I applied in that era from a public school, so I wouldn’t know about private school policies. I applied to 5 and got fat envelopes from 3, but one was in EA. In that era, I don’t think I could have done 8 applications and done them well. No Common App and we had to handwrite or type out each unique application, so I think anyone attempting 8 would have some serious quality issues.
Highly selective schools don’t take late bloomers in either the US or UK, but there are plenty of lesser school that accept such students in both places. The UK has its share of non-elite schools just like the US does. There are also plenty of kids with learning differences in a variety of higher educational options in the UK. The presence of robust vocational training doesn’t preclude other options.
23% of Oxford undergrads are international, so apparently the administration there is capable of evaluating students on numerics other than A levels.
2 Likes
We can’t say US highly rejectives do not take late bloomers, because they can and do, typically the student also fits some institutional priority though…that’s holistic admissions at work.
I agree with blossom the UK and US systems are different, apples and oranges, both with pros and cons, both far from perfect.
2 Likes
The UK has top tier, second tier, the polytechnics, and then a bunch of non-elite U’s. It does not have anything close to U Michigan, UVA, U Illinois, Harvey Mudd, Williams, Amherst, Middlebury, Reed.
It is very hard for a kid on a non-university track in the UK by HS to get back on track. The on-ramps we have- community college, post military options, etc. are somewhat unique to the US.
Like I said- different.
Very, very, few “late bloomers” qualify for highly selective admissions absent an unusual athletic skill, almost always developed early, or very deep pockets for a developmental admit.
1 Like
As always, I have great respect for your posts/experience/feedback/thoughts, but on this subject (late bloomers) we will probably just have to agree to disagree! Just to be clear I am not in the group who think that stats based admissions/rack and stack = less interesting students.
But, does Oxford need to field a soccer team, a squash team, a basketball team, a hockey team etc? I know they have a crew team, but I’m not familiar with whether or not they have other “official” athletics (I assume there are various student clubs, athletic and otherwise).
I enjoy and learn from both of your posts @Mwfan1921 and @roycroftmom. So much so that I have been persuaded back and forth by your opinions on holistic reviews.
In each instance a particular student has come to mind. The late bloomer at Yale or the really interesting multi faceted kid with perfect scores who choose Bowdoin. That reflex results in me believing there is room for you both to be correct and not necessarily mutually exclusive.
I (and many) tend to conflate individual experience and preconceived notions beyond generalizations but into rules. This is particularly the case in admissions given it’s largely binary results.
Reality is most top tier schools want a mix of academic heavy, late bloomers, oboe players and kids from North Dakota. While some kids will be attractive and have success across a broad spectrum of top tiers while others will fill a niche or inspire an AO.
So I have rambled but oddly found myself agreeing with both of you 
8 Likes
I love this post, and enjoy and learn from so many of your posts too.
I do think we can both be ‘correct’, and I am definitely including highly rejective schools like Tulane and NEU and the like where I see some late bloomers get accepted…more so than the Ivies, or elite LACs to be sure.
2 Likes
I don’t think that classes full of kids with great scores and grades makes for an uninteresting class. I see it more the other way. That excluding kids who don’t have the top grades and scores means missing out on some interesting students. Holistic admissions gives the flexibility to admit “multiple intelligences” and talents who might not be top scorers but can do the work, and contribute on campus.
I don’t have a lot of emotion on this topic. I mean, I am just repeating the rationale I have heard at certain schools that are considered very selective. As I said before, I think understanding holistic admissions can potentially soothe the pain for kids who are not accepted. That’s all.
9 Likes
Love this. You said it better than I could…and this sentiment is why I favor holistic admissions.
1 Like
I think you put this well. I actually think the true top 5-10% of applicants to elite schools (however you want to measure that) probably have great success in getting into multiple top schools. What that leaves is the masses of “average excellent” students that make up a substantial proportion of elite college applicants. Those students have much more mixed results and their failure to gain admission to schools that are matches for them, on paper, is the cause of a lot of the angst we see here.
4 Likes
Having previously mentioned my inability to refrain from quoting John Hughes movies I offer…
Very few kids fit neatly within a definition such as brain, jock, late bloomer, etc. Those with “all of the above” will likely be successful in multiple spots but there is certainly room and opportunity for those that display individual excellence or uniqueness in my experience.
7 Likes
Frankly, the randomness of outcomes appears to be across the board – and, it creates a lot of anxiety.
I have nothing against holistic admissions, at all. I just do not think that at some colleges, the process is as holistic as it is random.
Wishing all the applicants a great outcome!
3 Likes
This. 100%.
1 Like
Not looking to be argumentative but wanted to share that this can also be accommodated under a non-holistic system. For example, a student who wants to study modern languages or fine art at Oxford can simply focus on those subjects at A level and can dispense with STEM subjects if that’s not their strengths or to their liking.
1 Like
There is no accountability in what now passes as a holistic system. These are all semi-public funded institutions. Colleges should clearly articulate upfront, in what ways they want to be holistic, and what the criteria are for admissions, and importantly why …
8 Likes
I guess I was thinking more of non-academic interests and talents. And not saying non-holistic schools lack these talented students, just saying that holistic admissions prevents exclusion based purely on stats.
I don’t have any more to say on this though 
2 Likes
This concerns me as well. As someone mentioned upthread (I believe), it has become “arbitrary and capricious,” which is a basis for striking down laws/regulations. Interestingly (at least to me), holistic admission as currently practiced by elite US colleges is not an approach that I’ve seen advocated by these schools in any of their classes for decision-making in other domains.
Yes.
1 Like
I think as, Selingo’s article suggests, the problem is the schools don’t really know what they want in holistic admissions — or, rather,
- it changes from year to year or
- they’ll “know it when they see it” or
- it’s “you are screwed if your neighborhood high school is not competitive enough but you are not first-generation” or, conversely, “you are screwed if too many people with desired qualities attend your high school.”
That is what drives up the uncertainty and anxiety and unpredictability.
3 Likes