20%? Try this https://admission.stanford.edu/apply/selection/profile16.html
Depends on how you define thoroughbred. You differentiate via more than hs stats, the spikiness needs to be the right sort, and what you think may be an intriguing essay may not even be relevant to a college admit review.
Imo, no one should say it’s opaque until they’ve really tried to learn what matters.
Judge Alex Kosinski turns out to have been a jerk. Up until he was revealed to be a jerk, he was considered one of the most innovative legal minds of his generation.
Both things can be true simultaneously. If you think that Adcom’s can suss out which kid is going to turn into the Alex Kosinski of his generation, you REALLY need to get a grip. Some brilliant people turn out to be $%^&. Some turn out to be criminals. Some turn out to be racist homophobes.
And therefore we can conclude… what exactly?
If they were just jerks, Harvard wouldn’t have rescinded their apps, they must have seen some form of racism or bigotry to do that kind of action.
I agree on spikiness but that is contradictory to holistic which is what the selective colleges claim (as I’ve noted I don’t believe that). So a kid gets a recommendation from Yo Yo Ma (to cite an above example) who says that this kid is the greatest musician he has come across at that age. The recommendations from the teachers and GC point to a musical genius but who doesn’t do anything else and is socially inept. So she gets into Julliard and Berklee College of Music with no issue. Does she get rejected by Harvard or Yale, or as I contend, will she get to pick her residential college on her visit and the admission a mere formality?
@theloniusmonk I was going to use stronger language than "jerk’ but didnt want to risk being shunned by CC. I agree that the Yo Yo Ma kid has their pick of Ivies despite being a one trick pony.
A rec from Yo Yo isn’t it.
It’s still holistic.
And that’s part of QM’s beef, imo (And after many threads going over this.) It’s not just about that one end of the curve, nor unilateral.
I don’t know how you define spiky, TM. But it’s not awards, unusualness, “best” this or that.
Ok, a rec from Yo Yo, 1400 or better SATs, a 3.5 GPA and the kid writes their own ticket. Ive just seen it too many times.
Not hit or miss with regard to undergrad education per se, blossom, #218. But hit or miss with regard to advice about taking graduate courses as an undergrad, and in what sequence. Also hit or miss with regard to advice about what research group to join as an undergrad research assistant. Hit or miss with regard to when a student has to apply for summer undergraduate research programs at other universities, and which would be best to take up. Many of the faculty are more than occupied with keeping their research groups funded and running productively. In the last decade, I have heard a total of 2 mentions of undergrads during faculty lunch meetings. A few of my colleagues would really go out of their way to make sure that an exceptional student is challenged. Some would care but not have time for that. It looks hit or miss to me.
With regard to “jerks,” it used to be claimed on CC that the admissions committee members at “top” schools had special insights into adolescent psychology, which the rest of us obviously lacked.
While I wouldn’t claim that I have any special insight into adolescent psychology, it looks questionable to me that admissions committee members do, either. The claim has not been repeated in the past few years.
Has anyone on this thread answered why they think that a strong undergraduate community would not develop, if students were admitted solely on academic grounds (+ screening for disqualifying aspects of character)?
@blossom You are correct there are more subject areas at Harvard and MIT than discussed in this post. In fact, students there are often the best in their chosen fields. Not many for example choose to study Attic greek, but find someone in that field and they can tell you who the best translators are. Not all difficult knowledge is math or science based at all. I always find those who think that to be limited in knowledge beyond their chosen field. When I meet someone who can converse on many levels about multiple subjects then I realize this is a really smart person.
On another note, I love when people chose a school and then decide that even if they didn’t attend, they know enough to comment on it. I wouldn’t even comment on schools which I attended several decades ago. I attended many school so have a good read on this. Some were so easy it was a joke. Others so tough I could not believe I was there. Some of my peers were brilliant and it rubbed off on me. In two subjects, I was the brilliant one and maybe it rubbed off on them. We aren’t all good at the same things. I don’t remember the textbooks we used. But I can tell you, the value of the education wasn’t in the textbook, it was in the professor and fellow students. It was in the workload and interactions and people who came to campus to speak. And it was in being able to speak to a professor about a new idea when they had written a book on a similar subject or was an authority in the field. Perhaps you can get this at an big University but what is the access like for an undergrad?
I will throw out one thing that no one seems to be mentioning. When deciding on a university, students who are wise realize quickly that one factor in the better named school might be their peers. When you are 35 and looking for a job. Pulling out the index or going on linkedin and finding peers will get you further than sending in resumes. And vice versa when they look you up before they hire your firm. So the “benefits” continue throughout a lifetime. Much more valuable today than they were when I graduated years ago. Puts money in my pocket each and every year.
Someone mentioned “deserved”— in my house that is a dirty word. It usually represents someone who got an outcome they don’t like and want to blame it on someone else or change the rules so they have the upper hand. I like to replace it with worked hard and didn’t quite get the expectations they sought. I like to think of success being a combination of mainly hard work and some natural ability with a lot of humility thrown in. I don’t think winning a Fields Medal or Nobel or any other medal is the metric of intellectual superiority. Just think of all the people who have the same capability and chose to split their time teaching and raising a family or writing or whatever gave them pleasure. And who is to say, each person has to decide on their own path.
I agree with Happytimes2001 #227 that “deserved” may be a loaded word. I think “earned a spot in a top school” might carry fewer connotations–but of course, many people don’t believe that it is actually possible to earn a spot in a top school.
Wchatar2. That’s not enough to make it a universal.
Maybe it all seems so opaque and random because many folks think it’s really just two or three things. So, if the kid isn’t admitted, it must be a lottery. Or everyone’s convinced that if you match the top percentile, it’s all cream from there. That’s not digging.
Carry on.
Of course you can earn a spot. But the nature of the beast is that’s only validated with an admit. Not your own designation as deserving.
There is also the perception that a significant number of places at the most selective colleges are taken by those who had significant unearned (by the student) advantages helping them in admission, particularly those that correlate to other advantages (e.g. the major one of development admit and the smaller one of legacy bonus).
I dont think its opaque at all, I think its quite clear actually. And I have no problem with it, dont get me started on recruited athletes at Ivies though…
Quant, I don’t know where you teach but I gotta say- if ANY kid with stellar academic credentials is going to ANY university in the world with the expectation that it’s an escalator which automatically moves you upwards and all you need to do is step on it- well yes, that’s both incorrect AND entitled.
I’ve watched nephews and nieces and my own kids and even my own experiences in college and believe me- the fellowship fairy doesn’t show up in your dorm room and hand you an envelope with the good news. It’s tenacity and nagging and more nagging and showing up in a professor’s office to remind him/her to write a recommendation, or to ask “if I take your grad seminar and find out I’m missing a couple of key concepts, who in the department can I work with to catch up?” And more nagging.
Do you really think that kids who propel upwards do so on the basis of sheer brain power? Navigating a university requires much more than that- even if you represent the cream of the crop intellectually. Hard work. Being first in line. Volunteering for the boring jobs in the lab so that the professors and grad students WANT you working with them when the interesting stuff starts to happen. Agreeing to staff the lab at 12-6 am on New Year’s eve when nobody else wants to be there, but SOMEONE needs to be there “just in case” a reaction is triggered. Agreeing to do the index or proof-read the appendix because you were editor of your HS newspaper and remember how to do citations properly.
Kids who get lost in the shuffle don’t get lost because they are at college sub-par instead of MIT.
Even Yo-Yo Ma manages to practice now and then.
I think a lot of people need to keep in mind that the participation trophy phenomenon goes hand in hand with the professionalization of kids’ sports at age 6. Or even earlier.
Gone is the pickup ball game. Kids have to be in official leagues organized by adults just in order to find anyone to play with. Kids are CUT from soccer teams at age 8 or 9. In our school system, boys were going to be permanently cut from playing soccer after 7th grade until parents raised money to hire another coach. Make the A team or you simply cannot play the game anymore.
Kids have plenty of experience of failure and of being told that they are losers. One of the most amazing things I ever attended at a school was a middle school “track banquet”–ie potluck–at which the coach stood up and said something personal about every single kid. He showed that he KNEW each kid, and appreciated them. I could have cried. I think they might have gotten a certificate or something. NEVER at that age did I ever experience that kind of recognition and encouragement. For anything. You know what? It would have done me a hell of a lot of good.
I do not understand what seems to me to be the vitriol cast at children. The insistence on making them fully aware of their mediocrity and failure. What in doG’s name is going on?
No, I don’t like some aspects if athletic recruiting, either.
You don’t have to have attended to learn about a college and what it looks for, look for clues and put it together reasonably well. Current students/recent grads don’t know how admissions works, just their experience, and anyone who attended in the past may be stuck with observations from decades ago. But anyone can dig deeper than the CDS or buzzwords like “leadership” or “passion.” Or guessing. Why not try?
@Consolation WORDS! Could not agree more with what u have just said.
It is disheartening to see kids unwilling to try new activities/sports or worse yet, they were not good in math, in teen years just because they were told too often that they were bad/mediocre when they were in elementary school. There r some merits, sometimes, in living in Lake Wobegon.
Great post, Consolation!
The variation in people’s undergraduate experiences and those of their children is interesting. As I look back on my undergrad experience, I can count the number of times that I nagged a faculty member for anything: 0. I can also count the number of times that I would have needed to nag a faculty member for anything: 0. I was invited to join a faculty member’s research group in my freshman year, after I finished my first class in the field. I did not approach him initially. I didn’t even know that it would be possible to join a research group that soon. My academic advisor suggested multiple grad courses to me, and also advised me not to take one that he thought would be too far above my head (an advanced grad course out of my major department). I got into courses that were reserved for Ph.D. students, according to the catalog. I did not have to nag or beg anyone for that. I did not know it was even possible–but my advisor did. My advisor also suggested which research groups in the department would provide the better research experiences for an undergrad. I didn’t have to wash other people’s glassware or organize citations in other people’s papers at any point.
My advisor showed a rare level of interest, for which I am very, very grateful. But I think this level of interest, and the experiences that resulted from it, might be necessary to transform the undergrad experience at Pretty Good University to the equivalent of a “top-ish” college level. And that really is hit or miss.
No, of course one doesn’t step on an “escalator to success” by attending MIT. But I think that preparation for summer internships might be better there than at PGU, the availability of summer internships at outstanding corporations might be better there, the level of challenge in the regular undergrad classes is almost certainly better there, the research groups that one might join as an undergrad are most likely better there on average (excluding the effects of special advice), and the likelihood of getting into the grad school one wants and of getting into the grad research group one wants are probably better coming from there. (Or maybe that’s all a bunch of hype?) Of course, this assumes that the student is really up to the level of challenge of MIT. And of course a student has to exercise effort to get these various opportunities–and probably more initiative than I had to exercise, in order to have the opportunities themselves (probably not more effort than I had to exercise, once the opportunities opened up).
I have the impression that Harvard undergrads may need to “honk” a lot to get attention from the faculty, or even from other students. Certainly one hears that there is a lot of competition among the students for meaningful extra-curricular activities at Harvard. One possible exception: A friend of mine who was a physics major at Harvard said that he got a lot of attention from the faculty, because he wanted to become a physicist, while all of the students who outperformed him in course work were pre-meds.
My MIT kid didn’t nag to get on a research project because there were no other options (there are hundreds of research positions on the website which go begging every semester). But to match up what YOU are interested in at any point in time- well, there’s supply and demand. You just want to work in a lab? No problem. You want one particular professor in one particular field working on one particular problem? You may have to show some gumption in order to get it (my kid was in no way qualified.)
But the idea that kids at top schools don’t need to show initiative or the ability to nag whereas you do at lesser schools- I’m calling hogwash. Being brilliant isn’t going to get you very far (like I said, even Yo Yo Ma has to practice occasionally).
My undergrad adviser did one thing exceptionally well. Got me out in 8 semesters with the degree I wanted. That’s what the job description was at the time. And even though I spent time overseas at a U where the credits didn’t always transfer, my adviser knew what to do and which papers to submit and which box in the registrar’s office to put the forms so that I got full credit. One professor wanted me to take an equivalency exam in order to “prove” that I had covered the right material, and my adviser picked up the phone and made that particular idiocy go away.
My kids had more comprehensive advising (some things have changed in a generation) but I still hear of kids whose advisers can’t manage to help them get out in 8 semesters with the degree they want, so maybe getting more ambitious with advising is a bad thing?
“Imo, no one should say it’s opaque until they’ve really tried to learn what matters.”
Which takes how many hours? And from researching what resources?
Opacity is a matter of degree and opinion, of course, but if determining your chances of getting in to some elite school(s) takes greater effort than determining the chances of teams getting selected for the NCAA BBall tournament or football playoffs, it’s an opaque (arguably too opaque) process.
Compare with the amount of research required to figure out what you need to get in to an elite uni virtually anywhere else in the world outside the US (one hour, tops).
Again Purple- if your definition of “elite” includes the top flagship state u’s and stats driven U’s like Vanderbilt et al where a kid with sky high stats is virtually guaranteed admission (even with holistic admissions) then it takes less than half an hour of research. “Suggested” four years of a foreign language. “SAT or ACT required”. Etc. Not opaque and not time consuming.
If you mean “Only Stanford will do” then sure- it takes more than half an hour. Again- not because the system is opaque. But because that pesky numerator/denominator problem. When you’ve got X number of students vying for Y number of seats, then you can’t ignore the math.
I heard someone recently describe their public flagship U as having “Tufts syndrome” which I found hilarious. Why? Because last year a kid from their HS wasn’t accepted-- presumably because the kid was so superior to the typical applicant that the college was protecting its yield. I called hogwash- and then it turns out that yes, the kid wasn’t accepted BECAUSE HE NEVER APPLIED. Yes, he filled out the first three fields with his name and social security number. But he never sent his scores, he never sent in a teacher’s recommendation, he never actually sent in an application which is-y’know- kind of the meaningful step in applying- actually applying.
So now we have urban legend that this public U has become SO opaque in its decisions that even the brainiac kids instate can’t get accepted. True- if they don’t apply, they won’t get accepted.
You can’t make this stuff up.