"Make college admissions a crapshoot"

Parents Forum
161

<p>Thanks Marite. </p>

<p>But, I'm not sure that the example doesn't support Schwartz's philosophy - that the amount of effort that goes into a "buyer's decision" does not necessarily make the final purchase decision any "better". He argues that there is always a degree of "uncertainty" in the equation. He contends that we may be just "fooling ourselves" when we believe that this level of attention really results in a better result. </p>

<p>At least in his book, he questions the amount attention given to such decisions. What else could we/they accomplish with this same time frame?</p>

<p>I'm not sure it is not the same decision our kids make when they reduce the number of schools to which they apply.</p>

162

<p>reflectivemom:</p>

<p>Yes indeed. The example could support Schwartz's philosophy. It depends largely on where the cutoff is . The 475 applications that were scrutinized were the holdovers after a first cut had been made. One should assume then that all the institutional needs of UofC had already been met: x prospective math majors, y prospective classics majors, z prospective members of the orchestra, and so on... </p>

<p>So the adcom could have spared itself several days of work (one day for scrutinizing 29 apps, several more days to sort the remaining 446 into admits and waitlist (not rejects--they're all admissible). But it does not make the job of the applicants any easier since they all would want to be above the line, rather than join the B list, as it were, and have their admission depend on a lottery.</p>

<p>Part of the reasons why students spend so much angst over their board scores and their essays is that these are things that they can control. They can't go back to 9th grade and polish their GPA, or choose different sets of ECs, or control what the teachers will say in their recs. In an admission process that is semi-random (i.e. not random for the A-list but random for the B-list), they will want to reduce the amount of randomness. And thus will focus all the more on the board scores and the essays. </p>

<p>The best strategy for students remains developing a realistic list of reaches, matches and safeties.</p>

163

<p>^ HiPower - sorry about that, I guess there is some benefit nowadays to read at least a bit of the thread to understand what was going on. Wow, embarrassment sucks, but is well deserved.</p>

164

<p>I tend to agree with marite's reading, with one small difference. In another publication, Chicago admission counselors claim that there is no attempt to build a class. They look for what an individual might contribute, but have no quotas and have no idea what the class looks like until after all the decisions have been made. They do not ask applicants to specify a likely major, which UChicago does not until the end of year 2.</p>

165

<p>
[quote]
Part of the reasons why students spend so much angst over their board scores and their essays is that these are things that they can control. They can't go back to 9th grade and polish their GPA, or choose different sets of ECs, or control what the teachers will say in their recs. In an admission process that is semi-random (i.e. not random for the A-list but random for the B-list), they will want to reduce the amount of randomness. And thus will focus all the more on the board scores and the essays.</p>

<p>The best strategy for students remains developing a realistic list of reaches, matches and safeties.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Absolutely, and I do think that this message is precisely what Schwartz is arguing for - a well-thought out, short list of colleges that fit a student's need rather than a prestige, Ivy or Bust approach. As Schwartz, puts it "...once a set of ... "good enough" schools has been identified, it probably doesn't matter much which one you choose; or if it does matter, there is no way to know in advance what the right choice is." These days, the point - and this point is a major theme running through myriad CC threads that needs to be hammered home as each new cohort of seniors have to grapple with admissions results and rising college juniors (and parents) have to deal with the nuts and bolts of the admissions process - is not to think of a reach as a "win" or, by the same token, a "match" or "safety" as a loss. </p>

<p>Reflectivemom's comments are extremely apt and valid precisely because Schwartz puts pressure on both sides of the admission equation. Following the logic of "less is more", students can indeed control how much time and energy they spend on drawing up a select list of schools to apply to - and so the result would be a smaller number of colleges for adcoms to agonize, struggle and haggle over. </p>

<p>
[quote]
All selective institutions fear the "death spiral" in which lowered rankings and reputation lead to worse students, which lead to worse rankings, and so on, until an institution falls out of the selective group. Thus we have merit-based financial aid crowding out aid based on need, ever more elaborate recreational facilities on campuses, glitzy viewbooks and videos, fancy Web sites, fun-filled weekends for admitted students -- untold millions of dollars spent each year trying to convince the students you've admitted that yours is the school for them. That's even though, if they choose not to come, there would be a half-dozen perfectly good but rejected students who could fill their spaces...</p>

<p>Uncertainty of outcomes makes the hair-splitting to distinguish among excellent colleges or students a waste of time and effort...

[/quote]
</p>

<p><a href="http://chronicle.com/free/v51/i25/25b02001.htm%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://chronicle.com/free/v51/i25/25b02001.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

166

<p>"The best strategy for students remains developing a realistic list of reaches, matches and safeties."</p>

<p>I don't see how any of the schools Schwartz is talking about can be anything other than a reach. If it's a crapshoot, it's a reach. Under such circumstances it is indeed wise to come up with a good list of matches and a couple safeties. It is the match list that students should put a lot of effort into researching by asking the question, "what schools of lesser selectivity can offer an education for me that is as good as the elite schools?" The key is the "for me" part. Students are potentially in a better position to determine fit than the schools. They have to be honest with themselves though. In any event, students will have to look a lot further than the USNWR rankings. Just because a student isn't offered admission at one of the elites, doesn't necessarily mean he has to settle for a lesser education. He may not have the prestige associated with the U's name on his diploma, but his college experience can be excellent.</p>

167

<p>"Maybe the admission committee will realize that performing artists need to
project their personalities, and mathboys need to be something else entirely."</p>

<p>This is indeed what we hope, especially for the sake of all those kids who aren't stellar essayists. We also hope that the type of "spark" desired will be different for each elite school, so that as many as possible of all the sparky kids for whom those schools are a match will be admitted. But isn't it true that certain "sparks" go in and out of vogue? And what may be a spark for the first few students who do something, soon gets latched onto as an admissions tip and becomes a cliche.</p>

<p>Years ago, a kid who volunteered many hours and raised thousands of dollars for charity was a novelty. Now that type of kid is a dime a dozen. I'm sure the first crop of kids who built houses on garbage dumps in Tijuana were unique. Now admissions officers are sick of reading about them. At one time the adcoms liked kids who took risks and had unusual EC's that weren't typical among elite school candidates, like race car driving or something. Never mind that it was a skill that was irrelevant to academic success. Then there was the age of the quirky essay--the kid who wrote about the lint in his belly button was considered to have "spark." Quirky might be out now in favor of "passion". Once, having top scores and grades was king, then colleges decided that well-roundedness was the ideal. Nerds were out. Now being well-lopsided is considered desirable. Thus high level research projects and national level involvements are hot. Or maybe it's liking "Dawson's Creek."</p>

<p>So, part of the randomness for a candidate is being in sync with the general trends as well as the prevailing ideal at a particular school. My S was more of the well-rounded, jack-of-all-trades type of kid, and not a quirky or "heart and soul" type of personal essay writer either. Judging by the current trends in "sparks" and by certain information sessions which stressed "passion" and unusual involvements, I guessed that he might not be desirable to several of the elites. I guessed right. Fortunately, he was accepted by the only two Ivies whose adcoms didn't use the word "passion" every other minute.</p>

168

<p>I wanted to add that having a "spark" and being a maverick aren't necessarily the same thing and shouldn't be confused as such by colleges. I pity the sparky kid who is unlucky enough to be passionate about something that just moved along the continuum from novel to passe!</p>

169

<p>
[quote]

So, part of the randomness for a candidate is being in sync with the general trends as well as the prevailing ideal at a particular school.

[/quote]

Just when you think you understand the system, along come trends. I wouldn't consider trends to be part of the randomness, but a layer of whim upon that rides upon the randomness. We are getting awfully close to, "a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma". To continue Churchill's thought, "but perhaps there is a key. That key is", institutional self interest.</p>

170

<p>I remember on admissions official saying that seeing a kid write that "Last summer I sat under a tree and read 20 books" would be a truly impressive EC.</p>

171

<p>
[quote]
'In a relatively rare window into University of California admissions, a process that students, parents and even some UC leaders have called opaque and confusing, UCLA granted a reporter permission to sit in on two training sessions for admissions readers in December.</p>

<p>Because much of the process was new this year, all UCLA readers, including veterans, underwent 12 hours of training, divided into a full-day session and an afternoon follow-up. After the training, readers were asked to rate several sets of sample applications, which were then checked against pre-scored controls. Officials said 156 readers were certified.</p>

<p>Admissions Director Vu Tran told readers they would be ranking applications on a 6-point scale, from those that would merit 1 ? "emphatically recommend for admission" ? to 5 ? "recommend deny." There is also a score of 2.5, because the distinction between 2 and 3 is often the toughest for readers to make.</p>

<p>Each application would be scored by two readers. If the scores were more than a point apart, the application would be assessed again, this time by a senior staff member...</p>

<p>Applicants would be admitted in rank order, 1s, then 2s and so on, up to UCLA's admissions target of 11,800, which officials say will ultimately yield a class of about 4,700...</p>

<p>Readers would be balancing many more factors than before, however. Grades, test scores and other academic measures should still be given the greatest weight, but reviewers also were asked to keep in mind the overall picture of the student's background, using information from all parts of the file.</p>

<p>For instance, if there were a stretch of poor grades in an otherwise stellar record, was there an explanation? Maybe it's because of a family crisis or even "senioritis"? Or were there circumstances, such as a need to work or baby-sit younger siblings, that could have kept an applicant from achieving the grades and extracurricular activities that impress admissions officers?</p>

<p>Or maybe a student was very focused on a single area ? music or sports, for example ? and although terrific at that, the student might not have the variety of activities typical of most who apply.</p>

<p>Any of these applicants, at least in theory, might be worthy of admission. "We're looking for all kinds of students at UCLA," Pimentel said. "We really want students who are likely to contribute to the intellectual and cultural vitality of the campus."</p>

<p>What about diversity, a reader asked?</p>

<p>Pimentel answered without hesitation. UCLA, like other top schools, was looking for a range of personal backgrounds and experiences in each freshman class, she said. Socioeconomic diversity was a plus. But, she cautioned, race could not be part of the equation.</p>

<p>In addition, she said, readers should never make up their minds about a student until they had read the entire file. "You can say, 'I don't see the spark. I don't see the spunk,' and then you get to the essay and you say, 'Wow!' " she said...</p>

<p>As the session wore on, thorny questions arose. What about a student who had a competitive, though not extraordinary, academic and leadership record but had multiple disadvantages compared with most kids? One parent was dead, the other was unemployed and the family lived far from his school, making it tough for him to take part in many extracurricular activities.</p>

<p>Given his record and his family circumstances ? and under the holistic approach ? he was a 2, most agreed. He would also be a candidate for a new procedure this year called supplemental review, the admissions officials said. This extra step is for students on the edge of admission, but whose applications are missing some key information or show very challenging circumstances.</p>

<p>In such cases, the applicant would be sent a questionnaire that requests more information...</p>

<p>There were more cases and more tips. Be wary of sob stories, but try to recognize when a student has genuine difficulties. Look for "passion" in an applicant's file, as well as evidence of values and ethics. Look for leadership, but know that not every student could be first in everything.</p>

<p>Overall, the trainers said, readers should search for those students who could succeed at UCLA and would bring something special, perhaps indefinable, to the campus.</p>

<p>By the end of the sessions, that seemed easier to spot.</p>

<p>UCLA officials say they can't yet predict what effect the admissions changes are likely to have on the fall freshman class but believe the process will be fairer for all concerned. Many in the community and on campus will be scrutinizing and dissecting the outcome...

[/quote]
</p>

<p><a href="http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-admit27mar27,0,2216831,full.story?coll=la-home-local%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-admit27mar27,0,2216831,full.story?coll=la-home-local&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

172

<p>Sorry... just seeing this thread now. What JHS said in #81 is absolutely true, for what it's worth...</p>

173

<p>One has only to browse this message board and see the huge industry surrounding college admissions to appreciate the underlying point of Schwartz that the whole admissions process has gotten WAY out of hand. It doesn't surprise me that many here have expressed contempt or hostility to the article.<br>
Those who spend a lot of time here are obviously invested in the current system, either as admissions officers, current players or recent winners of the game.</p>

174

<p>Post #173: Precisely! This is the best statement that I read so far.</p>

<p>The bad thing is that the colleges know it's wrong but they don't admit and don't want to fix it.</p>

175

<p>Barry Schwartz's opinion piece in the LA Times that was cited in the opening post has reappeared, slightly revised, in the San Jose Mercury News. One of the revisions, the student in the LA Times works hard to get into Yale, the student in the San Jose Mercury News works hard to get into Stanford! :rolleyes:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.mercurynews.com/opinion/ci_5621520%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.mercurynews.com/opinion/ci_5621520&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p><a href="http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-op-schwartz18mar18,1,5194971.story%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-op-schwartz18mar18,1,5194971.story&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>