Just How Hard Admission Can Be

Parent Cafe
81

<p>I would like to respond to the post by Interrested Dad. You make some excellent points.</p>

<p>Students could do a much better job of making choices about where to apply if schools would be clearer about what they are really looking for. The way the system works, it makes a lot of really smart kids feel pretty stupid, and it makes the institutions appear either capricious or venal, or something worse.</p>

<p>On the other hand, by sowing confusion and false hope about who will reasonably be admitted, these same institutions can pad their statistics and boast of their ever declining acceptance rates. Harvard may be at 93% rejection now. How about 99%? Maybe some school should go for 100% rejection. That would prove it is the best!</p>

<p>A high rejection rate is nothing more than a sign that the admissions folk are doing a very poor job of communicating what they are seeking for their entering class.</p>

82

<p>"Students could do a much better job of making choices about where to apply if schools would be clearer about what they are really looking for."</p>

<p>I disagree. I think that schools are very clear about what they're looking for. Still, when it comes to the very top colleges like Harvard, the majority of applicants have what Harvard is looking for. Since this is the case and since applicants far exceed spaces, Harvard has the luxury of accepting students based on creating a well rounded class. This is no secret.</p>

<p>Most other colleges accept the vast majority of students who apply, and those acceptances are based on students having the required gpa, scores and curriculum. Most students who are rejected don't meet their minimum standards. </p>

<p>On their web sites, many colleges also post profiles of their freshmen classes, which provides more excellent information about what adcoms look for. Popular college guides such as US News' also provide information about the average gpas, scores, class ranks of accepted students. </p>

<p>The colleges for which demonstrated interest is important don't make that a secret. They ask questions on their application such as, "Why did you apply to our college?", and the colleges also indicate on their web sites that adcoms notice whether students visited or interviewed.</p>

<p>I also think that many students need to learn how to analyze written materials better. My sons both got many recruiting letters from colleges. I can't remember one that promised them automatic admission. Every letter - even those promising scholarships to students with achievements similar to my sons' --had some kind of caveat such as saying that students had to be admitted to get those awards.</p>

83

<p>ikkin, I'm not sure that I see your safety. I see two extreme reaches, Dartmouth and Duke, both of which could well not accept you (or any student, even those with much higher stats than yours.) And I see one match, Boston College, which could go 50-50 for you. As someone who is a veteran of these wars (even if not the most experienced here) I do believe in the idea of three reaches-three matches-three safeties or something akin to that. I am convinced everyone needs at least one safety, and I do not see yours. Parents, correct me if you think that Boston College is a safety for this student. I do not see it that way.</p>

<p>Personally, I think you need to go back to the drawing board with this list or you could be left with nothing.</p>

84

<p>I definitely agree that the ikkin needs a safety, but is Duke really an extreme reach for someone with someone in the top 1% with a 1520? I know it is a reach, but I would think it would be about 50/50. I think of an extreme reach as a 10-20% chance. Am I being overly optimistic?</p>

85

<p>I think Duke is in that category that is a reach for all students, even those with 1600/2400.</p>

86

<p>
[quote]
A high rejection rate is nothing more than a sign that the admissions folk are doing a very poor job of communicating what they are seeking for their entering class.

[/quote]
I disagree. It can be a sign that a size limitation on the incoming class and an excitement about the school conspire to produce far more hopeful students than the class could accommodate. I am most familiar with this in the case of MIT, whose Admissions folks have taken huge strides in making their website and blogs a source of demystification of the admissions process, and who have named a set of official student bloggers who describe their lives and experiences without censure. Their creative approach has helped make MIT an even more desireable school on the lists of far more students than before, with no increase in available spaces, resulting in a high rejection rate.</p>

87

<p>Duke is probably an extreme reach for anyone --with the possible exception of someone who has a national achievement of exceptional note. This student has 1520 SATs, but her SAT-IIs are very low for Duke and Dartmouth and probably even low for BC. I am not seeing any notable ECs though maybe they exist. I am not talking here about school clubs, but something outside of school that would make you stand up and take notice. These stats alone, imo, without exceptional ECs, make Duke and Dartmouth extreme reaches, and make BC a match. I am speaking from my experience, only --I have no inside knowledge, and others on this board know much more than I do. I am not trying to be harsh but just realistic --this student and all students would be better served by realism than magical thinking. She may well get into Dartmouth and Duke, but she may well not. She will probably get into BC but it is not a safety, imo. This is how I see it.</p>

88

<p>parentstwo,
While I definitely agree that rejection rates & "selectivity" can and are manipulated by the most prominent colleges & U's (in various & sundry ways!), I do not agree that it's all about tricks & misinformation ("sowing confusion & false hope"). However, to backtrack a little, we almost threw our hands up & went overseas once the mail deluge began arriving in my D's h.s. soph. yr. Not because of the quantity of recyclables, not because of "false hopes," but because (I agree with you here), mixed messages.</p>

<p>What we saw in the PR literature was an attempt not to make false promises, but to target multiple audiences for the same college or U. I do think that it's part of the marketing strategy, but I think it's the obligation of us parents to look further. Some 17-18 yr olds are sophisticated enough to read between the lines, but it often takes adults to size up the bigger picture & separate advertising messages (including reputations & rankings) from reality.</p>

<p>Most of us parents have 2 imp. assets we can provide in the process: our intimate, insider knowledge of the applicant, and experience in the world -- esp. the way adults in business express themselves & why they do so that way. Over & over on CC, I've seen this result: students who've done the soul-searching (including the safety searching) + parents who have been true helpmates = positive admission result(s). The messages from the U's may seem scattered & centripetal, but when you look further, they're not.</p>

<p>I agree with interesteddad, & it is the only approach that will not only better ensure a positive admission result, but--more importantly--a positive graduation result & a happier 4 yrs. Parentsoftwo, would you be happy if your teens succeeded in crafting an application to match an "honest" message from a U, even if that app. did not reflect the people they are? I think not; you are clearly too smart for that. And the point is, a student-centered approach is Win/Win. If the direction of effort is from the applicant outward, the appearance of fit (the appearance to the college) will naturally unfold. We parents can assist in the matter of language & emphasis, so that that message of fit will be accurately projected.</p>

<p>Ultimately, college administrations cannot really be forthcoming about "what they really want" this particular yr., because they'll continue to seek to fill a variety of class needs & U. needs. Your applicant may have just what they really need this yr., because other applicants don't have it (as much or as well). It's really about the competitive pool. They can really only tell you generally what they look for.</p>

<p>I would modify your explanation of a high rejection rate: A high rejection rate is an index of 3 things, in combination:
(1) popularity.
(2) admissions standards & strategies, of the college/U. Those standards & strategies are a combination of the U's known, published mission & that U's less known & unpublished efforts in competition with institutions on the same level as itself.
(3) reputation. That reputation is both a reflection of product tested over time and a reflection of sustained marketing efforts.</p>

89

<p>
[quote]
I am a high school senior from New England, and want to go to Dartmouth. Yes, I know, it's a reach for everyone. OK, my parents remind me of that daily. Now, the problem is that I can't really find a suitable match and safety school. Can you help? SAT's are 720 cr, 800 math, 800 writing. Around 3rd in class of 180, could be 1 or 2, won't know for a few months. School does not rank, so I'm in the top 5%. SATII 680,680,650, GPA 4.3 weighted, I think, all A+ since 7th grade, took band electives, all academic areas were honors, and APs. I have about 6 APs in all. Now, other than Dartmouth, I really am not sure.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>ikkin,</p>

<p>I agree with the others who state that Dartmouth and Duke are reaches for you (and almost anyone who applies) because:</p>

<ol>
<li><p>The sheer number of applicants to number of admits At Dartmouth over 12000 students apply for roughly 2000 admits. </p></li>
<li><p>If you are in the land of the unhooked (legacy, Urm, developmental admit, athlete) your chances will be smaller because:
*roughly 40 percent of applicants are given some sort of extra attention -- minorities, legacies or athletes. This year, 24 percent of applicants were students of color, 3 percent legacies, and roughly 13 to 17 percent were athletes, based on estimates. This 40 percent of the applicants has a combined admit rate nearly double the overall level.
* <a href="http://www.thedartmouth.com/article.php?aid=2004051301040&sheadline=special&sauthor=&stext=%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.thedartmouth.com/article.php?aid=2004051301040&sheadline=special&sauthor=&stext=&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li>
<li><p>Depending on what part of new england you hail from there may be many applicants from your area of the woods, so your living in NE does not do much for adding to the geographic diversity.</p></li>
<li><p>Based on what you wrote, who are you and what do you do outside of the classroom. I an only talk from one's parents experience as to many of the students I have met at Dartmouth are indeed smart, but they also do so much more. Dartmouth is a school that prides itself on its sense of community, doing good work, and crafting a class. Hopefully, in your application, you have shown yourself to be multidimensional and what you can offer to the dartmouth community.</p></li>
</ol>

<p>If the ED thing does not work out (and I hope for your sake that it does, what is your plan b?</p>

90

<p>I haven't read the whole thread but those SAT II's would be of concern to me if I were aiming at Dartmouth/Duke.</p>

91

<p>Northstarmom, Mootmom, and Epiphany--
all of you make interesting and pertinent points. At a miniumum, I think we can say that I am a lot more cynical about the highly selective schools than you are. Perhaps I am too cynical. </p>

<p>I think my cynicism comes from what I perceive to be the unspoken rules of admission. The process is not always about being well-qualified or well-prepared. Not everyone who is admitted satisfies those two criteria. Conversely, many young people who do are not admitted. There is the simple issue--which you have pointed out--that no selective school has enough places for everyone who is merely qualified. On the other hand, it does seem that the more an institution can encourage vain applications, the more it can burnish its image as a highly selective school. With their large advertizing budgets, and constant efforts to increase the applicant pool, I don't think that all admissions departments are 'above' such tactics. </p>

<p>Mootmom, you think that MIT paints a realistic picture. If so, that's great. </p>

<p>When I was interested in Yale grad sch in the mid '80's, the catalog did not even list a phone number to call for application materials. They certainly did not have any advertizing, slick brochures, or appealing web sites.</p>

<p>Just my opinion, but I think the highly selective (and other) schools have created a feeding frenzy that creates unrealistic expectations and hardships for young people. In fact, that is why a message board such as this is so popular in the first place. It's all about parents trying to temper the unrealistic expectations of their otherwise bright and talented children.</p>

92

<p>Hey guys, I'm doing a story for my school paper about how college admissions has become so much about numbers (SAT, GPA, Class Rank, etc...) and I'm wondering who would be some good sources to talk to about "how to stand out" (killer application) ....I'd really appreciate it if someone could give me a good source for that info.</p>

93

<p>
[quote]
I'm doing a story for my school paper about how college admissions has become so much about numbers (SAT, GPA, Class Rank, etc...)

[/quote]
</p>

<p>It is about so much more than numbers. At selective schools it really is a wholistic process (where the applicant is looked at as a whole person)</p>

<p>I would suggest reading the thread: My dinner with an admissions officer</p>

<p><a href="http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?t=118616%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?t=118616&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

94

<p>so people who do not understand how unpredictable the college admissions process is i will provide my daughter's stats,etc. and tell you where she was admitted, waitlisted and rejected.
sat1's 720v 760m
sat2's u.s.history 780, physics 740,and math 2c740
rank 4 out of 150 and within two tenths of a point of being 1 out of 150 with a gpa equal to an A+ average
national merit finalist, seven AP courses (four fives, a four, and two threes in spoken foreign language tests).
she played three varsity sports (basketball, volleyball and soccer and she was captain of one of those teams).
i could go on but you probably get the picture.
she was admitted to dartmouth, brown, william and mary, vanderbilt,scripps,lafayette,and dickinson, waitlisted at uva, upenn, and swarthmore. she was denied admission to yale, princeton, harvard and duke. try to figure out those results.</p>

95

<p>
[Quote]
and tell you where she was admitted, waitlisted and rejected.

[/Quote]
</p>

<p>Oh man, you should have let us guess ;) (never would have gotten it!)</p>

96

<p>parentstwo,
I think you bring up many good points, & I agree with you on many of them (including some of the "cynicism" aspects). And I think ursdad's recent post illustrates some of the imponderables & nonpredictables.</p>

<p>The biggest problem, to me, with the marketing is not that it creates the illusion that a seemingly "qualified" person will get accepted. It creates an irresistible ego-drive to apply to the heavily marketed schools -- regardless of whether it is appropriate or not for a particular student to apply. Many students choose colleges unrealistically -- if you've wandered over to the CC Ivy forums & Admissions forum to view some of the posts. Others choose realistically, but don't match the application to the applicant, or the application to the college's own profile. Others definitely get unlucky with the pool of competition (especially geographically, as in N.E., & would get in another yr., perhaps).</p>

<p>That's why some of us harp ad nauseam about Search & Selection. As parents we can help guide the process, which will reduce but not eliminate the imponderables. It makes it more difficult for a college to turn down an applicant who has made it easy for the adm. committee to see him/herself "wholistically" (I would rather say, "personally"), at a college or U that the application itself reveals is a "no-brainer" Accept for that college.</p>

<p>I also think that ikkin & ursdad are particularly affected by location. Bummer. However, ursdad, those are great acceptances, no? W&M OOS is universally a reach, for sure. Congrats on that. I know someone with a similar profile who was rejected OOS from W&M, as an ED applicant. Dartmouth & Brown are no cake-walks. I would particularly include Brown as one of the imponderables lately; our school's rank #3 did not get into Brown.</p>

97

<p>Brown seeks the outside-the-box candidate. #3 place will not mean much even with a great student if student is great in a cookie-cutter way.</p>

98

<p>cloverdale,
Interestingly, though, of the 2 Brown applicants from our school, the one who <em>did</em> get in was much more the more cookie-cutter one (but with higher stats, being #2); the one who did not get in was the outside-the-box one. (However, she was also challenged, it seems, by a lack of clear focus on almost all her apps, by her own admission.) Therefore, I don't know how well the "reject" communicated her individuality.</p>

99

<p>"It makes it more difficult for a college to turn down an applicant who has made it easy for the adm. committee to see him/herself "wholistically" (I would rather say, "personally"), at a college or U that the application itself reveals is a "no-brainer" Accept for that college."</p>

<p>The problem is that parents and applicants keep trying to catch up with what the admissions committees are looking for. Years ago it was just high sats and gpas; then ap's and ec's, now its "passion." The more applicants and parents try to figure it out, the more applicants you will have who are "doing it right" -- and then by the shear numbers, some of them will end up still being unsuccessful.</p>

<p>The shear number of spaces at highly selective schools versus the number of applicants means that a lot of applicants get rejected - a lot of great applicants. Some will do a better job than others in presenting themselves - but I just don't think an individual applicant is going to know how to make their application a no-brainer at any given selective school - because they just don't know what the other applicants are presenting and how the committee is balancing out its class. Will the artsy liberal applicant fair better at the artsy liberal school because they fit the school culture but where there are so many artsy liberal applicants to choose from; or will they fair better at the jock conservative school where their applciation stands out as different and the adcom may decide it needs some variety? </p>

<p>It doesn't matter how "easy" an applicant is making things -- when only a relatively small percentage of kids is being accepted, there are going to be hard decisions to be made by human beings affecting other human beings. </p>

<p>Trying to over analyze why any individual did or didn't get in to any given school gives, I think, only very limited information of any value to future applicants to help them determine their chances or best means of improving those chances.</p>

100

<p>Ikkin:</p>

<p>I agree with those who advise to look for other schools besides Dartmouth. Duke and BC. The SATIIs are a bit on the low side for highly selective colleges, but the SATs are good. If you like NE, try Middlebury, Bowdoin, Bates, Trinity, ConnCollege, Colby, Wheaton. Think also of Mount Holyoke if you'd like an all-women's schools. Whichever way you decide, you do need more than the 3 you've listed.<br>
You should also be prepared with more essays, copies of recs, transcripts, etc... Don't wait until Dec. 15. I had my S write all his essays, ready to go if the news on Dec. 15 was unwelcome. It's very hard to write positively about oneself in the immediate aftermath of rejection.</p>