As a dancer you definitely get used to the fact that talent is far from the only factor that judges consider
https://www.dancemagazine.com/boy-factor-competition-dance-2518476899.html
My son has watched tons of perfect stat/highly accomplished kids from his very competitive Texas high school get capped at UT this year. He got in because he has a hook as a music performance major, His stats/grades/11 AP courses are high - but he wouldn’t have received an acceptance if he wasn’t a talented musician.
Lot’s of data points from a variety of university departments go into these decisions at schools with tight yields.
On some level, I agree that it is not personal. But at times, it is very personal.
Standards are often dramatically lowered to meet a diversity goal, and it is difficult to watch other students flooded with scholarships while you may sit empty-handed.
@OhiBro Like many here, you’re thinking of this all wrong. Selective colleges are not “lowering their standards” because the “standards” that most selective colleges use for acceptance are the ones that they decide, not those that you decide.
Acceptance to colleges with low acceptance rates is not a competition in which the “Best Students Win”. The admissions people aren’t looking to fill the class with the kids with the highest GPAs, the highest SAT/ACT scores, and the largest number of ECs/awards. They’re looking to build a diverse class, so being one of 1,000 applicants with 4.0 UW GPA, 1600 SAT, and the same set of ECs is not the single and only standard by which most selective schools decide who to accept. To paraphrase, that may get their notice, but it likely will not, on its own, get their interest. Other kids, with a different profile, can get their notice and interest with a lower GPA and a lower SAT. One other way to get their notice is to belong to a group that has, historically, been underrepresented in their undergraduate population.
Most kids who are, as you write, “flooded with scholarships” have done amazing things, which do not have standardized grading. Most kids who receive scholarship of any size have competed against hundreds of other kids, and managed to distinguish themselves in ways that SAT scores cannot.
Colleges and institutions have a limited amount of money to spend on scholarships and awards, and believe me, they’re not handing them out to kids unless those kids have made a serious impression on them. Full tuition at a top private school runs to a total of about $220,000 dollars over 4 years, and even schools with very large endowments do not hand these amounts out like candy.
So you can bet your boots that every kid who gets a scholarship has far exceeded any standard who which you can measure how qualified they are for acceptance to a very selective college.
@MWolf I appreciate your arguments, and respect the spirit of the original post to celebrate our kids’ great accomplishments. But I also think now is the time to point out some key issues in the process.
Because most colleges accept federal money, they cannot operate independently and set their own standards. We all have a say in who should be selected.
By earmarking money for every type of demographic, as you have inferred, many kids are not “competing” with the entire applicant pool. So naturally, the definition of “amazing” will be different for various demographics. In theory, this holistic evaluation of applicants sounds great, but in practice there are many instances where total goof-offs are showered with money and more deserving candidates are not.
Regarding the point about colleges not handing out money like candy, the key thing to remember is that all colleges are a business looking to maximize their revenue. They balance factors such as their desired ranking and diversity, but they’re often funneling money from one demographic to another in the process, sometimes meaning they hand out money like candy.
Or belong to a historically overrepresented group (e.g. kids of alumni and big donors).
Those groups may get admissions, ucbalumnus, but it is unlikely they are getting much scholarship money
“total goof-offs” Really? Sigh.
I peeked into my alma mater Santa Clara U’s decision thread recently and was surprised that their wording for rejection letters doesn’t seem to be very compassionate:
" Our decision reflects the competitiveness of an application pool of over 16,000 candidates. Our primary concern continues to be ensuring the academic success of every student who enrolls at Santa Clara University, and we review each application with care and consideration."
To me it would imply that the rejected people won’t be academically successful. I would take it personally if I got that kind of letter.
@ucbalumnus The kids of big donors and most of the kids of alumni are there to provide the cash flow that allow the colleges to provide tuition free access to anybody whose family has below the median income, and to provide reductions in tuition to a large number of the rest. It also allows these colleges to provide amenities that make them more attractive than similar selective colleges. Alumni preference also protects yield, which many selective colleges find to be an important issue.
At the end of the day, selective colleges care about their branding and reputation, and that’s what “building a class” is all about, that’s what the large endowment is all about, that’s what saving places for URMs is all about. Any kid who is trying to get into one of these schools is doing so because of the brand and character of the school, so by applying these kids are tacitly agreeing with the admission polices of the school. If somebody thinks that the admission policies of Harvard do not create the type of school which you would want to attend, why are they applying for Harvard?
@OhiBro Do you personally know any “total goof-offs” at a very selective colleges who have been “showered with money”? I’ve been in academia for a few decades, and have never met anybody who meets this description. The only kids who get to “goof off” in selective colleges are kids whose parents are showering the college with money, or kids who are smart enough to do well even though they goof off.
Do you think that kids simply send an application with their URM status on it, and that ensures them automatic acceptance with a scholarship? To get a scholarship, the recipient needs to “wow” the people who make the decisions regarding the selection of scholarship recipients. No “goof offs” have that capability. Moreover, any scholarship that even remotely resembles “showering with money” requires renewal every year, and will not be renewed unless the recipient demonstrates continued hard work and success. Goofing off for a semester is enough to get a warning, for a semester can result in loss of the scholarship, while goofing off for a year will result in any shower of money being cut off for good.
My kid has received one of the best scholarships out there, so I guess that you could say that she’s being “showered with money”. I can promise you that she meets or exceeds (by a good amount) the standards for admissions for her college, as do her fellow recipients. These are all driven, ambitious kids, and there is not a single goof-off among them.
Finally, a college which “meets need” is not providing a scholarship. It is financial aid which is given based on a kid’s financial status, not on their URM status.
@sorghum I tend to agree with you regarding who is considered outstanding and who is considered a strong applicant at top schools. I also think this is why we have so many parents posting about anxiety, depression, drop-our and family therapy. It’s sad.