<p>I think the elite LACs are obviously more holistically oriented (once you clear a sort of minimum hurdle rate, that allows for some discretion as well). Each student admitted has a clear impact on the campus mix and character. But even at bigger institutions I sense clear differences. UMich is quite holistic in their review process as far as i can tell. UC Berkeley is all about the numbers, where UCLA seems more flexible. Anybody else have an opinion of the universities they have encountered?</p>
<p>On the topic of state flagships, the University of Florida seems largely number based, with some secret voodoo going on in the background that no one can make sense of. Also, one thing that they seem to take into account that I haven’t seen elsewhere is the number of academic classes you take. According to them, your chances at being admitted drastically improve if you take a bunch of extra academic classes and do well, even if your GPA remains the same. Still, a bunch of people from my school that really seemed to deserve it didn’t get in.</p>
<p>The other, non-state schools I’ve applied to have been mostly holistic, which I would expect from Catholic schools (which most of them were).</p>
<p>“UMich is quite holistic in their review process as far as i can tell”</p>
<p>…seriously? proof please…50,000 applications…?</p>
<p>so you have seen lower stats kids from the same high schools admitted over higher stat ones because of their EC’s, essays etc?</p>
<p>I’ve seen a college that uses the point-system made mistake on admission but we can pin point the problem because we know the point system. That college is now turning hollistic. I’m pretty sure when adcoms from that college make mistake, they will call it hollistic admissions.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Haven’t heard anyone claim that UCB is all about the numbers or that UCLA is flexible. LOL! It used to be that UCSD was much more about the numbers (years ago, you could print out rubric that they used–SAT scores + GPA times a factor + XX points for different awards and personal factors–but the numbers were heavily skewed towards GPA and test results). But that doesn’t seem to be the case anymore.</p>
<p>D got in to both UCLA and UMich as an OOS w/1920 SAT, 3.7 GPA–no ethnic factor, not on athletic scholarship, no legacy, but had good ECs and essays. Her stats were ok, but certainly not enough alone.</p>
<p>
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL. What drug are you on? Michigan is almost entirely numbers based.</p>
<p>CC posts had told her that unless she had a 2100-2200 SAT as an OOS, that UCLA and Michigan were probably well out of reach. Also got into Tulane (fast tracked in 4 weeks), McGill rejected at Berkeley, USC, BC. So, while we use CC as a great resource, it does not determine inform where our kids will apply to college. $60 is a small price to take a shot, although she did not apply to any Ivy’s as they were clearly out of reach.</p>
<p>oh yeah, almost forgot, GO BLUE!</p>
<p>hahalolk–the joke is on you.</p>
<p>[Office</a> of Undergraduate Admissions: Application Review](<a href=“http://www.admissions.umich.edu/prospective/prospectivefreshmen/appreview.php]Office”>http://www.admissions.umich.edu/prospective/prospectivefreshmen/appreview.php)</p>
<p>thx. for the backup barrons. BTW as a family we have become rabid fans of all things wolverine, and contribute to the University annually over and above the tuition we pay for our D’s education there. Just something about the place.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Uhh, you do know how many points UM gives for a “superior” essay (hint, it’s not much)?</p>
<p>They did away with points yeas ago. Gone, over terminated. They now just rank from top admit right away to bottom reject right away. Go look at the CURRENT website.</p>
<p>I think it had more to do w/her ECs. My D had studied abroad in France (and was virtually fluent), was the co-captain of her soccer team which went to the State finals and she lettered varsity in multiple sports beginning as a freshman. In fact she never played less than varsity in any sport and played all 4 years. She got her sailor’s license at a young age in H.S., and frequently sailed N.Y. Harbor. The point is, if someone in Admissions really takes the time to read everything the applicant has done, you never know what is going to strike a chord. Maybe her reviewer was a huge America’s Cup fan, maybe he/she also spent summers studying in Paris, maybe it was the maturity to live abroad alone at a young age that caught someone’s attention. To some schools that kind of resume matters, to others maybe not so much. And yes, she is going back to intern this summer in Paris—this time as a wolverine.</p>
<p>UCB and UCLA both take a holistic approach. UCLA, after much publicized criticism on the low numbers of AfAms enrolled, recently specifically started taking a more holistic approach which apparently UCB had been doing for some time. By law, the UCs aren’t permitted to use race as an admission criteria but they can and do consider the economic background, first gen to college, single parent household, and similar socio-economic factors.</p>
<p>The numbers still count though - a lot.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>OK - but I’m sure applicants w/ higher GPAs and scores still do better.</p>
<p>And it’s not like UM and other highly selective state flagship schools didn’t try to increase the % of OOS students (both for the $$ and getting more students w/ a higher academic profile).</p>
<p>
I think even un-elite LAC’s use a holistic approach. Not really a secret.</p>
<p>Here’s an interesting report from 2005 titled ‘BERKELEY’S COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW METHOD FOR MAKING FRESHMAN ADMISSIONS DECISIONS:AN ASSESSMENT’. I found the section on tie breaking pretty interesting. <a href=“http://berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2005/05/16_houtreport.pdf[/url]”>http://berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2005/05/16_houtreport.pdf</a></p>
<p>^ Interesting report. This and other reports on admission processes are here: [Admissions</a>, Enrollment & Preparatory Education | UC Berkeley Academic Senate](<a href=“http://academic-senate.berkeley.edu/committees/aepe]Admissions”>Admissions, Enrollment, and Preparatory Education (AEPE) | Academic Senate)</p>
<p>In general, the more selective the school, the harder it is to avoid some kind of holistic process. When you can admit only 1 in 3, or fewer, and so many applicants have very high stats, numbers aren’t enough. Once you get above a certain SAT score and GPA, differences of a few points won’t distinguish the students most likely to succeed and contribute to campus life. Numbers-driven admission is all the more difficult due to grade inflation and the refusal of some high schools to rank. For many applicants to tippy-top schools, the SAT is a fairly easy test, so as many as 1 in 4 students at a school like MIT scored a perfect 800 on one or more sections. </p>
<p>But different schools approach “holistic” differently. Chicago and Middlebury are about equally selective, but their application processes seem to select for fairly different qualities (though self-selection may play a large role, too). The top public flagships are facing financial pressures, so they are starting to reject in-state students who would have been shoo-ins a few years ago (by the numbers only), in favor of OOS full-pay candidates.</p>