on your community. Especially when you see others getting in with lower grades and test scores, that old "Well I just didn't do well enough on a test/in school," reasoning is gone. Instead you're left with the realization that the college just didn't like you enough as a person or feel you would be a valuable addition to their school.</p>
<p>And that hurts MUCH more than getting rejected cuz of test scores.</p>
<p>“Instead you’re left with the realization that the college just didn’t like you enough as a person or feel you would be a valuable addition to their school.”</p>
<p>Only if you choose to view the rejection that way. It also could be due to the fact that the college didn’t need any more people from your region or with your ECs. An accident of birth could have caused one’s rejection.</p>
<p>I basically take it as a decision to not be friends. We tried something out, it didn’t really work, but who cares, since we wouldn’t have gotten along anyway.</p>
<p>Every single time you go on a job interview, your interviewer is going to be using “holistic admissions” on you, and they reject you sometimes too. You’re going to have to learn not to take it personally, because that’s certainly not anyone’s intent.</p>
<p>They reject you because they didn’t like you. Treat colleges like people: there will always be those who like you, love you, hate you, dislike you, indifferent, etc.</p>
<p>The reality is that there are just so many people. Some people might have something X college wants, or maybe their achievements are a bit better. It is hard to think that you are the best out there.</p>
<p>^
Hahaha! I agree with Millancad. It’s just wasn’t meant to be, and when you find a college that sees you for who you are, an amazing applicant, then the bitterness from this rejection will disappear.</p>
<p>Dammit people, this is not supposed to be some counseling thing on how to handle rejection lol.
But seriously, I don’t think you guys are getting the point. How do you feel about such a shift in schools’ approach to admissions? As one person put it, colleges are a lot like job interviewers now. However, remember that the top colleges used to be meritocracies, where someone who tried and succeeded in school would get in. Nowadays it’s a competition to stand out with unique (and sometimes outrageous) ECs and recommendations/essays.
It is necessary, but do you feel it’s ideal or do you think the original goal of college admissions (admitting those most likely to succeed) has had this change forced upon it, perhaps by the sheer number of people who are trying to “work the system,” for the WORSE?</p>
<p>However, remember that the top colleges used to be meritocracies, where someone who tried and succeeded in school would get in. Nowadays it’s a competition to stand out with unique (and sometimes outrageous) ECs and recommendations/essays. </p>
<p>Not really. They may have liked you just fine. They may have loved you. But the reality is they didn’t have room for you. Consider Harvard - they get about 30,000 applications for ~1650 slots in their freshman class. They probably disliked very few of all those thousands of kids they rejected. Another example - MIT. I talked to an MIT adcom once and she said they pare down the pile of applicants way to down to the really super ones they feel they absolutely must admit. And at that point they inevitably still have more than twice as many as they can admit. Then the really painful (for them) cutting begins. That means they reject an entire freshman class worth of kids they felt they absolutely must admit.</p>
<p>But what separates those who make the cut from those who don’t, coureur? Maybe the more appropriate thing is “They reject you because they didn’t like you ENOUGH.” Does that work?</p>
<p>Holistic or not, colleges often have their own agenda when making their decisions. Some people get rejected because the college thinks they’re “too good” and will not likely accept their offer. Some are trying to move up in the rankings and are only “selectively” holistic despite what they tell you. They have enrollment strategies just like students employ various strategies for choosing which schools to target. </p>
<p>If you really think about it, there’s really nothing personal about it. Their goal is to get as many applications as they can, and a lot of what is said is just marketing. Don’t drink the kool aid without chasing it down with a healthy dose of skepticism. They want you to think the game is about you, but it’s really about them. Remember that and you’ll be fine.</p>
<p>That was true at a lot of stat-driven big state schools. And it is still true at some of them. But the top colleges, Ivy League and such, are much closer to a meritocracy now than they ever were back in the day. It’s just that now they consider essays, ECs, and other achievements to be another worthy form of merit beyond just grades and test scores.</p>
<p>Back in the day wealth, family connections, and not being the wrong race or religion mattered much more at the top college than “merit” did. Do you really think that George W. Bush got into Yale on his “merit?”</p>
<p>Number one, just look sat any college’s stats, back out the 40% hooked and you’ll realize just how numbers oriented their approaches really are.</p>
<p>Next, I think the biggest issue is essay writing concepts and skills. Most don’t know what the colleges are looking for in an essay. They really can’t fully assess you as a person, so the lottery winners at the schools accepting >15% are those who knew how to sell themselves in the essay. </p>
<p>Once in awhile a teacher rec can make a difference, but 98% of them sound about the same.</p>
<p>And back in Bush’s era, 50% of those admitted wouldn’t be today, because they’d have to make room for those pesky women students who insisted on equal educational opportunities. ;)</p>
<p>"I think it helps to know that it’s all about building a class. I’ve used this analogy hundreds of times, but applying to college is like trying out for a high school musical. It’s all about the cast. No director picks the 20 most talented musicians/actors/singers who audition and starts rehearsals. Instead, they cast for specific roles. They need so many girls and so many guys. A girl with a soprano voice is going to be competing with lots of talented kids for a lead. The boy who sings bass will have less competition. If the play is “Guys and Dolls” and he’s a bit plump and can play Nicely Nicely (who sings "Sit Down You’re Rocking the Boat), he’s probably not going to be competing against more than a couple of people for the role–and may not have any competition. (And, if you are the girl applying for a spot at a co-ed LAC, you’re in a position not unlike the sopranos auditioning who see less talented guys get better roles.)</p>
<p>Some kids will get picked because the director has worked with them before–and knows they can do the job. Some will get picked because they “fit.” If all the boys in the chorus line are short, a director may not pick the tallest girl–even though she’s a better dancer than the shorter girl who is chosen.</p>
<p>The point is that NO top college claims that it chooses the best students among the applicants or the most deserving applicants. Instead, they fill roles. So, if Stacy or Kevin gets in and you don’t, it doesn’t mean that Dream U though that they were more deserving–it just means they could play a different role than you can. The role might be an athlete, an URM, a girl who wants to major in engineering, a legacy, a kid from a less advantaged background, or something you’ll never figure out.</p>
<p>I think that knowing how the system works–that it really isn’t about judging the relative worth of two different applicants–helps kids deal with the rejections. If you’re a white or Asian middle class kid with two college-educated parents who comes from an affluent suburb of a major American city, reality is that the “admit” rate for the role you are competing for is probably roughly half of the published overall rate. You’re the soprano trying for the lead."</p>
<p>I feel like holistic admissions is an excellent idea. The possibility of it being more hurtful is definitely there, but it’s a silly concern. Focuses on that aspect of it overlooks its merits of viewing the applicant as a person instead of a piece of paper. If I had to choose, I would always prefer a school that views me as a whole person, not just a test score and a GPA. Sure, the rejection might be worse but honestly, it’s pretty horrible just to label people with numbers and class rank as well…</p>
<p>You’re going to feel rejected no matter where you get rejected. Deal with it.</p>