NPR College Admissions Story

Parents Forum
81

<p>The admissions processes at some of these schools are way too subjective. The whole argument about the inability to distinguish among students based on academic factors is nonsense – SAT scores, GPAs, SAT II scores, AP scores, and other objective measures can easily distinguish among even elite students. So when admissions officers claim that they need to use qualitative factors to admit the right number of students, they are lying.</p>

<p>Also, the preference for poor and minority students is disgusting. Yes, yes, I know: SAT scores fail to capture the potential of poor and minority students. Right? </p>

<p>Well, not exactly. Numerous studies show that SAT scores actually overpredict the performance of black students (i.e., SAT scores are in a sense biased in favor of black students). I cannot find similar studies on poor students, but I have every reason to believe the trend would hold. So, like the argument about the need to subjective factors, the argument that minority students need a boost in their board scores to determine their true academic potential is bogus.</p>

<p>(Source: [Losing</a> the race: self-sabotage in … - Google Books](<a href=“Losing the Race: Self-sabotage in Black America - John H. McWhorter - Google Books”>Losing the Race: Self-sabotage in Black America - John H. McWhorter - Google Books))</p>

82

<p>

You may want to join me in starting a new university, as I suggested in this old thread:</p>

<p><a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/college-admissions/509446-modest-proposal-super-stat.html?highlight=ssu[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/college-admissions/509446-modest-proposal-super-stat.html?highlight=ssu&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

83

<p>

I’ve never heard anybody claim they could not rank applicants based on these criteria. Obviously, if you wanted to you could come up with an expanded “Academic Index” and admit students based solely on that. But that’s not how these schools choose to admit students, and that is their prerogative.</p>

<p>In fact, isn’t this sort of how they do it in many places in Europe and Asia?</p>

84

<p>Exactly. Actually, a number of schools DO more or less choose to admit students on that basis, including many excellent public universities. And Caltech, sort of. It’s just that lots of students would rather attend the universities that DON’T admit students that way, because the atmosphere and reputation those universities have built with their holistic/subjective admissions standards is deemed significantly more attractive.</p>

<p>You don’t get to have it both ways.</p>

85

<p>

</p>

<p>Yes, it is disgusting that it is still so sorely needed at our most selective schools.</p>

86

<p>^^^yeah, both my kids did better with schools that had non-standard essay prompts. They felt emboldened to take risks and that they would be heard. Worked for them!</p>

<p>S1 had a line in one of his apps about how his research interests often intrigued him more than his regular HW. Can only imagine how the school in question viewed that, esp. when it required a very intense STEM core. However, I would not be surprised if at least one of his recs said something similar, because it is SOOOOO true with him. </p>

<p>This was a big part of what made his ultimate college decision a bit of a surprise – I think he was hoping Chicago’s Core would compel him to “reform” to some extent. Yeah, right. :)</p>

<p>S2 had a great essay about making boeuf bourgignon for his CA activity piece. Combined his love of the outdoors, chemistry, history and food. Wrote it in one fell swoop when we were camping over Labor Day weekend, while he was making the stuff over a campfire. Did not use it at two schools – felt they would want to hear about debate team instead. Those were the two that rejected him.</p>

<p>It saddens me that the decision process comes down to one line in a resume or essay. These kinds of news reports are just going to scare students and parents. Be unique! Have something unique to say, but make sure your uniqueness doesn’t scare us out of offering you a place in the class!</p>

87

<p>And GPA can only be considered in the context of the high school.</p>

88

<p>

</p>

<p>Umm…if all the Ivies suddenly decided to use a strictly objective approach to admissions, do you think these schools would instantly become less attractive? I kind of doubt it.</p>

<p>In fact, most high school seniors have no idea about the admissions policies of America’s elite schools. Many mistakenly believe that schools are obsessed with SAT scores and care little for extracurriculars. An even more widespread myth is that elite schools actually prefer rich students to poor students!</p>

<p>In the end, elite schools that use holistic admissions approaches are among the most desirable schools not because they use holistic admissions approaches but because they are elite schools. (Profound, isn’t it?)</p>

89

<p>transfers2010, you have made it abundantly clear you don’t agree with holistic admissions and would prefer a numbers based admissions process. Why are you trying for the 3rd time to get into the very schools that you find their policies disgusting? You have stated on another thread that you were rejected by 10 elite schools in HS, 12 elite schools as a sophmore transfer, and now you are trying again. Seems a bit ironic that you are trying so desperately to get into the very institutions that go against your beliefs.</p>

90

<p>^
Because they are elite schools and could help me get a better job in the future. Is that not a good reason?</p>

<p>Also, I find it creepy that you searched through my previous posts.</p>

91

<p>^Well, we practice holistic posting hereabouts. :D</p>

92

<p>

</p>

<p>Okay, I’ve seen this all over on CC, I don’t know why people think this but - Just because one person has a higher writing SAT score than someone else does not mean they are better at writing. Just because someone has taken more math classes than someone else, or participated in the math club does not make them better at math. Just because someone has a higher GPA in high school doesn’t mean they’re going to get a higher GPA in college. And just because someone participated in this EC in high school doesn’t mean they’re going to continue in college. Someone can easily be more qualified with lower SAT score or a lower GPA or less EC’s for many reasons, none of them relating to diversity.</p>

93

<p>The elite schools got that way by not using formula admissions. If all the Ivies suddenly decided to use a strictly objective approach to admissions, (a) hell would have frozen over, because that’s anathema to their whole culture, (b) their alumni would revolt, and (c) they would not instantly become less attractive, but that would happen within a generation or less. </p>

<p>In fact, over the years they have migrated towards more weight on objective standards (or, better put, more acceptable objective standards, since “graduated from St. Grottlesex”, “male”, “WASP”, and “wealthy” are all pretty much objective standards, and used to count for a lot more than they do now). But they have managed that carefully, to preserve their elite status.</p>

<p>Sorry, that’s life.</p>

94

<p>Slitheytove: funny.</p>

95

<p>Tough to understand what happens behind closed admissions doors when your info comes from the outside- media hype, selective quotes, what your neighbor says or what’s prevalent on CC. </p>

<p>I often advise kids that, while their English teacher knows them, their skills and smarts, and is willing to forgive an error when grading a paper, adcoms are strangers. What you put in your app (incl LoRs) is all an adcom can judge you on. We all want what’s best for our kids and we all wish we could understand the selection process better. We all assume grades and scores tell it all. Well, right now, admissions decisions are based on the whole package and the adcom’s reaction to it. Write a crappy essay and the kid with your profile who wrote a great one will have the advantage. Come across as self-centered and the well-rounded kid will beat you out. Assume you are worthy becuase, according to some limited scale, YOU think you are, and you may be in for a surprise. </p>

<p>Blame your kid’s college loss on minorities, legacies and first-gens, if that works for you. Blame the necessity to create a vibrant, multi-faceted student body, if that works for you. But, when your kid applies for a job, he’ll need the same skills required to impress adcoms: the ability to present himself well, fit their needs and the apparent potential to thrive and contribute there and good references. Ie, more than stats.</p>

96

<p>

</p>

<p>Just read what you just shared here … S2 wrote an essay that only him could write. How many applicants are there who could have written about cooking boeuf bourguignon on a camp fire. Those are those “slice of real life” essays that work, especially when to avoid sounding pretentious. On the other hand, submitting sand essay the applicants THINKS adcoms want to hear … did backfire. Although not being a UG admission story, many are familiar with Stanford GSB’s tortilla essay that created a world of imitators. Applicants believed such essays possessed mythical powers, when the truth was that the candidate had been accepted IN SPITE of a poor essay. In no small way, you just confirmed what many of us have been trying to say for the longest time on CC. The best way to be “unique” is to remain true to yourself and tell a story only you could. </p>

<p>Regarding the one-liner that caused the rejection, is was not about being unique or taking risks. That line was neither risky nor unique. It was simple an easily avoidable MISTAKE. There are many success stories of applicants who took a risk. Not that many of students who overcome writing a dumb line. As we know, great writing is often the result of superb editing. Even a mediocre editor could have edited that line.</p>

97

<p>JHS: Actually, that’s not true. The elite schools “got that way” precisely by using formula admissions. Harvard’s legendary President Conant emphasized objective criteria such as SAT scores (well, OK, people back then thought they were objective :D) precisely because he believed in meritocracy. He felt that the more “holistic” methods employed previously were discriminatory – which they were. </p>

<p>During the early 20th century, Harvard and its sister institutions were intensely anti-semitic. And they found, to their chagrin, that standardized tests (precursors to the SAT) allowed too many “undesirables” to qualify for admission. Jews, in particular, tended to score well on these tests. Result: Harvard, Yale, and Princeton developed additional, qualitative criteria, to ensure that they could assemble freshman classes comprising the “right” students: WASP, patrician, wealthy, well connected, athletic (in the right way), etc. (Yes, I picked this info up from Crazy U, but it is very well documented. Ferguson even quotes a 1920s document in which Harvard honchos describe the “types” they want to attract and admit. It is eye-opening, to say the least.)</p>

<p>The old “holistic” method resulted in entering classes whose members shared a certain pedigree but weren’t necessarily the Best and the Brightest. Some were geniuses; some were idiots; most were somewhere in between; but they were mostly bluebloods, scions of the nation’s leading families.</p>

<p>Then along came President Conant, with his progressive, egalitarian views, and out went the old subjectivity, to be replaced with objective “meritocratic” admissions criteria.</p>

<p>Now, it seems, we’ve come full circle. We’re back to “holistic” subjectivity. And no one can convince me that this is not a situation ripe for abuse and corruption, politics and PC silliness. When a process is so veiled in secrecy, so subjective, so arbitrary, how can it not foster corruption and, yes, discrimination?</p>

<p>Meritocratic methods certainly have their pitfalls. But, perhaps in slightly modified form, they can be a darned sight fairer and better than the methods so many schools employ nowadays.</p>

<p>And I say that as someone whose son was admitted everywhere he applied (except one place where he had no intention of attending–wait-listed there). So, this is not sour grapes. It is my honest view of the current college-admissions mess.</p>

98

<p>Magic, soul, genuine…real were words that were used by the committee. Too many kids put their applications together in way similar to how they are “taught” to write…in a highly formulaic manner. I think with the exception of correcting a poorly written sentence or two parents should keep their mits off the essays. It is entirely possible the kids would fair better without heavy influence as their “genuine, real, soulful” self might just be edited out by an over anxious adult.</p>

<p>I also thought the comment referencing 3 or 4 acceptance letters was very interesting.</p>

99

<p>Xiggi, when you come right down to it, who cares about uniquely taking risks? Did Socrates choose his students based on their unique risk-taking? I doubt it. Did Plato? Again, I doubt it. Did the Irish Benedictine monks who kept learning alive during the centuries immediately after the Fall of Rome give two flips about unique risk-taking? Again, I doubt it.</p>

<p>College is about learning stuff, not about honing one’s uniqueness or even indulging one’s penchant for taking risks. (Heck, some risks are downright foolhardy.)</p>

<p>Have we forgotten what the purpose of higher education should be? No wonder so many schools graduate kids who know very little more than they did when they entered. But hey, they explored their uniqueness, and they learned how to bungee-jump…what more can we expect?</p>

<p>Seriously…I think maybe we parents should start examining our own assumptions. We’ve bought all the hype from the adcomms and the glossy “viewbooks.” Meanwhile, the Chinese and Japanese are whipping our butts academically, because they expect their kids to actually *learn *something. What a concept, eh? ;)</p>

100

<p><a href=“http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/06/books/review/06brooks.html[/url]”>http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/06/books/review/06brooks.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>

</p>