<p>Holistic</a> Approach Is Overrated as Admissions Tool, Says*Researcher - Chronicle.com </p>
<p>This is an up-to-the-week report from the admissions conference at Wake Forest, called "Rethinking Admissions." </p>
<p>Who benefits from holistic admissions? Rich kids who have access to guidance counselors who know what adcoms are looking for and have the time to pad their resumes appropriately. Middle class kids have to get jobs and can’t get fancy EC’s. Also guidance counselors at public schools are usually concerned with getting kids to graduate, not getting them into top colleges.</p>
<p>It may be over rated , but it allows ad coms to fill their class as they desire.
OOPS! Let the diversity(fair or unfair?) debate begin again…</p>
<p>I note that the researcher says that the subjective measures like interviews are “unreliable,” which I guess means unreliable in terms of predicting measureable academic success. But are standardized tests more reliable? And really, what do you measure to determine if a student has been “successful?” Grades? Income? Number of academic publications? And what about such factors as “vibrancy” of the campus?</p>
<p>People really complain too much about college admissions. People want to drop SAT scores; people don’t want holistic applications. There has to be SOME measure of intellectual promise. You can’t JUST look at grades in high school. There are more factors than that. People feel like they’re entitled to higher education just because they feel like they’ve worked hard and they have high stats. Very low tier schools may be able to allow anyone they want in, but top tiers need many factors to get the perfect class they want. Most are PRIVATE institutions… they can basically do what they want. Don’t like it? Don’t apply.</p>
<p>Likewise, a quantitative measure such as SAT scores do not always predict who will be a successful and productive contributer to the campus either. You can be really smart and not necessarily a good candidate for admission. </p>
<p>I’m glad many colleges use a holistic approach. People are whole and just using one measure such as a test, doesn’t give the full picture. That is why interviews, essays, and recs are used. I think objective measures like test scores and GPA are very important too. But that alone doesn’t give the full picture and at a very selective school, most have the GPA and test scores to be admitted and so the rest differentiates one smart person from the next.</p>
<p>If I am admitting someone or hiring someone, I want to know if they are smart, sure. But that would not be enough to help me to decide who to admit, particularly when there are many smart people for the available slots.</p>
<p>According to the linked article, the researcher did not, in fact, say that the “holistic approach is overrated,” as stated in the title; rather, he said that “holistic admission is often unreliable.”</p>
<p>I’m not a scholar on this subject, but, here is the one thing I’ve really noticed over the last couple of months as my D and her friends have recieved thier acceptances and have chosen from those same acceptances. Every single one of these kids just fits the school so perfectly. And, in fact, the other day I heard about a girl we hadn’t seen in four years, “Guess where so and so is going???” Even the purse she carried around as a girl when they were playing make-believe fit this particular school. There has not been one “REALLY?” among them. And, I’m not just talking grades.</p>
<p>Whatever else can be said about all of this, the admissions people sure did pick the right kids for the campus. They must be doing something right.</p>
<p>Is the goal of the admissions process solely to find individuals who will be able to graduate from your institution in four years because they’re prepared to do so?</p>
<p>I don’t think so.</p>
<p>^ Agree with modestmelody. Adcoms at elite colleges know they’re choosing from a surplus of academically well qualified candidates. So the game for them is not making fine distinctions as to which of the academically well qualified are <em>most</em> academically qualified. It’s a question of assembling a class that will make the school a vibrant and interesting place, a place that will contribute more to the personal and intellectual growth and cultural perspectives of those who do matriculate. Predicting who will succeed academically is only part of that equation, and judging by their graduation rates most elite colleges do a pretty good job with that part. </p>
<p>But I also agree with al6200 (post #2) that it’s a method that tends to favor those who enter the admissions game on an inside track, groomed by their families and their elite high schools to cultivate the kind of resume that will appeal to elite colleges. The working class kid from a so-so public high school in suburban Milwaukee faces long odds against that kind of competition, no matter how smart and academically accomplished he is; chances are no one ever bothered to tell him at the beginning of his HS career he’d need a bunch of APs and a bunch of shiny ECs to be competitive at that level—either because they just didn’t know, or because their expectations for him steered him toward a local public institution. And working 15 hours/wk down at the local car wash just is not going to be that exciting to adcoms, unless they decide to give him diversity points for being a working stiff from Milwaukee—which happens occasionally, but rarely.</p>
<p>I found myself momentarily disoriented by the number of links in the original post. :rolleyes:</p>
<p>
Contradictory much? While he may not be advocating for the SAT, he certainly seems to be adovating for SOME form of a standardized measure.</p>
<p>The researcher is a professor of “industrial-organizational psychology.” Of course he’s looking for something he can measure. The problem is that the whole idea of holistic admissions includes a bunch of concepts that are hard to measure, like interestingness, ability to contribute to campus life, ability to benefit from a broad liberal arts education, etc. If you were drawing up the guest list for a party, what measureable traits would you be looking for to insure that the party was going to be fun?</p>
<p>I think holistic admissions actually can help kids from truly middle class and low-income families. Because admissions officers look at the SAT score in context with the high school the student attends, the educational level of the parents, etc. Because having a job is considered as impressive as, if not more so, than paying thousands to send Muffy to volunteer in South America. </p>
<p>Holistic admissions probably hurts most the kids who only bring high SATs and GPAs to the table. And those kids can come from all income levels.</p>
<p>The party analogy is apt in some ways. If you’re a teetotaler and plan to serve only non-alcholic beverages at your party, then you may decide not to invite your friend who likes to imbibe heavily on a Saturday night. Similarly, if a school is offering a certain type of environment, they will “invite” those for whom that environment will be enjoyable and beneficial.</p>
<p>However, most private schools claim to be trying to admit a diverse class in every way. But does this actually happen? If you’ve grown up dirt poor, it’s unlikely you’ll feel very comfortable at GWU. If you’re an avid skier, it’s doubtful you’ll head to the University of Miami if you intend to ski while at college. You’re probably not going to attend BYU if you’re not Mormon. Caltech, MIT and Carnegie Mellon are probably not best for the student who stinks at math.</p>
<p>So the question is, “If you invite that drinker to your dry party, will he come if there’s a better alternative the same night?” </p>
<p>The Ivies have more universal appeal due to prestige and their liberal arts curriculum, and they strive hard to be as diverse as possible. Thus, simplistic statements about what sort of student applies and gets in are harder to make than for niche schools. What kind of kid does Yale prefer, and is it different from whom Harvard likes best? I think people get frustrated because it’s less clear than for other colleges. That does not mean it’s less self-selecting or less predictable. Stakes are high and so are emotions, so holistic admissions seems to offer a calming explanation for the unexpected acceptance, the outlier with lower SAT’s, or any apparently “inferior” person who got in when you didn’t.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So then you’re saying the problem lies in universities effectively communicating their criteria, even when using a more “holistic” approach resulting in people clamoring for poor explanations as to why student X got admitted but not student Y.</p>
<p>Does this require transparency on the admissions side, or better communication of community values and culture to incoming students so that the uniqueness of each institution is stressed more appropriately?</p>
<p>…he doesn’t even cite any data on college admissions. His whole point is based on extrapolating from employment studies. Way to be “analytical”.</p>
<p>And if we’re being “analytical”, the SAT is not particularly good at predicting college performance, and is only intended to predict freshman grades in the first place. High school GPA does better, but is still far from perfect. People really need to get over the idea that a number automatically makes something valid.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This.</p>
<p>^What that poster said.</p>
<p>Holistic is not compensation (good for bad). Holistic is context. If anything, the people “hurt” are those who are wealthy --unless all their accomplishments in total have been demonstrated to be significantly ahead of those from the same location who are less well-off. And to be fair, the comparison has to be made only within the same ethnic group.</p>
<p>And the judgment for that level of accomplishment in all areas, as well as the content & tone of recs and essays, cannot be made by those outside of the admissions committees because naturally only the committee has all the elements to make the judgment.</p>
<p>I read an article last year about two sisters from SE Asia who emigrated to the U.S. In middle school and spoke no English. They moved to the inner city of depressed Lawrence, MA and proceeded to impress every teacher and administrator in their school with their work ethic, talent and desire. They graduated fully fluent in English, with very strong grades, and SATs around 1750, and both got into Harvard.</p>
<p>It’s a purely American notion of social justice and egalitarianism that makes these kinds of stories possible. They are frequently threads on CC from kids whose recent-immigrant parents can’t or won’t believe that anything matters other than going to the best school and meeting the right people in order to get inyo the most prestigious university to set up career prospects. I’m glad that other things matter here, and I’m glad that universities recognize that it’s not just about admitting students who will be competent consumers of their product, but admitting students whose diverse talents and perspectives enable them to enhance that product.</p>
<p>Amen, gadad.</p>
<p>Any school that requires an essay is by default taking the holistic approach. I agree that it gives a shot to lower/middle class kids who might not have it otherwise.</p>