<p>Article from Today regarding the admissions process at Grinnell College.</p>
<p>Inside</a> the college admissions process - Parenting - TODAYshow.com</p>
<p>Thanks for the link - I thought it was extremely interesting.</p>
<p>This is very interesting. I think there should be studies done on how college admission officers’ insecurities influence admissions decisions. If so, I’m pretty sure it would conclude that there would be bias among same sex people against those favored by the opposite sex (e.g. female admission officers would be more likely to dislike a girl that male colleagues rave about for her intellectual and athletic accomplishments; male admission officers would more likely to dislike a intelligent jock guy type who are well-liked by female colleagues). Or better yet, gay male admission officers would be more likely to disfavor gay male applicants who earned the approval of his straight male colleagues (that would not be true of lesbian admission officers handling lesbian applicants who earned the approval of straight female colleagues, however).</p>
<p>Nychomie, I don’t really see how that idea relates to this article. It is a pretty standard article about how an LAC builds a class and selects among a lot of qualified applicants. I didn’t see anything about the kind of bias your are presuming exists. Of course admissions officers are human… but your comment is a bit of a non sequitur.</p>
<p>It’s not directly related to the article but it does go with the idea of admissions decisions being highly subjective and arbitrary. I just wanted to get that out there and hopefully adcoms will take note and be more self-conscious.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Interesting-- the standard line is that you’re compared with students from your region, not your high school, right?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, of course they are highly subjective and arbitrary. Otherwise, they’d be exclusively numbers-driven, as are some lower-ranked state universities. Most life decisions are highly subjective and arbitrary - who you decide to date, who you decide to be friends with. When you go visit a campus, a lot of what makes you decide that you like it / hate it is highly subjective and arbitrary. C’est la vie.</p>
<p>Just because something is highly arbitrary doesn’t mean you shouldn’t strive for objectivity. Common misstep there.</p>
<p>In this case, admissions officers should be expected to at least be aware of their biases and not let their personal insecurities get in the way.</p>
<p>Obviously, other parts of life are also arbitrary. But that doesn’t mean I will condone the actions of that boss who has something against HYP grads because his kid got rejected or that parent who’s jealous because somebody else’s kid is more accomplished despite having all kinds of learning disabilities.</p>
<p>When visiting a campus, I would be dumb to rule off a school based on a tour guide, like many parents here seem to do (that is seriously one of the dumbest decision-making I have ever heard).</p>
<p>I found the video very interesting. The process seemed involved, and it made me feel better (about putting the time into it, about having everything considered). I didn’t apply to that particular school, but I imagine most schools I applied to do things similarly.</p>
<p>I think the voting process should be secret (like with clickers or electronic ballots) to lessen the politicization of the decisions a little bit. What if one of the officers has a crush on a colleague and in borderline cases, is swayed to vote like her to increase his desirability? That can lead to a very problematic situation.</p>
<p>
I would hope that admissions officers would be more mature than that. This group, at least, seemed intelligent and supported their own conclusions unless they’re shown better reasoning, so I don’t think the “sheep” officers would last.</p>
<p>“Likely to Enroll” huh-- now I should beat myself up more over missing the earlier interview request deadlines for some of my LACs.</p>
<p>The reason Meredith Vieira “remembers that feeling from high school?” She was rejected by Harvard, graduated from Tufts.</p>
<p>I was disappointed by the purported reliance on essays–“I think plainly the essay is one of those things that often breaks the tie on an applicant and the student who can, in their own words, paint an effective picture of themselves through demonstrating to us what matters to them, because of the topic they choose to write on and how they choose to write about it and the risks they take in setting up their subject…The student that’s able to cut through that, an interesting essay, an unusual topic, someone who makes us laugh, that’s someone that stands out for us.” Strikes me as ridiculous that anyone would put that much reliance on essays that are so often the partial or full product of parents, teachers, or paid counselors. Surely the adcoms at Grinnell aren’t really that naive.</p>
<p>Essays are a large part, and I think they should be among the more important.</p>
<p>Looking at a student, then looking at the essay, it’s generally possible to tell the difference between an exceptional student writer and a meddling parent/counselor.</p>
<p>After reading this, I’m very glad my son completely excluded me from his application process (except for the darn FAFSA/CSS stuff)… 
He’s starting to get his “decisions” and I still haven’t read any of his essays.</p>
<p>I’m someone whose kids used an essay consultant. And I guarantee that their words, thoughts, insights were their own, in their own language – not some grown-up’s version of what they thought adcoms wanted to hear. My S wrote an essay about a common household object and what it revealed about him – it was nothing that anyone could have come up with and grafted onto him, and anyone who knows him IRL would read this essay and say, yep, that’s him. My D took a different tack and wrote a highly risky essay about a personal life obstacle. I am convinced the essays placed an important role in their admissions to top 20 schools, and boosted their admissions chances – because otherwise they were in the ballpark, but the essay hit it out of the ballpark IMO.</p>
<p>
Exactly, MommaJ. I had similar thoughts when I read that passage in the article. </p>
<p>Paid consultants and those who used them for essays of course insist that the consultant didn’t change that much. Would they admit otherwise? I read once where a paid consultant admitted to a “gazillion” edits of essays. That is the point where the essay becomes the consultant’s and not the student’s. Oh, and PG, while you may think that your children’s essays hit their applications out of the ballpark, I am inclined to think it was more their full-pay, legacy (in one case) and greater than 50% admit chance for ED (in the other case) features that hit their applications out of the ballpark.</p>
<p>ED is a free option, which every applicant only gets one. People who would apply ED to a particular school are usually within the ballpark, otherwise they would be just throwing that one free option away. Another word, there is a lot more self selction with ED applicants. It is not the case with the RD pool, anyone who could spell their name, would and could throw an application at any of those top 20s. It is not surprising that some of those top 20s have high admit rate for ED, and much lower for RD. </p>
<p>As far legacy, I have known plenty of legacies who have been rejected during ED (not even deferred). The status helps, but not if you are not qualified.</p>
<p>We are going through the process for D2 now. The biggest problem we have now is where she should ED/EA, it’s not the list of schools. Do we throw that one option at a tippy top school, or a school that she would be happy at and probably has 50% chance of getting in.</p>