I don’t know why he wasn’t admitted. I expect one factor was that his sport was one that Stanford places less emphasis on.
True. IDK what % of athletes are recruited in the Ivies. Amherst has a very detailed report on it but it seems that’s unusual.
I know there are several regular contributors on CC that work as private counselors - have any of them commented on this thread? I would love to get their opinion since they have more experience than most of us.
I’m a private counselor, but my comment was rather tongue in cheek…sorry about that.
The truth is, there’s no simple answer. College admissions is complex and often seemingly opaque, but as many posters have pointed out, patterns do emerge. I study general data and statistics, analyze admissions results of my own clients, attend professional events with admissions reps and ask a lot of questions in various circles.
From an article on managing expectations in college admissions, it’s clear that multiple factors come into play:
“Holistic admissions means that schools consider a wide variety of qualities relating to students including (but not limited to) the following criteria: demographics of every kind (ethnic background, type of school, location of school, income of family, first generational status, average SAT of local high school or current high school, geographical location, etc.), academic rigor, awards and honors, test scores (including academic competition scores), GPA and rank (if applicable), special talent, athletic ability (particularly recruited athlete status), legacy status (for those schools that consider legacy), overcoming or hardship stories, essays, letters of recommendation, demonstrated interest, and probably one of the most important, but least understood concept, the idea of building a class.”
Even such scenarios as one student edging out another from the same school because they were both recruited, but one was a tick better than the other in the sport (meaning, if a particular college has decided to only take one recruited athlete from that high school, than student #2 is out of luck) happen.
So “crapshoot”? “Dumb luck”? I don’t really think so, but the “formula” can be complex, which certainly leaves the impression that admissions is too often random.
What I recall most about my kids experience(s) applying to college is that they got into colleges their counselor said were either ‘reaches’ or ‘very unlikely’ (Columbia, Brown, Pomona) and didn’t get into colleges the school said were ‘likely’ (USC). They had no real ‘hooks’ other than going to very good schools. What I did notice is that they got into extremely competitive colleges that really looked at the student, but fared less well with those using ‘index’ scores or processing boatloads of applications.
Several years ago I heard an admissions officer at Princeton say that they put all the names in a bowl and drew out 1000. We laughed but there probably was an element of truth in that. Often the line between accepted and rejected is impossible to discern.
“Several years ago I heard an admissions officer at Princeton say that they put all the names in a bowl and drew out 1000.”
Ah ha! Now we know how Princeton is ending up with those kids who can’t figure out how to operate a washing machine! Someone should explain how they could improve the quality of their class by implementing some standards in admissions criteria.
I agree with so much of the above. Our S19 is not academically pointy. He’s done very well across all subjects with APs/honors across the board. Plus, he likes them all so his “resume” does not show he’s particularly into science or any other subject. It is what it is. He’s taking BC Calc now and will finish Honors Multivariable next year…yet he also just won a school writing contest (in his large, very competitive public high school) and that essay will be sent on to some state contest. Both his history teacher and his science teacher told us that he’s the leader in their classrooms and adds so much to the discussion with his curiosity. He’s took his SAT at the beginning of junior year and got a 1540 (800 M/750 EW). All this to say that he now needs to make sure something (!) will make him stand out. I guess he needs to figure out how to package himself into a student that is interesting enough to make the cut. It’s a bummer that it’s turned into marketing these kids.
I’ve been reading this thread and I’m hoping his teacher recs will be stunning. And I hope his essay will be something that gets him attention. He knows that his essays are now one of the most important parts of his apps. But who knows what would be best for an essay? AOs are people too and, as discussed above, one may take to a particular story and another one may just think “eh”.
S19 can probably stand out by sending an art portfolio even though he’s not planning on majoring or minoring in art. He’s got some considerable talent. At least at his high school, most of the artists are girls. He runs XC and track, he’s got leadership positions in groups inside and outside of school and has a job. Seeing his involvement in each of these things up close is impressive. His dedication and time management is amazing for a 16 year old kid. But we know that how he comes across on the app is what matters. And keeping his expectations in check is foremost in my thoughts for this upcoming application season.
He has a handful of XC/track friends who will be recruited. One is talking to MIT, one to Harvard, one to schools out in CA. I know he’s thinking “if only I ran just a little faster, I would be recruited like them”. I tried to tell him that, if he’s being honest with himself, he doesn’t want to run in college. He’s got so many interests and maybe being a recruit would just take too much of his time once on campus. And he can still do club sports for fun. Hard, though, when your academic peers at your high school are getting letters of interest and you know those few coveted spots will probably be taken by them.
@blossom So my kid shouldn’t have bothered to try and get into a top school where 30 years ago, he would have easily been admitted? He belonged in a top school so why should he have to settle for a lesser college? It’s not that it’s “shinier” - the academics are better, and the students are all brighter.
All the admits used to be formulaic. Now, not so much. That’s why you have to play the game. It’s how the admissions process is set up. There are many, many more students applying than ever before not just because they want something “shiny” (that’s always been true), but because they can, so the formulas don’t work anymore. They only work at the lower tiers because they have fewer applicants.
Sure, my kid could’ve applied to a lower tiered school’s honor college, but that’s not what he wanted. He wanted to go to a college where everyone was as brilliant as he was because they all think on a different level than the average person. He just didn’t play the game well enough to have more options in the end. Had he applied 30 years ago, the results would have been different.
Megan, where did your son apply and get rejected from?
Students and parents, frustrated by what appears to be randomness in the admissions process, would prefer that college admissions offices publicly establish a clear set of consistent and common criteria - such as test scores, gpa, community service, etc., - as a basis for admissions, thereby eliminating the appearance of arbitrariness in the holistic admissions process. But such reliance on common criteria to ‘rank’ applicants would lead to homogeneity, not diversity, of perspectives, abilities, etc., in a college class. And current decision making research shows that such homogeneity discourages creative solution-solving required for breakthroughs. As Astro Teller, CEO of X, the ‘moonshoot factory’ at Alphabet, Google’s parent company, has said: ‘Having people who have different mental perspectives is what’s important. If you want to explore things you haven’t explored, having people who look just like you and think just like you is not the best way.’ I think that the folks who work in admissions offices get this and therefore seek to create diverse, not homogeneous, classes, and that is what creates the appearance of ‘randomness’ in holistic college admissions. But the selection process is anything but random. It is quite deliberate. College admissions staff know that the four years students spend in college studying, socializing, collaborating with people who are different from each other prepares them for futures in which they will have to work in teams made up of diverse people - people tasked with understanding complex systems and solving complex tasks, like traffic congestion or global warming, which no individual has the breadth of knowledge to understand, let alone solve.
@worriestoomuch Perfectly stated. Selfishly, though, I’d love to know which schools are looking for someone like our S19. Then, he’d be happy to research those schools. Wouldn’t it be great if it worked like that? I think that’s why he’ll end up having so many apps. He “qualifies” with his academics, but who knows which school will think he fits their class that year?
homerdog, they are looking for kids like your son as well. I predict your kid will have fine choices.
Harvard back in the day had some really dumb kids happy to get C’s and then go on to work in the family business.
@homerdog – the GT Admissions blog has a post that might help a bit:
https://pwp.gatech.edu/admission-blog/2017/05/16/admission-its-not-fair/
Of course, many mission statements are too generic to be useful.
“As Astro Teller, CEO of X, the ‘moonshoot factory’ at Alphabet, Google’s parent company, has said: ‘Having people who have different mental perspectives is what’s important. If you want to explore things you haven’t explored, having people who look just like you and think just like you is not the best way.’”
Well that’s not really the case, if you’re at a campus of a highly selective school, the one thing you’ll notice is that most of the kids there are upper middle class or higher, so is it really all that much diversity in having someone who comes from a wealthy family in Wyoming vs one in California?
And one should note the irony in the Google person talking about diversity, where the product teams are typically five in number, with three white males, one Asian male and one female (white or Asian). Yeah that’s really practicing what you preach.
I adjunct at a “directional” college. WE have diversity. TOO MUCH diversity, perhaps. I laugh in the face of the HYPSYM claims of “diversity”.
There’s a lot of research going on about the that randomness and luck play a much larger role in our lives that we think. Which is not that comforting given our need for control and free will. It’s also interesting that research on great leaders over average ones show them admitting luck and fortune had a lot to do with their success.
Anyway as for college admission, I don’t think it’s as opaque as being made out, for hooked students, it’s pretty clear, a 1500/4.0 URM or first gen is getting in to a selective school, it may not be Harvard, but they’ll get into one if not more.
An athlete as we discussed is in, especially if they have a commitable offer. It’s the unhooked applicant shooting for the 30-40% of the spots that appears opaque as others have mentioned. And of course you have humans making decision and they make mistakes. If you’re good at your job you get it right 6 or 7 out of ten times. So you have to factor in that 3 out of 10 decisions are wrong. Now if you think adcoms are flawless, they wouldn’t be at their jobs working those long hours. They’d be figuring out whether their next vacation is their villa in Spain or their resort in Maui.
One other thing to note about the fact that many important admissions aspects (essays, recommendations, colleges’ unstated needs and wants, etc.) are difficult to observe and compare by outsiders is that those aspects which are observable and comparable get exaggerated in importance in people’s perceptions. In addition to GPA, rank, and test scores, these are the characteristics of race/ethnicity and legacy.
Many friends of my DD at college went to read the AO’s comments on their applications and learned about the specific reasons that they were admitted for. Some of their reasons are not even known to the CC community. The admission process is likely random if you don’t know what are involved. What disappoints me the most is that students (on chance threads) often do the minimum or shoot for their imaginary cut, but wish for a miracle that rarely happens, and then complain about the process.
Look at it this way. At “worst” it’s a waste of time. At “best” it’s a crap shoot. If you apply to a school with a 5% admission rate, there’s no way to stand apart from anyone else. You’re only an “average” applicant to them. This is when your great stats turn into dumb luck, because you have a 95% chance of being turned down. The bigger question is…why? Just because it says Harvard, doesn’t make it any more a bachelors degree. What’s really important are the dreams and career aspirations, not the school.
@coolguy40 are you actually equating a degree from Harvard with a degree from community college? That’s a swing and a miss. It’s a bachelors degree with a huge difference.