<p>So… they don’t know what they are looking for in a student, but they know when they see it? That is the biggest bunch of B.S. and actually I can’t believe they said that. But- they do want “diversity”. My three least favorite words after my second round of the college process are “diversity” “holistic” and “passion”. I still like the word “fit” alot- because to me that’s what it came down to for my kids. Academic and social fit (and financial, of course- but that’s another story). </p>
<p>I have visited over 25 schools with both my children in their college search and I can tell you most of the time both my children and I could figure out the personality and “philosophy” of the school from the ad coms and current students. Some schools are VERY forthcoming about what they like to see in their applicants and tell you that in their info session. That is refreshing for two reasons. First, you can knock a school off the list if you don’t share those values and second, you can highlight those aspects of your achievements in your application to that school. The schools with the most random appearance of acceptances and waitlist/ rejections are those schools which neglect to present their philosophy or values, nor do they have any supplemental essays! Perfect example- Wash U! When my D and I visited, they handed her a folder and announced before anything else, that she could fill out the pre-app and drop it off at the admissions office after her visit. My D thought that seemed “desperate” and it was a turn off for her. I had to agree as it was before the info session started! It appeared they wanted everyone in that info session to apply ( which I guess happens- and then they put all those people on their huge waitlist!!). After the info session and tour- neither one of us got what made the school unigue. It’s a great school I understand- with very bright and accomplished students who seem very happy there- but so are alot of schools in that tier. Nothing stood out -especially in comparison to U of Chi and NU, which we visited on the same trip. I guess, like Amherst, they are looking for that intangible “something”. </p>
<p>Amherst’s inability to describe what they are looking for is ridiculous. This lack of clarity is why students are so baffled by the outcome! This is why it is so important to have that “WHY This College” essay. At least the applicant will have a chance to show thier “love” to their top choice. Otherwise it’s a crap shoot. With one common app essay you are not going to be able to speak to all aspects of your interests, “passions” (and you can have more than one) or personality. I’ve learned that the supplemental essays can also give insight into what the school is looking for and what they value in their students- beyond the ubiqitous “intellectual curiousity”. If an applicant can “position” themselves and focus their essays on those qualities- they have a better chance. It’s no different than applying for a job when you highlight your experiences that best suit the job description. A school without supplemental essays (again Wash U) is playing the game to their advantage and for a 17 year old without insight into the process it can be bewildering. So from what I can gather, Amherst would tacking up the names of all applicants who make it past the first read and throwing darts at them.</p>
<p>My favorite line in the story is that an admit will have a certain “je ne sais quoi” … I think that sums up the process and admission should run a lottery to pick out admitted students from the “creme de la creme” group that’s in the final round and save the admission counselors time and heartache.</p>
<p>Yes. As has been pointed out, SAT scores are actually a better predictor of household income than of future academic success.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Not sure what “100% fair” would be in this context. Highly selective colleges do many things that privilege the privileged, starting with the legacy preference and extending through weighing SAT scores heavily (strong correlation with household income, wealthier kids have more/better opportunities for test prep), privileging “interesting” ECs (the kid from more a more modest background may need to work, or simply not be clued in from the beginning of HS that ECs are going to weigh heavily in admission to top colleges), and recruiting athletes for “preppy” sports (I guarantee you won’t find many kids from inner city Detroit or rural South Dakota recruited for the crew, lacrosse, or squash teams). A countervailing preference for URMs, first-gens, or the socioeconomically disadvantaged goes only part-way toward leveling the playing field.</p>
<p>My recollection from other threads I’ve read here in recent years is that Amherst actively seeks students from underrepresented and economically challenged families. This was not a surprise to me when I heard this story on my commute.</p>
<p>I’m pretty convinced that one of my kids was waitlisted based on one sentence in a short answer question specific to that school. Looking back at it, I could see where the school would have said “hmmm…” but S was also brutally honest in his essays, so I think his feeling was that if they found this a problem, he didn’t belong there. </p>
<p>I find it interesting that so many (parents, adcomms) immediately felt that student’s comment was the kiss of death. Demonstrates the fine balance between kids showing their true voices vs. what the admissions process demands.</p>
<p>I can’t answer for glido, but I did. And yes, I have a sense of humor, but man, Chicken McNuggets for the win… Sigh… Hopefully there was a whole lot more that sold the committee.</p>
<p>"How do they find poverty if applicants don’t submit tax returns, etc with their applications? "</p>
<p>Oh, that is easy. It is on the common application form. Parents’s education and the companies they work. I know it is not 100% correct. I guess 90% correlation is not an overestimation.</p>
<p>I think that the important point there is that the entire committee spontaneously burst out laughing. I doubt that that happens too often: successful humor writing is rare. What the specific words were is beside the point. </p>
<p>But I’m also sure that the kid was not admitted on the strength of chicken mcnuggets alone. :)</p>
<p>Actually, I think Amherst does a pretty good job of describing what they’re looking for on their admissions site:
</p>
<p>My comment was that the process itself is hard to describe - which is not to suggest that it is meaningless or random or anything else. Just that it’s not formulaic. This can be frustrating, but it’s probably less frustrating to the kinds of students who are attracted to Amherst than to those who would find the college a poor fit.</p>
There was a similar line in my younger son’s essay. I crossed it out about three times or suggested expanding on it. He put it back in every time, so it stayed. Luckily it don’t think it made a big difference! I do think my son came off well in his essays despite the sentence I thought unnecessary. He chose to emphasize two activities that while nothing earthshaking were probably things they had not seen often before.</p>
<p>drdom, they addressed the institutional needs part of the picture. It was no secret that an oboist or a left-handed pitcher might get the nod one year and not another. They said just that.</p>
<p>Having read applications for architecture grad school one year, I’m really not bothered by the thought that “they know it when they see it” even if they can’t explain what “it” is. Hey that line was good enough for Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart. (on the subject of pornography.)</p>
Fooey. You could use this language for every college–all you’d have to do is drop in “embracing the opportunity provided by the Core Curriculum” for places with a core.</p>
<p>I would say that the piece showed that the admissions people at Amherst don’t take the process lightly, but it does seem that they can be swayed by details that affect their perceptions, even though they may not really have much meaning. We laugh on the other thread at kids who refuse to apply to a school because they don’t like the tour guide’s shoes. Here, though, it doesn’t seem as funny.</p>
<p>I didn’t think the “Chicken Nuggets” comment was funny. While acknowledging that it was intended to be humorous, it doesn’t make much sense to deny one student for a line that implies to the committee that the student isn’t intellectually curious, and admit one whose first thought upon post-surgery consciousness is junk food. (To be consistent, shouldn’t it at least have been free-range, antibiotic-free chicken or something that indicates a modicum of intellectualism?) I think “Chicken Nuggets” is actually quite a run-of-the-mill response for an average teenager.</p>
<p>Come on. I think Jerry Seinfeld established pretty well that the right presentation of completely run-of-the-mill responses could constitute brilliance. Not that I thought the Chicken Nuggets comment sounded clearly brilliant. But the Amherst team reads a pantload of essays by smart high school seniors – I have to trust them if they think something stands out as original and appropriate.</p>
<p>Exactly. I don’t see what’s so “shocking.” They have to make choices somehow, and so it winds up being on intuitive factors. Well, duh. Just like we choose friends and romantic partners and future co-workers.</p>
<p>I, for one, do not understand the compelling need to introduce terms such as “random” or “lottery” in stories about admissions at highly selective schools. Perhaps, it might be helpful to underscore that random means “without definite aim, purpose, method, or adherence to a prior arrangement; in a haphazard way.” In so many words, a selection that is based on objective or subjective criteria CANNOT be random. And, fwiw, one should assume that the basic element of a lottery is that all entries have an equal chance to succeed. Since we KNOW that not every candidate has an equal chance to be admitted and that the process uses a combination of objective and highly subjective criteria, it makes NO sense to repeat the same non-sensical arguments. </p>
<p>As far as Amherst, it would require a real effort for anyone to be oblivious to the colossal efforts of Anthony W. Marx since 2003 to level the playing field for lower income families, including the very expensive increase of the student body. Amherst has long be known for its substantial number of Pell grantees and active participation in programs such as Questbridge. </p>
<p>As far as other elements of this “sensational” story, I believe that the unanimous decision on admitted has become a standard among highly selective schools. Since we can keep hearing that the schools could fill each class two or three times over, why would be surprised that candidates must have an universal endorsement? Further, why would it be wrong to prune down the number of the first round admits when the total who make it is too … large?</p>
<p>As someone who just wrote two essays, and had them read by five or six people each, I can say I asked for every line to be looked at.</p>
<p>And when they are wait-listing people they thought ought to get in because they <em>simply do not have enough room</em>, what do you expect? Of course they have to eliminate people for any reason possible.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Here’s the idea. If you managed to get a 3.5 GPA, do four ECs, and get in the 90th% for your SATs, all while caring for your ailing mother and having learned English when you are 13, the idea is, you’re going to blow this game out of the water when you are given the same opportunities that Mr. My Big Challenge Was One Time I Didn’t Make Varsity or Ms. I Had Asthma as a Child. If you were born in inner Detroit, are black, have a brother you visited every week in prison, are the first person to go to college in your family and you never met your dad and you STILL got a 4.0 and never got into a fight in high school though there were daily fights in the halls… you are going to kick some serious butt in Harvard when admitted.</p>
<p>Now, there are no guarantees. But being poor is hard and being brown <em>can</em> be very hard. It takes that much extra work to have faith in the system after going through what some of these kids go through, not to mention to keep trying. So yes, they will definitely enrich the academic environment, especially when they start catching up. The school intends to catch them up because they believe in social justice–that children born poor didn’t get born that way due to any fault of their own, and that we should spread the good luck at least once in this crazy game of life.</p>
<p>Re: Chicken Nuggets: At least he realized what might be interesting to other people. “I don’t have a lot of interests” is so incredibly boring as to make me tired and I just applied to college, but I’m going back to listen to the story to hear the part about chicken nuggets.</p>
<p>I think humor shows a great insight into human nature that is truly hard to put a finger on. Of course he probably wasn’t admitted for that alone, but humor is important.</p>