<p>I vote for "adrep"! It fits the bill, short and sweet.</p>
<p>"He claims that he bristles every time he hears people outside the process try to justify the decision of someone getting in versus a very similar applicant who didn't as meaning that the admitted applicant clearly had something "extra" and the denied applicant obviously had something "lacking." In his mind, the hard realities of numbers mean they often make decisions which would be equally as defensible if they had decided the exact opposite way."</p>
<p>This is such an important point I think. I've seen so many cases where parents bend over backwards to explain to themselves why X or Y didn't make it into a certain school -- it makes them feel better about their child's chances or makes them feel the system is "just", but it may not be the more realistic attitude to have.</p>
<p>I use "AdCom" to mean "Admissions Committee".</p>
<p>I would like to propose that we refer to admissions counselors as AdComrades.</p>
<p>that has a very communist feel to it</p>
<p>(Post #22)
True, but it still doesn't explain multiple admissions for non-URMs, non-athletes, non-legacies, non-income-impacted (high or low). It seems to me that those ppl must have had something "extra," & for each school. The wedding "adrep" (I like that, anxiousmom) said a lot of confirming things but conveniently left out the "mystery" of that piece of the puzzle. Hmmm......</p>
<p>
[quote]
The wedding "adrep" (I like that, anxiousmom) said a lot of confirming things but conveniently left out the "mystery" of that piece of the puzzle. Hmmm......
[/quote]
</p>
<p>This particular issue has been debated at length on other threads and you've expressed your opinion/belief about it. Is your "hmmm" because the hearsay nature of my reported conversation doesn't allow you to cross-examine the "adwedguest?"</p>
<p>In any event, my first posting in this thread necessarily synopsized an evening long conversation (actually a segmented conversation that went on for 2-3 hours ... 10 minutes here, 10 minutes there). The "lottery ticket" issue was the topic we discussed the longest. He wasn't pretending to answer for every school, only his understanding of what happens at his current school and at least one other school where he also worked (both are listed in the Top-25 schools of the current USNWR rankings). The students with significant "hooks" were clearly separated out of his analysis. But, importantly, he also mentioned that in his opinion that another group of "top" students ... superstars, he called them ... would typically generally get in anywhere. However, he thought this group was a small percentage group ... and that many qualified students get in some places, don't get in others, largely because of some combination of needed niche and lottery number turning up for them. He continually stated that for MANY (not all) qualified students, LUCK played a part.</p>
<p>Anecdotally, in our region where we know many top students at 6-10 top high schools, SOME get into virtually every top school they apply to (although many of these kids report their 4-6 successed, but leave out their 3-4 denials/deferrals too), but others apply to 8-10 and get into 2. He was very emphatic and clear that it bothered him when applicants and their "camps" looked for meaning behind a particular acceptance or rejection, when he could honestly say that it often boiled down to making A choice (not the better choice, not the only choice, simply A choice).</p>
<p>I have no interest in debating this point Epiphany. This was simply the man's stated opinion, as accurately as I could retell it. Believe him or not -- your perogative. Heck, believe me or not -- it's up to you. I have no particular stake in this, other than giving the other parents of this board access to the same information that circumstances allowed me to obtain (and it's hardly novel or surprising information).</p>
<p>The conversation you had sounded so similar to one I had at breakfast with an acquaintence I had who was - at that time - the Director of Admissions at a selective private college. Yes, the test scores and GPAs were just the price of getting into the discussion of whether you would be admitted or not.</p>
<p>"Applicants who come ALIVE in a multi-dimensional sense (that is, that the prospective college can truly figure out who this person is) have a distinct advantage."</p>
<p>He kind of summarized this is the following way (which I reported once before on CC): He said that if during the discussion, people started referring to the applicant with a nickname, then that was a good sign that you'd be admitted. For example, if your passion was elephants and you raised money for elephants and participated in a research expedition to track elephants, you might be called "Elephant Man" by the committee.</p>
<p>When my son went for the final step of his process for admission into a highly competitive program, he told me that when he was introduced to people, they said, "Oh yeah, you're the Animation Guy!" So he had that nickname before he showed up and he said that most of the interview was a recruiting job, trying to convince him to come to that school rather than any other. Plus, the fact that they were starting an animation track in the major he was entering might prove the other point as well that there may be specifics that they are looking for.</p>
<p>
[quote]
So Dude, is your daughter applying to his college?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Oh, no! My daughter had her 8 apps done in September and never considered his college. I'm sure our conversation would have been very different otherwise. Because she had no direct stake in this guy's college, I think information flowed more freely, without any need to posture. And, do you think I'd call him a "large fellow" on a public forum with my daughter's application pending? I would have resorted to the ubiquitous "well-rounded." ;)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Or maybe our favorite new hyphenated palabra, "well-lopsided" ? :)</p>
<p>
[quote]
Or maybe our favorite new hyphenated palabra, "well-lopsided" ? :)
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Ain't that the truth Rancher Man. Sometimes you've gotta take a step back from CC and knock your head up against a wall. I've used the term "well-lopsided" out in public a few times. It's not well-understood. ;) Bizarro-World has nothing on CC-World.</p>
<p>DD,
Well, I think the "cross-examine" reference applies more to you than to me, actually -- given the unnecessarily heavy tone of your reply, which I think was uncalled for. "Hmmmm" is a light comment (not a "cross-examination") -- meant to indicate often a musing, or a missing piece of info. Your second paragraph actually supplied the missing info that was not there in the first report. The frequent or at least periodic debate on CC has been why some superstars don't get into any of their selections; I've never "debated" -- your word, not mine -- whether that's occasionally a matter of bad luck, timing, the competitive pool, etc. My posts reveal an agreement about that. But it's also true that many high-qualifers (don't like the superstar word) "sweep" several schools, & their admission is explained neither by "hook" status nor by "niche" status, as the same niches could not co-exist at 8 schools, or likely wouldn't. Just restoring a balance here, not engaging in a hostile debate. Wow.</p>
<p>Thanks for the insights, Dude, your Wedding Guest is actually very close to what Bauld says in the College App Essay book--about the chances of applicants without extra hooks--he calls them "just folks".</p>
<p>No, no, no! I've previously described my S as "well-lopsided", so much so that he tilts sideways, like the Tower of Pisa. He is not "large" or "well-rounded." He is a skinny fellow who is still (so mom hopes) growing in all directions, including physical, emotional, social and intellectual. :) If he doesn't he'll resemble Jacques Tati in middle age.</p>
<p>"Adwedguest" - LOL!</p>
<p>I agree with Northstarmom - you do not need $$$ to have outstanding ECs. With just time and passion, there are unlimited opportunities.</p>
<p>Dudediligence..thanks for sharing your chat with a real admissions person..enjoyed it. Although as you say, not revelatory, it is still helpful to maintain perspective to share what someone in the Biz would say to a parent about selective admissions and a plethora of "qualified" students.</p>
<br>
<p>Even though I hope adcoms (sorry) consider these in the context of the student's surroundings (financial, racial, personal hurdles that are overcome by some) it still seems the upper middle class and higher has the leg up in this competition.<</p>
<br>
<p>Judging from the results of 6 admissions seasons that I've witnessed at our local high school, adreps (although in this case maybe adcom really does fit) definitely do take into account financial, racial, etc. factors. </p>
<p>It's been our hs's experience that the "threshold" is lower for the financially-challenged URMs applying to Stanford/highly selective Eastern private colleges--top 10% and 1200+ SATs vs. top 1% and 1400-1450+ SATs for the non-URM. The ECs for the URM student are often school-based (school sports/government) and/or related to community service (neither of which need $$$, with the exception of some sports). No need for state or national recognition in an EC or time spent at outside of school activities.</p>
<p>Having said that, there may only be 1 or 2 URMs that fit this bill in any given year. . .usually only one; some years, none.</p>
<p>I've always felt that the person who is at the disadvantage is the solidly middle class kid--the bar is set high and $$ often helps to pursue a passion--music lessons and membership in out-of-school music groups, a summer science or math program, being a member of traveling sports teams, etc., other enrichment activities.</p>
<p>It's also the middle class kid who, if he or she could be accepted to an expensive selective private college, is too rich for a good financial aid package but too poor to pay full freight.</p>
<p>Re Ecs and passion:</p>
<p>Kids and their parents get scared by the term passion. I suspect that what adreps (aka adcoms) look for is real interest and commitment. It can be sports, it can be tutoring, it can be art, debate team, volunteering. It does not have to involve large outlays of money, and it does not have to rise to the level of Passion with a capital P.</p>
<br>
<blockquote> <p>The elite colleges truly want "superstars" in many of the niche fields and EC's. Having said this, students who are well-rounded at a VERY HIGH LEVEL never go out of vogue.<<</p> </blockquote>
<br>
<p>Marite, after reading what the adrep said, I think Passion with a capital P (or at least Success with a capital S) in an EC is just what they are looking for. That would seem easier to accomplish than "being well-rounded at a VERY HIGH LEVEL" . . .</p>
<p>Too bad just getting great grades and SATs is no longer a sign of passion. "Hey doctor, I know you're the best surgeon and can save my life, but I'll take a chance on someone else with more passion."</p>