<p>@Hunt–how else would they choose between so many qualified applicants?
I actually think it IS rather like the literary magazine–many wonderful poems will be rejected; there is only so much room.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If that statement is a true one, which I think it probably is, he belongs on the rejection pile for a school like Amherst. They are actively looking for kids who are intellectually curious.</p>
<p>I would agree, though, that he should have had someone read his essay who would be thoughtful enough to query him on that statement, to reflect back what it implied about him, and to ask if that was what he really wanted to say. (As a matter of style, he should also have been advised not to use the word “get” in that way. The quoted sentence sounded like something produced by a poor writer, to my ear.)</p>
<p>BTW, I have served on the staff of a literary magazine making decisions about which poems to publish, and we discussed them at length and very specifically. It is quite possible to read a poem and discuss whether it is successful, whether what it tries to accomplish is significant, whether the poet displays a command of poetic skills, and so forth.</p>
<p>When I posted upthread that I thought the process was random, I meant from the students point of view. I think the schools have an idea of what it is they are looking for, but not until they look at the majority of the apps.</p>
<p>I heard the segment as it aired this morning, and thought it was pretty useful. It does broadly corroborate the various other glimpses we have of the deliberations at selective schools. It is clear that it does come down to splitting hairs at the end. Being unique does help. But the more important message I got was never EVER include anything negative in your essay. One candidate got into trouble by saying that he had a hard time being intellectually curious about things other than his intended major. Kiss of death.</p>
<p>
Well, maybe. I’m skeptical about anybody’s ability to accurately psychoanalyze a teenager based on what they write in an essay. I can imagine kids who might write the phrase above one day, and on the next write, “I am fascinated by many subjects, but music is my ultimate passion.”</p>
<p>
In the NPR story, in the case of one applicant, they said that they were putting them in the pile that IF they are “EP31” (or whatever their code is for poor & URM), they would definitely admit them. They must take that “IF” pile and then compare it later with their FA applications to make the final decision.</p>
<p>A kid who was genuinely fascinated by a number of subjects would never think of writing that he had a hard time summoning up interest in most things. I think that particular kid unintentionally revealed himself.</p>
<p>So I guess they are need blind in only one direction–there are kids they will take if they are poor, but not if they are rich, but (presumably) not kids they will take if they are rich, but not if they are poor. Unless they are development cases, probably. So, yeah. Need blind.</p>
<p>^Ah, thanks, oregonianmom, that would make sense. I listened but didn’t catch the “if.”</p>
<p>
That seems to be what the committee thought, and maybe the rest of his papers showed exclusively musical activities. But I’m not persuaded that people unintentionally reveal themselves more often than they unintentially misrepresent themselves. I just think it’s an awful lot of weight to put on one line.</p>
<p>I don’t see what’s so surprising about most of this, particularly the comment that “they know it when they see it.” Almost every highly selective college or university has openly admitted that they could fill their incoming classes two or three times over with fully qualified applicants. But they can’t do that. They have to take that “three times as many” qualified students and whittle the list down to the space they have.</p>
<p>What else would you suggest they do?</p>
<p>My cynical mind tells me that they could quite often tell you exactly why they are choosing one candidate over another, but that it wouldn’t be politic for them to do so.</p>
<p>Amherst is claims on its website to be need-blind, but if you listen to the broadcast, they actually give a bump to kids who are lacking in socio-economic areas, ie. 1st generation college student, I’d have to listen again, but I think if you are from underprivileged background financially it can actually help get you through the first round of consideration.</p>
<p>I think they said “need affirmative” or maybe “need affirming.”</p>
<p>My S was waitlisted 3 years ago - held until early August! Admissions was difficult to deal with. They dodged calls all the time. They sent letters about when the waiting-list selection was to start and then started it earlier than the letter stated - preventing some students from updating their applications. Also, dates published in a NY TImes article about the begining of the wait-list run-off were different than the letters sent to student. At my son’s HS there was one admit to Amherst, much lower GPA and lower SAT scores than my son. This other student played baseball and they needed a left hander that year, I guess. They also have different admissions criteria for foreign students depending on what part of Asia you are coming from. So these once a year radio or TV stories seem to portrait the suffering of these poor adcoms but there is much more that goes on behind the scenes that has to do with filling quotas (as defined by the institution) each year. I am gld to be done with it.</p>
<p>Yes, Chedva, I don’t see why this is the least bit surprising. And neither does it seem scary or unfair or wrong. What are these elite schools supposed to do, when thousands of superachievers apply every year? They just physically don’t have room for them all. It is like a literary magazine, or casting a play, and there’s no way around it.</p>
<p>This is why students and parents cannot get stuck on the elite name-brand schools. I just heard about a girl who applied only to a half-dozen of those schools and didn’t get into any of them and is now without a home in the fall. It was a stupid thing to do. There are so many good but not famous schools where even the academic elite can get a very fine education if they make the effort.</p>
<p>ok so help me understand. through this process the adcoms admit urms with lower gpa, lower scores, fewer ec’s - and these individuals are supposed to strengthen the educational environment of the rest of the class?</p>
<p>^yes, that is exactly correct – and they do, by bringing diversity of experience and perspective, by being able to bring their abilities to the fore in a more opportunity-rich enviornment, and by contributing to a more meaningful conversation.</p>
<p>In adcom’s defense, there is a very clear correlation between ST/ACT score with income. For a kid from a poor family, he/she has little time (nor money) to participate EC’s outside of the school. They may be just as smart and diligent. Giving these kids an edge make some sense. It may not be 100% fair. However, that is how it works today.</p>
<p>The thing that gave me pause about the piece was how much it said about some of the applicants. Especially the rejected ones. If the kid who wrote the essay with the “I don’t usually get fascinated by any subject–the exception is music” line hears the piece, he’s just gotten his rejection letter a few days early, delivered on national radio. TMI, TMI. </p>
<p>My D1 did ED to a school that live-blogs their ED1 committee discussions. The year before she applied, I read the blog to pick up any useful info. This year, with a horse in the race, I told myself to stay the heck away from reading the blog, and not to mention it to D1. Except that she found it anyway, read it, and found a description of an applicant that sounded very much, but not precisely like her…and the committee had voted to accept. :eek: At that point, we entered a bizarre form of purgatory. 
We parsed the live blog comments endlessly. We speculated about how many other students could possibly share that list of characteristics. Half the time we thought “yes, it’s gotta be D1!”. The rest of the time we thought it wasn’t her, and therefore they wouldn’t admit D1 because they’d be admitting two very similar applicants. </p>
<p>In the end, D1 was accepted. I asked an adcom if the live-blog mention was of my D1, and was told nope, it was another student. In which case D1 will have a new best friend. Meanwhile, other friends of D1’s stumbled over that live blog in their hunt for college admissions info, and asked D1 “hey, was that you?”</p>
<p>I’d rather this all stay behind the curtain, or at least not be revealed until a delay of a few weeks. Or months. It adds yet another layer of angst and worry for the current applicants, even if they don’t think they recognize themselves in the piece. They’ll still be obsessing over lines in their essays, how they compare to those given thumbs up or down.</p>