NPR College Admissions Story

Parents Forum
301

<p>

Keep in mind that Amherst is very aware that the valedictorian with amazing stats has also applied to many other colleges, probably Harvard, Yale and Princeton. One problem that a school like Amherst faces is that a huge proportion of its applicants see Amherst as merely a backup for the Ivy League schools they truly aspire to. Valedictorian + amazing stats sends a strong message – it’s almost like the applicant has a put a stamp on her file that says, “I’d rather go to Harvard.”. So that’s where the quirky stuff comes in… maybe there’s something in a stated preference for Chicken McNuggets that telegraphs the idea that the kid probably doesn’t give a whit about Harvard – whereas amazing stats but no spark leaves the ad com feeling that they have simply received copy #12 of the val’s common app distribution. Yes, they can admit the kid – and then have that kid turn them down, while a kid with less “amazing” stats may very well see Amherst as their dream school.</p>

302

<p>I think that’s a good point, Calmom.</p>

303

<p>It seems this conversation has turned into a “guy with great stats” vs. “McNugget boy.” This is all we know about the valedictorian with amazing stats who was waitlisted.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Yes, a very strong student, but we don’t know his SAT/ACT scores, his GPA, or have seen his school profile. His EC’s, although admirable, are quite generic. </p>

<p>McNugget guy on the other hand, well, that’s all we know about him. He uttered two words after surgery. It’s not his fault that NPR chose to edit the piece to only show that. For all we know, he could have a 2300, be a Val, with 10 ap’s, a 3.96 and raised $20,000 for charity. </p>

<p>It’s a 7 minute edited piece for gosh sakes. To assume Amherst adcom’s admitted him solely on a cute quip is absurd.</p>

<p>I hope neither of these kids have read this thread.</p>

304

<p>Personally, I wish both of these students were on CC and could refer us to their stats.</p>

<p>If I had the chance to choose a new screen name and I were a kid, I’d choose, McNugget boy.</p>

<p>Boy would I be irate if I were McNugget boy, or that Val. Way TMI on that piece.</p>

305

<p>What an amusing piece of journalism. Here we have a college ruthlessly promoting itself (through places like NPR) to attract 8000 applications to create 7000 rejections, and then having its staff hold back tears because they are “so concerned about the kids”. I just about fell out of bed laughing (we listen to NPR in the mornings) at the duplicity of it all. I wish Amherst just had the honesty to admit what they (and they are only being picked on because they ended up being the subject college at NPR) are trying to do and that 7000 or 9000 rejections is what constitutes success at the end of the day for the school, and that this is a brutally competitive business with no more compassion than any other business.</p>

306

<p>My kid-- a Pell-eligible URM who applied ED to Amherst-- was deferred and rejected a few years back. The following year, another student at the same high school with almost identical stats, also a URM (not Pell grant eligible), same gender, pretty much same difficulty of coursework, was accepted. My kid’s leadership was stronger, both kids played a sport but the other kid was stronger as an athlete. My kid did get accepted at a number of top lacs including several ranked top 10. In other words… being a strong URM without $ does not, in and of itself, get you into Amherst. It might help but, frankly, it probably also helps to be male or from South Dakota or, I guess, a Hindu interested in world religions.</p>

307

<p>Being a top anything from anywhere without money does not help, regardless of the latest propaganda. [The</a> Nation’s 15 Richest and Stingiest Colleges - CBS MoneyWatch.com](<a href=“MoneyWatch: Financial news, world finance and market news, your money, product recalls updated daily - CBS News”>MoneyWatch: Financial news, world finance and market news, your money, product recalls updated daily - CBS News)</p>

<p>From the article:

</p>

308

<p>

</p>

<p>What a classless and cynical analysis! Ruthless? Duplicitous? Lack of honesty?</p>

<p>Do you really believe that Amherst knocked on the doors of NPR and has a hand in how this story played on the air? Do you really believe that Amherst saw this an opportunity to drum up more business? Would one of the many stories Amherst could tell about reaching for low income and minority students help you not falling out of bed laughing? Schools are indeed a business, but it is unfortunate that you could not see that adcoms do genuinely agonize over their selections, and that Amherst happens to be a school that tries very hard to do the right thing. </p>

<p>I wish you would exhibit a fraction of the compassion of the people you felt so compelled to crticize from behind your convenient curtain of anonimity.</p>

309

<p>I have known a few people who were admissions counselors in private colleges. It is agonizing to make these decisions. I remember sitting with one of them over lunch before the “busy season” several years ago, and she told me how hard it was to see so much potential and that for some of these kids, this might be the first time they have faced rejection. </p>

<p>She saw a face with every application. Some were going to be happy and some sad by the decisions that she helped make. She did a superhuman job for months during that app season with piles of applications and transcripts and test scores. Then sending out the decisions and waiting to find out who took them up on their offer of admission. When one year my own son was deferred for admission at this school, she patiently explained how they made their decision in the first round. </p>

<p>Even the most cold-hearted adcom couldn’t help but be moved by these students and their applications. </p>

<p>I don’t think a cynical person would do very well in an admissions office.</p>

310

<p>Re: Post #276:
“So it comes down to assembling a mix of kids from different backgrounds, with different talents and outlooks and interests and life experiences, in the belief that doing so will make Swarthmore a more interesting place and, yes, a richer learning environment for everyone who is there, while also in a small way doing something to give a leg up to a few members of certain historically disadvantaged groups, like URMs and first-gens, and thereby to operate as an engine (albeit a small one) of upward social mobility, rather than merely a device for the intergenerational transmission of privilege and class advantage.”</p>

<p>wow…what a great description of what a good public university does!
(and, not too much assembly required!)</p>

311

<p>

</p>

<p>But success after college is related to persistence in non-academic achievement before college. And it’s where graduates go after college that an Elite U is especially interested in, if they want to stay in the club called “Elite.” They want to be able to say Joe is now President of _______ , and Jane is now Senator from ________.</p>

<p>I’ve explained this to you guys before, LOL. When will you people understand this? :D</p>

<p>Also, I hate to disabuse some of you here but “leadership” is not about Type A or ‘rah-rah,’ necessarily. Leadership can be lots of different things. But in any case, The Organizer is not essential for an Elite if you have other sufficiently stand-out qualities. They tend to be more interested in character than the facet of leadership in the traditional way that is usually identified.</p>

<p>D = non leader.
Friends of D at her Elite, and other classmates I met = non-leaders, to a person.
I’m obviously completely non-objective about her, but I can verify that said friends are all modest, extremely nice/polite, brilliant, and individualistic: all very different from each other in their “set” of qualities they bring to a campus.<br>
^ Says nothing about those that didn’t come to that campus, I realize. Just an observation.</p>

<p>On another note, I agree with Pizzagirl, in just about everything I can remember she said. I had been about to say “intuitive” when she “stole” it from me several pages back. I think that’s why some of us right-brain types ‘get it.’ (Just a thought.)</p>

<p>Nothing surprising, to me, in this segment.</p>

312

<p>Simpkin: *…presumably, your Ivy and Amherst want to have some percentage of students who will be involved on campus and participate in campus activities. So why rule out the kid who was an active member of the high school community, playing sports, writing for the school newspaper, participating in student government and so on? *</p>

<p>It’s not that we ruled him out. Accomplishments are accomplishments. Energy is good, as is committment. Colleges do want kids who are active in the hs community. But, many of the kids who ONLY did what was available at their hs, are, in a sense, only doing what’s laid out in front of them, set up for them at lunch hour or 2 or 3pm, right at school. For the average kid, how and what he chooses to become involved with- and to what extent and with what real responsibility- say very much about his personality. </p>

<p>When I said, “out of the box,” I meant, “climb out of his ordinary comfort zone.” Ie, not just do what his buddies are doing- it means reaching beyond the social aspects of many hs clubs or what the school dictates (eg, comm service days.) Sometimes, that means things that benefit others or the community. Sometimes, it means stretching himself to take a comm college class or outside internship. Some kids vol at a museum or a shelter, play in All-State orchestra, serve on church or temple committees, read to kids at the library, have a job, translate for others-whatever it is, it’s more than just random joining what’s available at school. </p>

<p>There are many school-based things that are impressive- editing the lit magazine or newspaper is a big responsibility, sports is a challenge and comittment, peer mentoring or tutoring is a great service. Being a leader in science olympiad or academic decathalon is great. Etc. There are many kids who only participate in school things because of the extraordinary time committment required in those. </p>

<p>There is no formula. It’s just that a kid who has verve is going to go a bit beyond the ordinary, same-old same-old, whether that means significant activities outside school or extra responsibilities in school. Those kids tend to have a little something extra that got them to do that and that will (usually) be evident on the college campus as well.</p>

313

<p>

</p>

<p>That’s what is really boils down to, and what drives us parents and our kids so crazy about this whole process. We want to know the formula! Tell us the secret! What combination of grades, scores, ECs, and reccs will get us an admission letter from XYZ College?? My Suzy’s application was better than your Johnny’s, and yet your Johnny got admitted and my Suzy didn’t! No fair! We see that theme all the time on CC.</p>

<p>We’re dealing with human beings evaluating other human beings. At the elites, the objective measures --stellar grades and scores – are a threshhold. After that, it’s all subjective, and subjective decisions are always going to seem arbitrary. I don’t know why this surprises us.</p>

314

<p>Every time, during the past 6 months, that one of us has tried to explain something near a formula, nearly everyone on CC has jumped on us. We say, “it’s more than stats” and people rail about how stats should reign supreme. We say,"gotta have some interesting accomplishments or activities"and people rail that ECs shouldn’t be manipulated, that one or two are better than a mix. When we say, “the essay has to be well written and reveal the kid to be college-ready, one way or another, quirky, witty, serious, whatever,” people get angry. Or, talk about how their kid wrote a flawed essay and got in. When we say, “LoRs matter,” folks say, “I know my kid had great ones.” And so it goes. </p>

<p>It is subjective, yes, after you make the threshold. But, only subjective within the framework of what that college is looking for- ie, does this kid have enough of the many different variables we know work here? Too many families never do their homework to figure out even a general pattern of what those colleges are looking for. They assume. Again, sorry.</p>

315

<p>The “formula” is to (A) encourage your kid to develop and follow their own interests and inclinations, and (B) don’t get your parental ego caught up in the idea that the kid needs to attend an Ivy League college. </p>

<p>If the kid is happy to spend a few hours a week just participating in school clubs and doesn’t seem to be interested in much outside of school except reading and hanging out with friends… well, maybe that kid doesn’t need to go to Harvard even if he/she happens to score 2200 on the SATs and be easily breezing through school with A’s. Maybe that kid would be miserable at Harvard, actually. </p>

<p>If the kid comes up with some cockamamie idea of some project or trip that he/she wants to do and there is a way to pay for it and a the kid has also figured out a way to work it around high school requirements — don’t think, “how will this look on a college app?” If its right for the kid, just give the kid your blessing and encouragement. </p>

<p>The real “formula” for the kids who get into the most competitive schools is spark and passion that is genuine, not something that was packaged in order to look good for colleges. And by “passion” I don’t mean that the kid needs to live and breath whatever has caught their interest, any more than “leadership” needs to mean being elected captain or president of anything. I just mean that the kid’s energy and motivation comes from the heart – they are doing what they want to be doing. </p>

<p>Obviously there are some kids who are heavily prepped and packaged who do get admitted – the app readers have to scan very quickly trough a file, essays, and LOR’s and make a judgment call… does this ring true? </p>

<p>The reason there’s so much stress is that everyone is doing things backwards – they are trying to make the kid fit the college instead of looking for colleges that fit the kid. </p>

<p>I posted above that it’s a seller’s market, but the sad thing is that’s not really true. It’s a buyer’s market – but everyone has driven themselves into a frenzy over wanting a few name brand products, ignoring the wealth of options that they have.</p>

316

<p>Calmom, I have loved everything you’ve written on this thread. You’re right, the first step is finding the college that fits the kid. And, then…</p>

317

<p>

</p>

<p>The part that I find odd is how many families don’t seem to understand that it is a competitive process – that if a college is turning away 4 out of 5 applicants, then odds are that your kid is going to be one of the 4 turned away, unless there is something amazing and spectacular about that kid. And that calling a school a “match” because the stats are in the upper 50% doesn’t alter the school’s admission rate.</p>

318

<p>

</p>

<p>That also makes the whole “research” thing a lot easier. You figure out the kids strengths and interests, then look for colleges that want, need, and value whatever those are.</p>

319

<p>

</p>

<p>Similar biases creep into the American process but at many points, not at one (the single interview event). And of course ECs have some predictive value. If nothing else, they indicate a high energy level, which is relevant to success in anything. Nevertheless I think there must be better and more fair ways to drive merit-based selection for the qualities most germain to academic life.</p>

<p>Set a dress code for the interview. Or make it optional, with written alternatives that call out similar characteristics. Design a battery of written/oral selection challenges relevant to knowledge discovery in the arts and sciences, instead of setting a low bar in computer-scored standardized testing then trying to select by sound bites from the flood of applicants who all meet that basic standard. That’s what the “McNuggets” statement was.</p>

320

<p>calmon I couldn’t have said it better!</p>

<p>I don’t think there is a right answer. When you get to schools who have an applicant pool that is so strong they have no choice but to look at all kinds of things-a strict stats based decision won’t work because that would leave way too many kids still in the hunt.</p>

<p>My son is waiting today to hear if he got into his “dream” school. I happen to think he already has an acceptance that is a better fit for him. I have told him that but he is too emotional about it to listen right now.</p>

<p>That’s part of what I am reading on this thread-all this emotion. Why is everyone so angry about everything? If a school takes someone over my son because of whatever non-academic reason (or academic one as well) that is their right. We knew going in when we applied to these kinds of schools that was the way it is-how can I get upset tonight if I find out other kids with lesser stats got admitted and he didn’t-they were very clear up front it was about a lot more than that.</p>

<p>I think the entire process is flawed but it isn’t about one school-it’s about a system than encourages multiple applications because the decisions do seem so random. There has to be a better more efficient way to do this but how?</p>

<p>My son did a lot of EC’s but nothing extraordinary. His main one was being involved in our parish for many years and continuing to do so. I tried to suggest other things when I was told this group or that group would look good for admissions. He went to a couple of meetings for them and said no-not interested. I accepted that and realized long ago it’s his life to lead-not mine. He makes his choices and does what he wants with his time and is happy. </p>

<p>I told him that no matter what happens tonight he is going to be the same person he was before he got the results-no decision by anyone should make him feel any differently about who he his-he is uniquely him and he’s fine just the way he is.</p>

<p>I think the people trying to put these classes together are doing the best they can in a difficult situation.</p>