Myths of GT Admissions

Colleges and Universities A-Z Georgia Institute of Technology
1

Hello All,

Some of you may have read my posts in the past, but to summarize, I am a former GT employee who has been involved with GT for a large portion of my life. I would consider myself at Yellow Jacket in every sense of the word. Nevertheless, in some of my posts, some may have noticed that I am very against GT Undergraduate Admissions due to their practices. The reason for this, is that as a GT Old-Timer, I see students who have 4.0+ GPA’s, 95%+ on their test scores, and finally, GA In-state students, and who are rejected from GT, for someone with lesser scores, in what becomes holistic admissions. Now don’t get me wrong, I am a firm believer in holistic admissions, but after seeing some of my co-workers at GT, family friends children, etc, rejected - I decided to make an investigation into these practices. I want to share with the community my findings.

  1. GT Undergrad Admissions claims that they do not admit by major. This is false. This misleading statement can be proven wrong from a recent Georgia Tech Press Release from January 2015:

“This year, Undergraduate Admission welcomed faculty into the admission committee process for the first time. Faculty members from the Ivan Allen College of Liberal Arts and College of Architecture helped review applicants to their schools.”

www.news.gatech.edu/2015/01/12/tech-accepts-5273-students-early-action-admission

If major didn’t matter, there would no reason to bring in faculty to review applications to Liberal Arts & Architecture.

  1. While GT is the prime provider for the Engineering force in the State of GA, and a dream of high achieving GA students, GT Undergrad Admissions has other priorities. In a recent blog post, Director of Admissions, Mr. Clark states:

http://pwp.gatech.edu/admission-blog/2016/01/13/holistic-admission-the-struggle-is-real-part-1-of-3/

The tone of this blog post really gives the feelings that GT Undergrad Admissions wants to admit more students, but just can’t. In reality, GT Undergrad Admissions (and keep in mind I am not saying GT, but GT undergrad admissions, because these actions do not represent the thoughts of the whole school) is purposely trying to boost applications and lower acceptance rates, in the goal to bring more prestige. Why do I say this? In 2013, GT Undergrad Admissions decided to switch to common app, in spite of the fact that in 2013, the admissions rate was at 41%, with average scores being:

Mid 50% weighted GPA: 3.85 – 4.11
Mid- 50% course rigor: 6 -11 AP/IB/College courses
Mid-50% SAT Range: 2000 -2210
Mid 50% ACT Composite: 29 -33

According to this source:

http://admission.gatech.edu/images/pdf/ATLANTA_Counselor_Workshop_Final.pdf

GT UG Admissions cannot tell me that these students weren’t talented enough. If GT was rejecting qualified students, why did they change to Common App. GT is an in-state school - our only reputable engineering school.

Mr. Clark stated in the press release:

http://www.news.gatech.edu/2013/05/14/freshman-admission-switches-common-application

“One of our big goals is to continue to diversify campus from a geographic, academic and socioeconomic standpoint,” said Rick Clark, director of undergraduate admission. “In order to do that, we have to continue to diversify the applicant pool.”

This is a noble goal indeed. But, how can someone in GT UG Admissions tell a student with a 4.0+ and top 3 percentile test scores, that they aren’t good enough as GA residents. I fail to understand.

“Nearly 600 of our denied students had either a 35-36 ACT or 1500-1600 SAT (CR+M). The vast majority of students who were denied or deferred have taken AP Calculus or higher and are in the top 10% of their class and taking the toughest curriculum in that context.” According to the first link under point 2 (except part 2 of the post), GT UG Admissions is rejecting students because someone sitting in the office doesn’t think they "fit’. This is fine for schools like Emory, Vanderbilt, MIT, Harvard, etc., but Georgia Tech? GT UG Admissions has an obligation to take GA students, because this is the only reputable engineering school we have.

I will end with those, as the most significant points. Don’t get me wrong, I love GT and will continue to be a supporter of the institution and its betterment, but have issues with GT UG Admissions practices. I recommend students who weren’t able to get in to not feel bad about themselves, but fulfil their dreams and transfer in. GT UG Admissions isn’t too concerned with Transfer Admissions (as that is not something to brag about), and the RETP Programs are phenomenal. I observed that for high achieving students who were rejected from GT UG Admissions, it was very hard to drop down, if you will, and attend a lesser ranked school for 1-2 years. I understand this, but it is what it is. GT is a phenomenal institution with an amazing reputation. The innovation and quality here is second to none, and this reputation even existed before GT UG Admissions recent admissions practices in the last 5 years or so. I disagree with a lot more of GT’'s UG Admissions practices, but I hope this post will at least help prepare some aspiring applicants.

GO JACKETS!

2

I completely agree with this post. My daughter is wait listed with 1570 SAT (CR+M), 35 ACT with 4.0 GPA.

3

@rchandra to which college did she apply?

4

She is waitlisted at GA Tech, we are residents of GA

5

@rchandra which college within GT was her preference? Perfered major?

6

Engineering, Prefered major: Computer Engineering. GT Undergrad Admissions claims that they do not admit by major. But it looks like major does matter as pointed out in the above post.

7

I take issue with a lot of what is being said here. As Georgia Tech has become more competitive, the admissions process has naturally become more holistic and Tech is no longer a school where one can get in only on the back of high scores and exceptional grades. These qualities are now a prerequisite rather than a differentiator. When I went to Tech, it was the students who had passion and drive to pursue not just their academics but also contribute to their fields, the school, and wider communities both on and off campus that made for a rich undergraduate experience. I am proud that Tech now has so many academically exceptional applicants that it is free to focus on the complete story told by each applicant. Tech admits people, not numbers.

Bringing in faculty from architecture and Ivan Allen means that those who apply to these programs, who often have a different story to tell than a STEM applicant, have reviewers that understand the fields they have indicated interest in and can add insight to the review process for these applicants. This does not mean that Georgia Tech has some sort of quota for each major. Applicants can change their major at any time, and accepted students can change their major before orientation, during orientation, and at least 1 time after classes start with no questions asked. Many students do this, so it would not make much sense for Tech to set up artificial limits on admissions to any particular school. Additionally, the vast majority of engineering majors are not overcrowded. When I was at Tech, ISyE and BME were the only schools that seemed to struggle to meet student demand, and even those schools accepted transfer students (those who had already used their one no questions asked major change after starting classes) who had a GPA of at least 3.0. Major selection is of course part of the story each applicant tells and for some (Architecture and Ivan Allen), it can be an integral part of their story. If a student tells their story in a way that clearly highlights their passion for a particular field, then their major choice is part of that, but that does not mean they were accepted, or not, based on their indicated field of study.

As a public institution, Georgia Tech has a duty to serve students from Georgia, and it does. Both before and after the introduction of the common application, Tech admitted about 60% of each incoming class from the state of Georgia and Tech has increased the size of the freshman class over time. Just because Tech is now admitting a stronger class does not mean it is failing Georgia students. Having a class that includes out-of-state and international students, especially in light of an increasingly globalized economy, brings a level of diversity to the school that benefits all students, including those from Georgia. I do understand the frustration for Georgia high schoolers wanting to pursue an engineering education in-state, but I’m not sure it’s fair to lay the blame for the lack of in-state options on Tech. The regents have opened an engineering school at UGA, and Tech has generous programs with several colleges across the state that allow in-state students to transfer if they meet certain minimum requirements while completing their basics at a qualifying institution. Some in-state students may not be able to start at Tech as freshmen, but if they put in the effort to do well, they can transfer in and graduate from Tech.

Tech’s motto is progress and service and I am proud that the school has continually lived up to that credo. Part of honoring that mission is admitting the best people today to develop into great leaders tomorrow. It does not serve either students or the state of Georgia to stop raising the bar. While it is true that a holistic admissions process is inherently subjective, and each year some exceptionally qualified students will unfortunately be turned away, lowering standards, decreasing student diversity, or expanding the school beyond capacity would not be in the best interest of students, alumni, Tech, or the state of Georgia.

8

@college450 : This admissions scheme is more of a theme at schools looking to quickly get a boost in prestige. Even the privates you mentioned are guilty. Vanderbilt, Washington University, and University of Chicago (who was doing extremely well with its self-selected pool of applicants) all migrated toward this. You will actually note that Emory (the major in-state private I went to) now has scores quite a bit lower than Tech (like how Duke’s are lower than Vanderbilt and Washington University’s), especially if you look at admitted students (Emory aims closer to the SAT average it will get for enrolled students and not far too far above it). Duke and Emory are more typical as they have more full forms of holistic admissions, but Tech and some other places are definitely attempting to lower admit rates, and boost SAT scores (whether or not it will truly benefit the academic environment remains to be seen. In fact, many at Chicago view it as a threat. You get more people who think in the context of standardized exams and less think outside the box folks who typically enjoy the rigor of a place like Chicago) to unnecessary heights (honestly, I can see Caltech or MIT having such a bias, but it isn’t needed at other schools that have solid, but overall much less challenging STEM curricula). Also, this “fit” thing you mention is “sometimes” just that…fit, but often it is a form of yield protection. I am more inclined to say that it is a glorified yield protection strategy at schools attempting to boost scores and app. numbers. Typically they admit EXTREMELY high score ranges and waitlist many more who they worry are actually more likely to enroll at another more reputable institution if admitted.

These schools also pull a surprising amount from the waitlist (basically anything over 100 at these small schools is weird to me) suggesting that they intentionally admitted a really high scoring and under-sized class for the sake of announcing it in their own and outside media, bringing attention to their ever decreasing admit rate (and make no mistake, these schools make sure to admit only enough people to ensure the admit rate they get to announce diminishes each year, even if by .1-.3%). They basically admit off-target for that purpose and then scramble to fill their class in the end. It is all somewhat of an annoying farce that hurts a lot of applicants. And then what kills me is when those admitted and attending these places try to engage a disgruntled unsuccessful applicant by claiming that the others denied or wait-listed were simply less qualified which often isn’t remotely true in a huge number of cases. A lot is just luck when you are trying to craft a class with a 1500/1600 SAT average (I’m serious, the 3 private schools I mentioned have an admit average of like 1550/1600, higher than more prestigious and more academically challenging peers) and must ultimately guess which among those will yield and which are unlikely to. These schools including Tech are indeed excellent, but that does not justify these admissions schemes which are completely stupid almost and are very obvious to anyone taking a closer look. Like I seriously doubt most of these schools experienced a noticeable change in the intellectual or academic environment (basically instructors didn’t start saying: "Wow! The students have improved so much over the last 5-10 years, let me try something different to ensure that I challenge the. Instead they do the same thing and usually see similar performances, especially in STEM. Clearly these SAT scores have limited meaning beyond a certain threshold. AP/IB and any other previous experience with coursework or the field of coursework is a better indicator) after the scores shot up (in fact, again, many current and alum Chicago students are worried that the intellectual climate may eventually start to decline and give way to a less distinctive feel).

It is just interesting you bought this up…because I find these admissions schemes so annoying unless they are intended to actually motivate faculty and administration to educate better. If that is not the intention, it is merely all for show and essentially to provide this useless sense of pride to the alumni base. Really sad that so many of us are so fixated on improvements in areas of selectivity and pay little attention to cool new programmatic options, increased endowment, or innovative teaching. It’s like we just say:“Ooooh look at the high scores, I could never get in today!” and turn a blind-eye to any weaknesses or mediocrity that persist when it comes to education and treatment of undergraduates (also, what does it say when these new perfect students come in and don’t even demand excellence? Are they truly even engaged academically or do they just settle for whatever for the sake of the name-brand school).

Regardless, Tech is doing nothing new. It has predecessors, many who have had marginal results engaging in such practices (hell, Emory used to pretend it was engaging in them, by simply misreporting the numbers. Always got to at least make it look like you’re keeping up with the Jones’s. How pathetic when a school worries more about appearances of selectivity than how it educates its students or what they do after they leave the institution to the point of feeling they must manipulate their numbers or constantly scramble to raise them).

9

@college450 : Also, CommonApp + “Student access” is very interesting considering many selective schools think they are achieving that by also allowing another application platform: http://emorywheel.com/elite-schools-to-roll-out-common-app-alternative/

Also, what you posted in that link with schools talking about their admissions policies is hardly “holistic”. Holistic schools don’t diminish or eliminate importance/consideration of rec. letters and student added supplements, and typically essay prompts are more challenging than “Why Tech?”. Emory was more like that before the new dean came in. Back then, the clear goal was to keep scores rising or steady. They weren’t really considering other attributes as much and you can honestly tell the difference. There has been sort of a recovery of students winning international and national awards under the new admissions dean (even a Rhodes Scholar!) that was declining with the other despite scores being near a peak or more constantly increasing back then. Higher scores does not necessarily = better. Several schools have figured this out. Has to be some balance especially if you want lots of post-grad success/awards to make the school look good.

I mean come on, We know that CommonApp generally makes applications very easy, especially when the supplement section is non-existent or almost trivial in difficulty or importance. The point is to drive up application numbers and mainly admit based on numbers and whatever stuff they list as EC’s. Not really interested in how students think because I guess no one has time for that if they want to rise in USNWR, especially if you don’t have interviews already.

10

I don’t really see what GT admissions has done that’s so horrible. Every year they admit - and yield - a consistently more talented and intellectually driven class than the one before. That’s what they’re supposed to do. The idea that GT admissions has turned its back on the constituents of GA is ridiculous. GA residents are still admitted at a much higher rate than OOS students; they still make up 60% of each incoming freshman class. When you think about it, GT stands to gain absolutely nothing from shutting out more OOS and international applicants like you suggest. These students not only bring in more money for the university, but they also add an essential element of diversity to the student body. GT wouldn’t be the nationally and globally recognized school that it is without these students.

11

I hope that they publish the admission statistics based on intended major.
My guess is that they are not accepting 60% instate students with the intended major into their demanding colleges.
One parent told me they put less demanding major in the application to get admission and they intend to switch later.

12

I’ve also heard many kids and parents talk about getting into Tech by putting down a different major that not as many apply for, and then switch after the kid has been admitted. To be clear, my son did NOT do that. He applied for the major he intended to pursue (mechanical engineering). I’m just saying that I heard rumblings this year of kids doing that as a way to game the admissions process. On the campus tour, it was even pointed out how easy it is to switch majors and a prospective student commented quietly that he should apply for something besides computer science to improve his chances and switch to that later if he were to be admitted. I have some other issues with GT admissions and it has nothing to do with the number of OOS and in-state being admitted. However, I think Tech should take a look at how easy or hard it is to switch majors.

13

@bahiablue and @rchandra, I actually went to GT College of Computing information session few weeks ago, and the dean of computing told us that CS was the “toughest” major this year with its 18% acceptance rate. She also stated that intended majors are not used for admissions, and students are free to change their major as soon as they enroll. This is true because I can right now log into BuzzPort and change to something else. If the admissions actually factor in the intended majors even slightly, I don’t understand why they don’t prevent students from switching. The already overpopulated CS department will have more students than they intended if many students do this. Regardless, I’m super happy to go to Tech this fall and grateful to have made the “cut” of 18%, but how GT handles admissions puzzles me. My biggest worry right now is not being able to register in the classes that I would like due to the possible and likely overpopulation.

14

@ChocolateCoin Agreed. The College of Computing is having big time issues right now with overenrollment and not having a quota on each major is only making it worse. That being said, I find it hard to believe that admissions are completely “major-blind,” especially if CS has an overall admit rate that’s 7 percentage points lower than the university as a whole.

15

@SomniumCrepitans : "Every year they admit - and yield - a consistently more talented and intellectually driven class than the one before. That’s what they’re supposed to do. " The problem is that there is typically no evidence of that at schools that already had talented students and started applying a scheme to “get the scores up quick”. Unfortunately the increasing SAT’s do not tell us all of that. That is essentially a superficial metric of talent once a school’s average hits 1350/1600 or so. Also, if your school is truly excellent, then talented would not be fully (or even half) characterized by one’s score on a multiple choice exam simply by virtue of the fact that the STEM coursework at highly selective schools is typically not mostly multiple choice but is often more oriented toward challenging free response exams which the “more talented” students tend to perform the same on as did less talented ones in previous years (like at one top private school, some faculty when on the record saying that the means in their course have not changed despite the school’s scores improving by over 100 points or so and them basically giving the same exams). I would rather take the one with the SAT below the IQR but has AP/IB, joint enrollment, or other high caliber academic experiences that demonstrate they are good beyond ability to take a standard test in a class (and I think selective schools with more holistic admissions are better at getting these folks who became ultra prepared beyond the SAT/ACT and even AP/IB and simply getting those seriously passionate for whatever…).

In addition, many of the schools employing these schemes appear not to improve post-grad outcomes that much and lag behind similar or higher caliber peers with LOWER (and similar) score ranges in things like Rhodes, Fulbright, and Goldwaters and even struggle to outperform some peers whose scores they left in the dust. It appears that the schools that are truly holistic and let the scores and GPA fluctuate from time to time actually have more consistent success in those arenas simply because they do take into account rec. letters and students’ responses to serious essay prompts (and not just “Why us?”) a lot more, which makes sense as getting more “intellectually driven” students as opposed to primarily those who will do what is necessary to get a high GPA and good standardized test score requires one to find ways of getting a glimpse of how a student thinks or what their values are. This is often done essays, rec. letters, and interviews in many cases at said schools (and not necessarily the ones that allow students to request interviews as some non-super elites can use it to gauge interest even though they say they don’t consider it).

16

Hello All,

I appreciate the discussion. It’s important that we discuss these matters - especially those who are GA residents. In theory, GA parents can pressure prospective politicians to change the GT policy, but that momentum needs to be built.

@rchandra

I’m sorry to hear about your daughter. Those are phenomenal scores, and especially if your daughter is GA resident, that isn’t very fair on GT Admissions part. Based on what I have observed, I am confident that she can get off the waitlist. I wish you and her all the best. I am sure she will excel wherever she chooses to attend.

@InPursuit

I appreciate your perspective, but let’s look at schools like Texas A&M for example. Are these not globally recognized, high ranking engineering schools? Of course they are, but look at their preference for TX residents. Additionally, GT, even in 2008 (and before), when admissions were far more reasonable, was a top 10 public institution and all the engineering programs were in the top 10. These admissions practices did nothing to bolster prestige in the areas of academics.

Check this fact report here if you want to read more into it:

http://www.irp.gatech.edu/wp-content/themes/GeorgiaTech/FB-Archive/2008_FB.pdf

I also do not think that someone in GT Admissions, can look at a 4.0 student with a 98 percentile on their test scores, and say “Hmmm…I don’t think this student would be a good fit here for GT” - GT is a state and tax payer funded engineering school, Stanford and Harvard are not.

@bernie12

Very interesting perspective, and I fully agree with you. I guess it need to be realized that this is just the undergrad admissions and selectivity craze that’s become apparent. Undegrad Admissions has a job to do, and that job isn’t what we think it is. They want to build their own prestige and inflate numbers, etc., rather than give GA students opportunity.

@SomniumCrepitans

I respect your opinion, but your statement “GT wouldn’t be the nationally and globally recognized school that it is without these students.” is factually wrong. Take a look at the link I posted above - and keep in mind that in 2008, GT Admissions was far more reasonable.

@bahiablue

Thanks for the insight. Switching majors is a bit of an issue. At certain colleges, it is easier to get into a liberal arts department and harder to get into engineering. GT needs to be wise about this. Students interested in pursuing liberal arts (for example), at GT (of which it has phenomenal programs), should not be held to the standards of prospective engineering students in Math/Science scores, etc. Liberal Arts students incline differently academically, and that’s okay.

@ChocolateCoin

From what I understand, it shouldn’t be to difficult to get the classes you want. The CS department is one of the biggest, and I’m sure they will do something about. I wish you the best at GT!

I think that GT needs to reconsider its admissions practices, but this WILL NOT happen unless parents and students in GA petition to our politicians to fix this mess. We need to make it clear that we will not accept that our hard working students with 3.8+ GPA’s and 31+ ACT scores will be rejected from GT. GT used to have a Savannah campus, and that was closed down for various reasons. I think we need this campus opened again for popular undergrad programs like CS and ECE.

Additionally, GT needs to deflate its applicant pool. This means making it harder to apply, and other such measures. GA students should be prioritized (80% of the incoming class in my opinion). Finally, I beleive that the old GT Admissions practice, which was essentially to admit everyone, but only the fittest would survive, and the rest would drop in the intro classes, was the most fair way of giving opportunity to all. At least any student who wanted it would be given opportunity, and then it was up to them.

The GT Office of Undergrad Admissions needs to be disciplined in these matters. This will not happen by appealing to the Institute or emailing Mr. Rick Clark, but petitions need to be made amongst GA Parents and Residents, and we need to talk to our politicians. These will be the first steps. I care for the future of my State, that’s why I am concerned. GT gave me a career and opportunity, I have family members and friends who were able to get into GT at a less competitive time (and who may not have gotten in now), and they thrived.

Also, for me to tell a student who held a 4.0 GPA and 31+ ACT that they were denied from GT, their only reputable state engineering school, but they can attend a small four year college in rural GA for 2 years and then transfer, that’s an insult. I’m not saying that these colleges are bad in any way, on the contrary, they are very respectable. But, it is true that one wouldn’t have had to put so much effort in high school to get into them.

Thank you for all of your comments, and for keeping this conversation on point and sophisticated. I appreciate all of your insights.

17

Finally, through extensive research, I also observed another GT Admission trend, I added this is another post, but just to add to discussion here.

For Asians (especially), and White students, GT Admissions is far more competitive. It becomes a tad bit harder if one is a male, or attends a rural public school over a high ranked private school, etc., I found out that GT take a unproportionally higher amount of students from certain private schools, over public schools. I also realized that prospective GT students who are black, hispanic, or native Americans get extra preference. Being a female helps a slight bit, but not significantly anymore (as people always say it does), as GT’s incoming class is now 60-40 male to female ratio, and its bridging closer.

I do believe in affirmative action to some extent, and I know that’s a controversial topic. I think that we need to look for other ways to work with GT so that all students, regardless of the socio-economic status, can have a chance at studying engineering. In my opinion, that means opening new campuses or admitting more students and making the intro classes even more weed out than they already are. At least the opportunity will have been given.

If a students is a legacy, GT can reject them more easily as they can give them a conditional acceptance, which would be an easy way to take them out of the applicant pool in a “nice” fashion.

Based on extensive research, I know these biases exist. They’re not necessarily always a good thing, but sometimes they are. - it is what it is.

18

@InPursuit Well said!

19

@college450 And what’s wrong with academic prestige? A better reputation for GT increases the value of its degree and will provide it’s students with better opportunities when they graduate. Given the amount that GA taxpayers actually contribute to GT’s budget (less than 15%), I’d say there isn’t really any obligation to admit more in-staters than they are right now.

20

@college450 - They can’t just go ahead and admit more students. Then they would have a housing problem. Sure you could say that after a year or two students have to move off campus. However most off campus options are either sketchy or way over priced…

"If a students is a legacy, GT can reject them more easily as they can give them a conditional acceptance, which would be an easy way to take them out of the applicant pool in a “nice” fashion.’

Please tell me you aren’t suggesting that they dump the legacy’s in order to trim the applicant pool.