@gallentjill I agree that there has to be more than stats but this “holisitc” process just seems to give AO’s a pass related to who is admitted and who isn’t. I get that it is a college’s prerogative to subjectively hand pick a class, but don’t go selling a bill of goods to kids about the “process” when there is zero transperancy. I also disagree that they can’t make changes. Admit a few more kids for starters. Adding another 25 kids to a class isn’t a problem for any of these schools and it certainly won’t “dumb down” the class.
where are these extra 25 kids per class going to live? It’s not like these residential campuses have empty dorm rooms laying around. And 25 extra in a class of say 1500 (for a typical Ivy) makes no difference in admit rates.
@blossom wrote a good reply in another thread: “Why applicants overreach and are disappointed in April…” Basically, Life is holistic.
@donnaleighg they can find 25 beds. And yes it does make a difference for the other 25 that get to attend.
But what about the next 25?
They are expanding, some of them. Yale added two new residential colleges. But to expand enough to meet all demand of fully qualified students, they would have to quadruple in size.
Both Yale and Swarthmore (the two schools I’m most familiar with) have in fact been increasing their class sizes and building new dorms. But at Swarthmore the increase has meant the dining hall is now stretched, and they are going to need to build a new one. Consequences, consequences.
The college isn’t there for you. You are there for the college. They really don’t need to expand for the next 25 kids.
I’ve said this over and over on CC. Colleges do what is right for them to be successful and as long as they dominate there is not going to be added transparency or change in the process. 2,000 slots in the class of 2022 for one top 5 university and they had over 30,000 applicants. The Dean of Admissions said publicly that they could eliminate their first class, admit the second and eliminate it, and then admit the third class and as a population they would have just as impressive a class. As long as that is the case, they will do what is best for them. And you know what, there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. If you don’t like it, start your own uber selective university and set your own rules. That is what markets drive us to do. If you think it would be better to admit only on academic merit, you are free to do so. As long as you don’t break any civil rights laws, etc. you can set your own criteria.
The US institution of higher education doesn’t exist to educate great academic stat kids! They exist to become a institution to increase the body of knowledge and influence society. They use the students as more of a raw material to accomplish that goal. If I were a supplier of raw material, I’d find out what the customer (the University) wants and I would try to sell them on how my raw material helps them meet/exceed their goals. In my OP (and subsequent clarifying posts), that is what I tried to do.
Universities want raw materials that help them make a better product. You are the supplier and they are the customer. And in most cases your are paying your customer to take the raw material.
Um, adding 25 kids increases an admit rate from 5% to 5.05%? Lol, read the tea leaves.
Some people don’t like holistic because they have to work harder to get it. They think past glory should be enough.
@lookingforward adding 25 beds was a talking point because someone suggested “they can’t do anything” about accepting more high achieving kids. That’s garbage. Most could if they wanted to but they don’t.
And what’s with your snark? Holistic is fine (and subjectivity is needed, obviously) but it’s not genuine in many cases. You know it. Oh, and 90% of the app is about past glory.
They cannot accept enough top performers to satisfy everyone. They aren’t obligated to, either. You know how many of Stanford’s 40 k apps are 4.0, club leaders, had some this and some that and are nice kids? You’ve read what they and Harvard have said about this?
Sorry folks, holistic is fine. It’s too many apps and supps that aren’t, that go off the mark or never hit it in the first place. All this certainty it’s polluted or a crapshoot, the URMs are getting in with lower merit (who has the nerve to say that?) are diverting you from the real task: rising to the challenge.
Past glory only shows part of it. Top schools are really thinking about the four years there.
Maybe that’s the confusion for so many families. You think a top admit is a reward. The kid worked hard in 9-12, he “deserves” to be one of the 5%.
Life’s not like that.
I’d certainly rather the holistic approach over putting all high stats kids in a pool and randomly drawing names.
Again, not everything is about the top tier. Some just can’t seem to get past that.
It’s much easier to get into colleges with less competition. And perfectly fine, if that’s where the kid will thrive, be empowered, and grow. But the outrage is so often directed at the harder schools.
I like holistic admission because it makes things interesting and creates surprises.
Adding an extra 25? Do those 25 get their dorm assignments last? Do they take a January admission if the year’s yield is to high? An overseas first semester? Many universities have these programs in place to compensate for the students that fail/leave during or after their first semester, not the case with 98% freshmen retention rates.
Looking at some of the the common data sets, say 65% of students are full pay. Those students likely chose their top tier meets full need school over offers of $20K to $40K/year at other private institutions very capable of educating students to succeed. Remember that they are not all from wealthy families. Once any student is accepted, it is now the school’s obligation to fulfill its promise to house and educate the whole class, not shoehorn them into overcrowded dorms and cafeterias at over $16k/year.