<p>The Stanford director of admissions talks about how admissions to selective colleges is not a crapshoot, contrary to popular belief (especially on this forum).</p>
<p>Fitting that it would be a Stanford representative responding to such claims :)</p>
<p>Thanks for sharing, though I was under the impression that YouTube links were not allowed on CC.</p>
<p>what else would he – or any other adcom – say?? If they admitted it admissions WAS a crapshoot, there would be no need for their jobs! :rolleyes:</p>
<p>Note, I’m not commenting whether admissions is or isn’t a crapshoot…just that the adcom is stating the obvious.</p>
<p>Yeah I’m pretty sure no one thinks that it’s decided entirely on a dice or spinner, but there does seem to be some degree of randomness in admissions to the top schools. Especially stanford</p>
<p>He says two things: admissions is not a crapshoot and admissions is not formulaic. I agree with the first claim and disagree with the latter. There is a formula behind it, just not a very concrete one.</p>
<p>Certain individual cases and the extent of the admission advantages afforded to particular applicants can certainly be astonishing. But on a collective basis, college admissions usually adhere to some imprecise form of a meritocratic standard, which is likely the basic root of his statement.</p>
<p>Even the most qualified candidates proceed with “probabilities” of acceptance as the foundation of their college application plan. Less qualified candidates toss a Stanford into the list of applications on the chance that the admission committee has some unknown criteria for acceptance. To any Mathematician this would be called a statistical game. Perhaps “crapshoot” is a pejorative way of saying the same thing.</p>
<p>Stanford, and other selective colleges need to make basic changes in their application process to make it more transparent.</p>
<p>For example, they would do well to clarify the nature of a “strong candidate”; they can alert candidates who are “rejected” early-on in the process of their decision; they can alert candidates of the need for additional recommendations, test scores, and the like early in the decision process so they would have more/better information; and they need to rethink the waiting list, so at least everyone on it has a reasonable (say 1/3) chance of getting in. That’s a start.</p>
<p>I just finished reading Fat Envelope Frenzy and Admissions Confidential this weekend, and while it may not be a crapshoot, the admissions process is certainly less than scientific and egalitarian (with the possible exception of Caltech.)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Informing those who applied under the same decision plan at the same time is the most equitable policy.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>There is no issue in doing so if a portion of the application is missing or if additional information would provide a clearer basis for evaluation, but not if the act would be an implicit suggest that a rejection is inevitable if one’s qualifications are not improved. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The waitlist is mainly used if space remains available in the class after the reply-by deadline has passed (although it conspicuously does play a very important role in admissions strategy). If over-enrollment is an issue, accepting additional students will not be a possibility. Having a pre-determined number to admit from the waitlist would defeat the entire purpose of the tool.</p>