Look at the Admissions Process from the Other Side

Applying to College
1

Caveat: I’ve never been on an adcom, so I may be out of my depth here. But here goes …

Earlier today a thread was posted on the Parent’s Forum with a link to a blog from a Yale alum who had chosen to given up interviewing, and expressing frustration with the admissions process. The thread was deleted because it violated forum protocol; and while I do not mean to question that decision at all, the thread brought up some points which I thought were worth discussing.

Without having access to the source material in detail, my main recollection is that the author was frustrated that several interviewees that he viewed as highly qualified did not get accepted, and that he viewed the selection process as little better than a lottery, which he advocated. He felt that acceptance of qualified applicants was little better than random, but that applicants didn’t perceive it this way, and felt significant rejection.

Personally, I think that this view ignores the admission process from the point of view of the adcom at an elite university such as Yale, and I would argue that admission is far from a “lottery”, even among highly qualified applicants. Certainly many who would do well do not get a spot, and many who a top university might like to have are unfortunately denied admission. But I think this misses a simple point:

*The purpose of the Admissions Committee at elite or highly selective colleges is to admit an entering class which maximizes “value” to the University. Most admissions decisions can be rationalized from this selfish perspective. *

So what constitutes “value” to the University? I would argue that it is more than just admitting qualified applicants, or even than building a balanced class. There are many competing interests and priorities. I would suggest that “value” includes the following:

  1. Increasing revenue, directly or indirectly. Direct sources include endowments and donations from alums and others. Indirect sources include revenue related to certain sports. More $$$ means better facilities and resources, and the ability to attract better faculty and other key personnel.
  2. Increasing the overall prestige of the university. This includes attracting high-profile applicants who raise the visibility of the institution. I vividly recall how much of a bump in national awareness Stanford received when Chelsea Clinton chose to attend over HYP. Imagine what would happen if Malia Obama or Malala Yousafzai decided to attend a top LAC like Williams, Swarthmore, or Pomona? It would have a huge impact.
  3. Balancing competing interests. Sports. Music. Arts. Diversity. Faculty with research interests (or kids of their own who they want to see get admitted). There are tons of special interests who all want a slice of the pie. Some have more clout than others, obviously.
  4. Enhancing or expanding the academic image and overall perception of the university. Even the top schools are stronger in some areas than in others. Stanford is eager to attract top students in the humanities and arts, in order to avoid being dominated by its own success in CS/engineering. Yale wants to attract more top STEM students. Harvard is looking to build an engineering presence, and just got a big donation to do so. All of these things could have an impact on who gets admitted.
  5. Increasing the appearance of selectivity. Schools like to keep their selectivity and rankings up. That attracts higher quality students. So they need to balance out admits who meet particular needs with others who keep the cumulative GPA and test score averages high, and they turn down plenty with equally high scores. They also probably like admitting some students with original interests, to increase their "holistic" image (taking a cynical view), as well as to build a class of diverse and interesting students (taking a less cynical view). "My son was class valedictorian and had an SAT score of 2400, but got rejected by [pick your elite school of choice]. But his classmate who builds medieval musical instruments got in."

I’m sure I’ve missed some. And again, I may be out of my depth. But I think that if applicants viewed admissions from this perspective, then they would approach the application process differently:

  • What particular value would they bring to the university community? What skills? What resources?
  • What specific plan do they have to take advantages of the incredible resources at these elite schools?
  • What about them qualifies them for a spot over the thousands of other talented applicants?

A lottery might be just as effective at admitting an equally talented group of applicants; but I don’t think a lottery would work nearly as well from the perspective of admitting a class that maximizes specific value to a particular university, each of which has its own characteristics, style, and needs.

2

I think your post is excellent and sums up how colleges think about admissions.

3

Thanks. I’m sure I’ve missed a lot. It would be fascinating to be a fly on the wall during some of the review process.

4

Great post but just wondering:

When a kid applies to Harvard for engineering, how do the adcoms differentiate the people who are really into Harvard Engineering (which isn’t that great compared to other schools like Stanford/MIT, maybe the applicant really like the way Harvard teaches engineering idk) or are just applying to get into Harvard for the name?

They don’t have a Why Engineering like Yale to kind of ‘filter’ out those kind of people so I was wondering how Harvard would do that.
Wouldn’t it be almost necessary to address your interest in Harvard engineering (if you’re applying for engineering) and why you are a good fit for Harvard’s optional essay? I know that Harvard understands that people switch majors, but it also wouldn’t be good if a flurry of people suddenly transferred from engineering to economics for example.

5

You didn’t mention how the students they accept contribute to all the other students undergraduate education, which is job one.

6

Not specifically. I assumed that creating a balanced class of qualified applicants was a minimal baseline; in any such scenario there would inevitably be significant beneficial student interaction. Beyond that, I don’t think it’s very specific - I doubt adcoms pick the guy who builds medieval instruments because they want him to teach other students how to do so.

7

If they do pick him, it’s probably because they think he will contribute positively to the class. I’m not sure about the very specific expectations of him you mentioned.

8

I can’t imagine picking any applicant who isn’t expected to contribute positively to the class. I would argue that the majority of rejected applicants would have contributed positively to the class had they been admitted. That’s different form bringing relative value to the university.

9

Oh, I agree with you there. Maybe it’s a matter of degree.

10

Many schools have the “why engineering” question embedded in their application if you select an engineering major earlier in the application. This is a chance to mention any unique facilities or professors that intrigue you. @rdeng2614

11

I swear there was a much longer version of this I saw somewhere.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y-OLlJUXwKU

Different NPR piece, same college. http://www.npr.org/2011/03/28/134916924/Amherst-Admissions-Process

12

Only some highly selective colleges think that way (and are able to think that way, due to the flood of quality applicants that they can choose from). Most college students at non-open-admission colleges attend colleges whose admission processes heavily favor academic stats, sometimes with no consideration of essays, interviews, extracurriculars, recommendations, etc…

13

^ I tried to be specific in the OP that I was talking about elite / highly selective colleges and universities.

14

As my son’s college counselor says, there’s an internal logic to each selective school’s admissions decisions. But nobody outside the admissions committee will ever know what that logic is, and as a result the process appears random and capricious from the outside. I do wish the selective schools would be more transparent about what it really takes to be considered. They put out a lot of talk about the “holistic” nature of their review, but I think it would spare a lot of angst if they said something like “Students with below a 2200 SAT, 3.8 GPA will not gain admission except in very extraordinary circumstances and should consider not applying.”

Of course that will never happen.

15

^ I think a lot can be explained if one assumes that admissions committees are not just trying to admit the 1500 or so brightest or most talented students, or even just the most balanced class; rather, they are trying to do these as much as possible within the context of selfishly maximizing value to their institution and meeting institution-specific priorities and needs.

Of course that would never happen. It would be counter to the institution’s best interest, which is to encourage as many people as possible to apply, and then pick whomever they feel best meets the above. Nothing is to be gained by discouraging people from applying - it may limit them from someone who meets a particular need; plus all elite institutions compete vigorously to keep the appearance of “selectivity” up, hence the flood of flyers encouraging students to apply who stand virtually no chance of getting in.

16

@baltimoreguy

It happens. A lot. But people don’t listen.

I give presentations for Yale (coincidence to the cited article – I hold an extremely opposite view of that article’s author). Of course, I’m asked: “what’s the minimum GPA” or “what’s the cut off ACT or SAT?”

I plainly say this: “Given the extremely competitive applicant pool and in most cases, unless you’re one of the handful of top scholars in your current class, universally recognized by the faculty and the principal, it’s extremely unlikely that you’d be considered viable.”

And this is when I’m speaking to a VERY selective group of HS students. If I’m speaking to a larger audience and have lots of “just curious” folks who are miles from being viable, I’ll add: “Are you currently one of the single best students your HS has produced in years?”

I’m grateful for anyone who is interested in my school and I profusely thank audiences for taking time to hear my spiel. But I also owe it to them not to blow smoke. I never invite them to apply willy-nilly – and to only apply if they’re willing to go through this tough examination.

But the fact is, most people don’t think what I say, or what the stats say, or their guidance counselors say – applies to them. My college gets plenty of unrealistic applications. I’ve interviewed a good number.

17

@renaissancedad wrote in post #12

I firmly disagree. Both MIT and Yale have taken actions to reduce some of their mailings specifically to decrease interest from the more marginal applicants. Heck, look at the postings here on this forum: “I got a mailer from X. Does this mean I’m more likely to get accepted?” without a single moment’s examination into the actual requirements or admit rates – these kids will unfortunately, always exist.

(caveat: I also stipulate that some schools DO play this game – but not the ultra selective ones as far as I can tell)

Yale continues to target specific historically under-represented groups – I applaud them for that. But from an insider’s view, they don’t give much of a flip to the # of apps any season nor the fact that they can boast an ever diminishing admit rate. Rather opposite, I hear continual regret that year after year, super kids have to be turned away.

Indeed, this was part of the impetus for Yale College to expand their undergrad population by 15% starting with the class of '17. The cost was roughly $300M, by the way.

Only very shallow people associated with the low admit schools celebrate the so-called “selectivity” based upon tiny admit rates. The top colleges know that tens of thousands of great kids get turned away.

Like I said, some schools tweak their admit rates. But with the topmost schools , I have found this not to be true. I’d say allegations of active admit rate depression are brought about mostly by cynical or unknowing outsiders operating on false causation/correlation assumptions.

18

^ Glad to hear some disagreement. I do think that things have reached a bit of a saturation point for the top schools, as the numbers are stretching the resources of adcoms, and there is a balance between encouraging applicants and being able to sift through them all to identify the best fits. Some of this may be one of the motivations for the new proposed application process. But in general, elite schools want to keep their admissions rates down, which only happens if more people apply. Stanford didn’t top Harvard as the “most selective” school in the country because they raised their standards, but because 42,000+ people applied vs. 37,000+.

19

I like how you describe it: saturation point.

I’ve been loath to say:* they’re simply above it all*. It sounds so elitist, but I feel it’s apt. They are centuries-old institutions who do things the way they want to, beholden to no one but their own. USNWR flows off their backs. My grad year, we were ranked #1. I don’t think that merited any discussion besides a few column article in the school paper. That outside validation simply paled to what we realized what we had gained, were witness to and the belonging to an institution as venerable as our own.

I like “saturation point” – I’ll use it in the future!

20

I think this is excellent. Yale now accepts, what, about 6% of applicants? People don’t seem to accept that if they’re not in the top 6% of their class, let alone the top 6% of the country, they really don’t have much of a chance.