<hr>
<p>Sorry, not so Exie. And I’ve only posted under two names, although your imagination runs wild.</p>
<p>Back to the OP, I think it’s safe to say that all of the most sought after BSs should be considered “reach schools” with or without very high ssat scores. I don’t know of many 99% score students who felt they were a shoe in.
Exie, I think you mentioned on another thread to cast ones net far a wide. I think thats a good idea when making a BS list.</p>
<p>ExieMITAlum, in reference to your post 75, which is too long to quote in full, I’d like to circle back to the OP. I understand your argument. I’m disturbed by the implications. (We’re not an Asian family, thus I’m not writing this from a personal sense of unfair treatment of a family member.) </p>
<p>It occurs to me that any admissions officer will place the judgement of an admissions officer over test scores. (You’ll call me cynical. Sorry!) The history of the “whole applicant” approach to admissions is, ah, difficult. Jerome Karabel, in The Chosen, wrote that HYP turned to the holistic approach in order to fend off Jewish applicants. The rise of the SAT opened the doors of exclusive colleges to students who were not prepped from birth for the Ivies. </p>
<p>I’m not arguing that a student’s score on the SATs should be the only criteria to determine her college placement. On the other hand, I’ve never seen a study which has convinced me that test prep works to improve scores. I know many people believe it works, but it should only really work if a student’s background has gaping holes. </p>
<p>In the end, for me, when I see the Big Name Colleges select athletes, rather than scholars, from our local public high school, I cannot help feeling cynical about the holistic approach. From my limited perspective, it can become a license for a school to accept the children of the wealthy, those who will support sports teams, and the children of helicopter parents. The small LAC seem to be more interested in selecting the true students.</p>
<p>@Peri</p>
<p>From some of the stuff that I’ve read, the entering LAC class may be 45% recruited athletes! I’m trying to remember what book I read that in (too much “admission porn”, they have become a blur…) If I can pinpoint what book, I will post its title.</p>
<p>So are the LACs really selecting the “true students”.</p>
<p>Flowers123, athletes have a leg up (no pun intended) in college admissions everywhere. It was striking to me, though, to see that the Ivy League, when selecting students from our local public high school, was much more interested in athletes with respectable grades than, say, outstanding students who led student-run community service organizations.</p>
<p>Definitely, as long as the athletes are in a certain academic average (I’ve read that this is why prep schools have post-grad, if an Ivy coach really wants someone but their academics aren’t up to a certain point, it is suggested that they go for a post grad year to bring it up). When I first began looking at college admissions from the viewpoint of a prospective parent (DC was in 4th grade, LOL, but that is the community I live in) I was totally surprised at the athletic boost a college applicant gets. I started out with Daniel Golden’s book, “The Price of Admission” which is written in an expose style but really covers a lot of bases. DC was already on the athletic route bkz I thought that team experience, etc and discipline required was important in his development.</p>
<p>Sorry to backtrack but I don’t want to be mistaken for making fun of people…</p>
<p>I don’t know whether to apologize to RBG/scholwannabe or be offended - but the post I made about Asian Americans was in no way making fun of Asians or the difficulties they go through in the admissions cycles - whether it is bs or college.</p>
<p>I think it is a very serious issue and I honestly don’t understand how a Korean kid from New Jersey can be lumped in the same ‘quota pool’ as a Korean kid from Korea. (I mean isn’t the kid from NJ an American???) But I know it happens in the bs world…</p>
<p>To me, American is based on the idea of a meritocracy. Better grades + better scores should equal better admissions results. </p>
<p>I do realize that ‘building a class’ has to be somewhat subjective.</p>
<p>I know some really amazing Asian kids that were left with disappointing results in this admissions cycle and I feel they are much more qualified than many of the other kids that were accepted - and I think that was based on a quota of Asians, a need to diversify the class (especially in athletics), etc.</p>
<p>(And Exie I followed your LOL just fine…)</p>
<p>mamakiwi,</p>
<p>I think the issue that you raise, that a Korean-American is probably grouped with a Korean from Asia is very problematic. Many Asian Americans are also top students and top athletes, yet many are still rejected.</p>
<p>Is it due to a quota? Again, I go back to Periwinkle’s post which mentions the book, The Chosen which looks into the original reason for creating legacy preference. This issue is clearly an important one to continue to examine.</p>
<p>Periwinkle</p>
<p>You’re right - it works best for students with gaping holes.</p>
<p>As an experiment, I began tutoring three of my daughter’s urban friends who test low on college entrance exams but “advanced” on the state exam and are straight A students in a college prep program. It was the barrier preventing them from advancing to early college programs in the area (some of which would provide tuition for free). We’re working through the PSAT and ACT results right now so I can determine where the weakness is (I’ve always know the district’s instruction is skewed to the inane state exam which private school students are not forced to take).</p>
<p>What is happening is their performance is increasing significantly as we discuss strategy and how the college entrance exams differ from the state exam strategy. Their former principal had identified the same issue - that the smartest kids were flailing on the test because the didn’t understand what it was asking them to do. Now we talk about how the tests look for knowledge of “concepts” not long strings of formulas that eat up the time. Likewise - the strategies taught in high priced coaching groups is that for reading sections most urban student read the paragraphs, then read each question, then read the paragraph again to find the answer before moving on to the second question. So a lot of urban students leave a significant number of questions unanswered. One strategist told a student to just use a single letter to answer all remaining question if she ran out of time. She picked up two extra points but I was appalled since she should have been able to finish the entire test. </p>
<p>So we created a weekly group for tutoring on just strategy. How to manage time, how math questions are structured so students can answer them in 60 seconds, etc.</p>
<p>The holistic approach is actually more fair than you think (although I have seen some odd preferences in some large state school for known boosters). it allows the schools to look at fit and diversity of approach and thought rather than just skim students by test scores. If anything, holistic approaches expanded to colleges in an attempt to scrap the much reviled affirmative action programs which sometimes did admit unqualified students.</p>
<p>These days the pools are so full of qualified students at BS and College that “reaching” low is know longer a factor. I know there was an BS Adcom who posted on another thread to confirm that.</p>
<p>As for the Asian issue - my only point was to say there isn’t a fixed number or “quota” for those students as some have implied. My advice to those students is the same as the advice to any other students - investigate the school and find ways to make your application stand out. And even that is a crap shoot since one year what might intrigue the school is a tuba player, the next year it might be the harp player and the next year it will be someone who juggles and completed clown training school.</p>
<p>Casting a wide net towards those schools that are a fit (instead of those schools that are the most famous) seems to be a prudent course.</p>
<p>Why are so many SSAT high scores rejected? Because in a pool of 2000 students and with only 200 spots to fill, there were just too many good people to accommodate and some of the students with less than perfect scores had other assets that equalized the equation.</p>
<p>Exie:</p>
<p>How do you know that there isn’t a fixed number or quota at colleges and boarding schools? This is not publicly available information. IMHO, that is why there have been and will continue to be lawsuits challenging college admissions practices.</p>
<p>In many respects, although part of me says these are private institutions and they can admit students that they want to admit, part of me says that this is a good thing that these institutions can continue to be challenged in this way. I have also heard the argument that that since colleges (and maybe BS) are non-profit they can be held accountable for certain admission practices. Frankly, I’ve seen this raised but do not really understand the argument except I guess they get tax benefits or something – anyone who can jump in on this should.</p>
<p>I’ve heard that questions concerning their non-profit status also led many of the Ivies to increase their financial aid initiatives, didn’t really understand this either. But it seems to me that questioning motivations and practices has led to corrections of past injustices that we need to keep doing this.</p>
<p>How do you know that it is? I mean that respectfully and not as a challenge. I think your opinion is valid.</p>
<p>I’ve spent 30 years doing this and have seen it all (and been on the other end of a phone with screaming parents). I’m in contact with Adcoms of other schools as part of my job and because my husband is an Adcom.</p>
<p>It’s just too easy for rumors to become “fact” on a discussion board if repeated enough time.</p>
<p>I know there is real pain out there, especially from students and parents who think they were arbitrarily passed over for one reason or another. The original post is an example of not winning the “lottery”. But in that pain should be the realization that you can do everything right and just not fit the profile that year. </p>
<p>And my experience, especially with parents who spent years helping their students prep, is that they want the admissions rules to skew towards the areas where they excel (test scores) and it just doesn’t work that way anymore. </p>
<p>The energy for most is better spent figuring out how the new system selects students rather than beat it up for not being narrowly focused. </p>
<p>It sucks, but it is what it is. :(</p>
<p>Exie:</p>
<p>That is my point exactly, we don’t know if there are quotas! 
</p>
<p>But given that the whole process of BS admissions/College Admissions is based on systematic preferencing, the idea of limiting Asian-Americans gets questioned. I don’t think that people take these questions as fact, but based on past experience (e.g, the effort to limit Jewish applicants at the Ivies, thus the institution of legacy preference) I do think that it is extremely important to keep questioning. I do think that this board is a place to do it.</p>
<p>Am I a PEA wannabee? I think I would have loved the Harkness table!!!</p>
<p>Exie, Many of the high testing, strong academic, and multiple EC kids are frankly, just that. This idea of standing out doesn’t fit every 13-14 year old. Is there not a place in admissions for a well rounded, hard working, great kid who hasn’t invented a new way to walk the dog without leaving her computer, or sponsored an event to save the poloar bears, but is still a wonderful student with lots of potential to do great things?</p>
<p>There is definitely a place for such a child!!
But just like Ivies can fill their classes ten times (or more) over with kids that would do well there, so can the so called “elite” BSs. So the admissions process becomes “crazy competitive”. I subscribe to the previous thoughts voiced by Exie and others- go outside the CC acronym obsessed schools. Chose an equally wonderful school where the aforementioned child will be valued, treasured and allowed to blossom.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It’s not as easy as just choosing a school. The school has to choose the child.</p>
<p>This quote is from a recent issue of Duke Magazine. It seemed relevant to the discussion.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>:)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s what’s so hard about this process. That the pool has become so large it is exactly those qualitative rather than quantitative things that means the difference between a yes and a no.</p>
<p>SAT scores are an easy target in absence of other data about the student’s profile.</p>
<p>If we group students by race and assume, let’s say that out of a class of 1,000 freshman at MIT 300 (30%) are of a specific ethnicity - and if we assume out of 13,000 applications students applied at the same percentage: then the university chose 300 students from 3900 equally qualified students of the same ethnicity.</p>
<p>So what made those 300 stand out in a way that is different than the other 3600 in that group? And why then, does the argument extend that selection of students in other groups may be biased based on a single litmus test (test scores rather than the broader resume)?</p>
<p>Even if the school chose all 1,000 from the first group, there would be 2900 students wondering what caused them to be left out - especially if the test scores represented a range and not the “peak”.</p>
<p>Translate that to boarding schools that have at best 100-200 spots each year across four grades and the situation becomes more desperate. Too many students for too few slots. All smart. All hardworking. Many needing to get out of a lousy local school situation - and just as many wanting the broader experience offered even if the local option is good. Don’t we want the same mix there too?</p>
<p>So how does a student stand out? One year it could be their poem, another year it could be a girl or boy scout project, or a love of photography, or their tap dancing award, or that they ballroom dance and so do two of the Adcoms, etc… and the rules change each year for who gets in and who does not.</p>
<p>All of us on CC have raised good, smart, self-sufficient kids even if they don’t have amazing EC’s on their resume. Normal kids get selected too.</p>
<p>So we do the best we can, pray for the best and consider our plan “B” if the outcome isn’t what we wished.</p>
<p>I can’t read any of this any more.</p>
<p>LOL neato!</p>