Holistic admission **is **merit based, it’s just not 100% stats-driven.
<holistic admission="" is="" merit="" based,="" it’s="" just="" not="" 100%="" stats-driven.="">
Yaaa. Donald Trump and most of his brood were accepted to Ivy League and graduated from it. Merit based family. Every Trump child who wished, every one got in. 100% success rate. I know, they ALL are geniuses. Every single of them. 100% - UPenn admitted every single one, who applied.
I don’t have the same merit as Trump/Clinton/Obama/Bush, etc. My D has excellent statistics, but not the merit that is required for admission. Thus - lottery.
<colleges don’t="" give="" a="" whit="" about="" correcting="" us="" news.="">
- Northeastern, for example hired several statisticians, trying to crack / improve their rankings.
- There was a number of stories, when colleges provided false data to improve rankings.
- Even my public university, makes press releases, every year, to proudly announce its place in the ranking (within top 50).
- Even Stanford started to report superscored ACT / SAT test results to look better in the rankings.
Yes, Colleges don’t give a whit about correcting US News. (sarcasm)
Holistic does not mean lottery.
It does not mean picking admits at random or spinning a dial.
It means “merit” is about the whole record, choices made, responsibilities taken on, and more. And then the kicker many miss: how well you present yourself in the app itself, whether you show the thinking that college wants to see.
Will you know the thinking those colleges want to see? Or is this about your own preconceptions?
Northeastern initiated a program to improve as a university. And they did improve, to a point where they are far more desirable today than ten years ago. Don’t spin your wheels worrying about the Trump kids, who made it through college and are doing well. They really have nothing to do with your goals for your child.
You presumably aren’t applying to colleges that falsified.
What you know is a slice. You know what you think, what you want, what your grad school experiences were, what the kids are like on your campus. That’s a slice. We’re telling you to expand your knowledge and you really risk, if you keep answering, no, in whatever form.
Admissions is not what family and friends think. It’s very much about satisfying adcoms. If you come back with a snappy retort, how it’s all formula or legacy or lottery, you are missing the chance to improve her chances.
^ But why bother? TCD is a fine uni and quite cheap. St. A’s costs more but is also fine. McGill is gigantic but has some cheap degrees. And Toronto has the collegiate setup.
Respectfully @lookingforward , nearly everything I have read says that all colleges, even the tippy-top ones, are hyper-concerned with the USNWR rankings, even if they don’t like it. Yes, some like Reed have refused to participate, others have thrown barbs, but they care.
A humorous but enlightening take on this is chapter 2 of the book “Crazy U” by Andrew Ferguson.
The rankings they concern themselves with more are peer reviews, how competition affects winning research funding, and more. If someone at Harvard is sweating bullets because one year Yale or Stanford top them in USNews, its minor. It’s CC that’s so all-fired beholden to these media rankings and the who-said-what.
But anyway, OP wants to choose her kid’s college targets based on US News. Doesn’t that strike you as…incomplete?
My kid visited Stanford. She hated it. It’s a great school but that doesn’t mean it’s the place for everyone despite its ranking and number of applicants.
I hate Stanford too, (fairly irrationally I’ll add!), but my bloom where planted kid applied. The only thing he cared about was smart kids and a good computer science department. Size, location, Greek presence all meant nothing to him. Younger son was pickier, but apart from not wanting a very urban or very rural campus, he was actually quite adaptable as well.
<my kid="" visited="" stanford.="" she="" hated="" it.="" it’s="" a="" great="" school="" but="" that="" doesn’t="" mean="" the="" place="" for="" everyone="" despite="" its="" ranking="" and="" number="" of="" applicants.="">
How could ONE visit change student’s opinion that much? Look at the tread that discusses college visits (it is hilarious!). Students and parents discuss tour guides, weather, hospitality and professionalism of admission, dorms, weather …)
I don’t think that all these factors are that important for a university. The first impression is not always the best.
<and then="" the="" kicker="" many="" miss:="" how="" well="" you="" present="" yourself="" in="" app="" itself,="" whether="" show="" thinking="" that="" college="" wants="" to="" see.="" will="" know="" those="" colleges="" want="" see?="">
God knows, what they want. I certainly, don’t know. I tried Friske, it doesn’t help me to figure out what colleges want. If you read mission statements, they are very, very similar.
Do what you can, with what you have, where you are. Leave the rest to God (but don’t forget to buy a lottery ticket).
Well, you left an opening for this: the first impression beats no impression.
Or: beats more distant info.
Most of us know the look-see is problematic, but a lot of kids (including all those top performers aiming high) do care about environment. Maybe your daughter doesn’t. Or maybe she does, but you don’t.
<if someone="" at="" harvard="" is="" sweating="" bullets="" because="" one="" year="" yale="" or="" stanford="" top="" them="" in="" usnews,="" its="" minor.="">
Harvard is not sweating because it is Harvard and everyone knows it. They built a huge marketing machine and name recognition. They are not sweating, because they are the gorilla and everyone knows it.
Trust me, colleges are sweating to get into top 100, top 50, and top 20 in the rankings. It is a big deal. Especially, for adcoms. UC campuses compete with each other, and some people have bonuses and performance evaluation tied to the college ranking.
<the rankings="" they="" concern="" themselves="" with="" more="" are="" peer="" reviews,="" how="" competition="" affects="" winning="" research="" funding,="" and="" more.="">
Research funding has nothing to do with college rankings. At least in STEM area. I am very positive about it. NIH gives grants based on the peer evaluation of the research project (and principal investigator), not the name of the college.
Again, @lookingforward , the book I mentioned and many others I have read have said quite the opposite. They do care, even at the tippy-top schools and even if they don’t like it, and the rankings directly influence donations, which is paramount, of course.
(I am not saying it is how anyone should choose a college, btw)
Gosh, PM, these books aren’t gospels. They aren’t written as a public service. Development can turn to various sources for some “we’re tops in___” statements. That doesn’t elevate USNews to some special status or accuracy. In fact, imo, folks should concern themselves more with dept strengths than overall.
I’m done arguing this point. I also work for a coveted U. Often, the picture I see on CC of these U’s is so in contrast with the ordinary realities.
They do compete with each other, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that the competition makes for a better school. It might, but I have my doubts at least about some schools. For example, one way for a college to rise in the rankings is to have a lot of applicants. Why? Because that’s what USN&WR says is important to them. Lots of applications flowing in. This means that schools like Columbia, Vandy, Chicago, Northeastern and several others blanket the continental US, Alaska and Hawaii, with marketing materials. They get a huge number of vastly unqualified people to apply, just to raise their rankings. If you’re saying that Stanford is great because lots of people think so, as someone interested in economics you should already be aware that what you’re describing is a bubble market, potentially. Just like the tulip bulb craze in Holland. Or people buying bottled water at all–much less for prices higher than gasoline. Marketing, marketing, marketing.
Northeastern spent a lot of time figuring out how to rise in the rankings. http://www.bostonmagazine.com/news/article/2014/08/26/how-northeastern-gamed-the-college-rankings/
GW did something similar – http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/08/education/edlife/how-to-raise-a-universitys-profile-pricing-and-packaging.html
Many people love these universities and equate their rise in the rankings as indications of quality education. I personally do not think that they necessarily provide a better education. In fact a case can be made that they are lacking in ethics.
Because of the money they spend rising in rankings, they create huge debt for several of their students. For these reasons, schools that are known to engage in gaming the USN&WR rankings are not on our family’s list.
I prefer to send my child to schools that have other motives, such as ethically educating students, rankings be darned.
Besides if you think about it, it’s pretty hard to rank a toaster oven, much less a college. http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2011/02/14/the-order-of-things
What’s important to my mind is whether that college can provide your child with the education that he or she can best use. To my mind that means I had better find out if, for example, the school is supportive of students or intensionally has weeder classes, if the school curves grades and encourages students to compete with each other or if the students are encouraged to collaborate and help each other graduate). I also look at the individual professors and what their academic interests are. If possible I’m looking to see that they match with the interests of my child. This is the granularity that makes for a good “why X college” essay: If you look at these factors, you will figure out how X particular child will fit into Y community–or why not.
The reality is that some colleges care about and game the rankings more than others, which makes them quite suspect (and why I prefer to make my own tiers).
And USNews certainly isn’t incented to get the rankings “right”. If they hear from some colleges, so what? How does USNews suffer?
@lookingforward , if I can’t persuade you with a published book by a well known writer that’s been in print for five years, with named quotes and sources, including those in positions of power at the high-ranking universities in question and USN, then I realize it is futile and I shall stop trying.