<p>Thanks, poetgrl! That was really nice. He has been accepted to a couple of schools already - we’re still waiting for the bulk of them this week. He’s a good, sweet kid.</p>
<p>I heard an admissions officer at Swarthmore say that probably 80% of the kids who apply there are well-qualified, insofar as they have demonstrated they would likely succeed there and get a lot out of a Swarthmore education. Beyond that, they’re not looking for the “best qualified,” and certainly not the “most deserving” as measured by HS grades and test scores. They’re looking to put together an interesting, well-rounded, and diverse class. They feel probably somewhat greater pressure than they would like to keep median test scores high, because that counts toward their US News ranking which they ignore at their peril. But once you’re into the category of “likely to succeed” at an academically demanding institution like Swat, it’s really not about merit anymore; it’s about whether they deem you a good “fit” for the class they’re putting together, given who else they’ve admitted or are likely to admit. This particular admissions officer was very clear in stating that it would be a mistake to interpret a rejection from Swat as an indication that they didn’t think you were sufficiently well qualified (though it is that in a minority of cases; but a strong majority of those they reject are from the category they deem “well qualified”). And it would be an even bigger mistake to think they chose someone ahead of you because they deemed that person “more qualified.” By the same token, it would be completely wrong to think they admitted someone “less qualified,” because they don’t admit anyone who in their judgment isn’t well qualified. It’s just that beyond a certain point, it’s not about merit, just desserts, or relative qualifications, but about fit.</p>
<p>Yes, that interesting concept of “fit” plays such a big part, supposedly, but one has to wonder how they come to those decisions. When students are at such high levels, especially those who would apply to a school like Swarthmore, for example, how does one decide who does and does not fit in the school? It would be fascinating to know how adcoms make these hardcore decisions.</p>
<p>One other thing…</p>
<p>I don’t know how much this may play a part, but when visiting schools, I got the sense that a lot of admissions officers were fairly young - in their 20s and 30s. I would assume that a lot of them have not raised adolescents or have gone through the college application experience as a parent. I wonder how much this lack of experience as a parent may color their expectations. They may view adolescents as more mature and capable than some really are. They may expect more “leadership” or other activities than many 16-17 year-olds are capable of. </p>
<p>Just a thought.</p>
<p>When you visit, you do tend to see the young ones who get to meet all those visitors- desk duty, so to speak. You don’t always see their bosses. Believe me, no reasonable college is going to let its multi-million dollar present and future hinge exclusively on the thoughts of recent-hire young folks. They get trained, tested and mentored before they pull their own weight. They may not have kids, but they know the college scene, the classes, depts, policies, activities and what works there. Plus all about the institutional needs and more. They learn all the factors about their assigned regions, high schools there, ed trends and socioeconomics. The better the college, the more imortant all this is.</p>
<p>But, final decisions are made by groups or committees. Ime, after the first culling, to get rid of dreamers, each app goes through a minimum of 3 separate reviews. Then discussed by a team. They are highly aware of what teens can do, where kids tend to stumble, and what can be forgiven. They are a pretty neat group that likes kids.</p>
<p>
I was thinking about this. It seems to me that a kid who is kind of shy and hangs back who goes to a place with a lot of high-powered “overachievers” as D calls them, may continue to hang back and be a follower. There will always be others who will step up and take charge, students with lots of experience being leaders, running and organizing things. I would find it intimidating to get up and say “I’d like to take the lead on this” when I felt there were others who had more experience and who might think of me as “that kid in the back of the room”. They would probably laugh and say “what do you know about organizing anything, duh?” </p>
<p>OTOH, at a school not swarming with “leaders”, meganSon might need to get more involved, climb ladders, take the wheel for some cause or other. It’s hard to shine when the wattage in the room is already blinding.</p>
<p>For both of my D’s top two schools (St. Olaf and Grinnell) she submitted the common app main essay, activity essay, attached a 3rd essay that she really liked in the “additional information” section and a college specific supplemental essay. She interviewed at StO and met her admit guy 1 other time in addition to emails. She was not able to interview at Grinnell. Still, beyond grades and test scores, I think they can develop a pretty good idea of who she is and how she might “fit” based on 4 essays. On the flip side, Stanford said “no”. Stanford has 5ish supplemental essays. Anyway, those schools had ample opportunity to assess how she might contribute to and fit with the campus in question. It wasn’t just a lightning strike of 1 great essay or test day.</p>
<p>Thank you for your thoughtful post “lookingforward” post #58</p>
<p>sylvan - that’s a good point. Thanks for your thoughts. I hope someday he gets a chance to lead and realizes that he’s good at it.</p>
<p>"I don’t know how much this may play a part, but when visiting schools, I got the sense that a lot of admissions officers were fairly young - in their 20s and 30s. I would assume that a lot of them have not raised adolescents or have gone through the college application experience as a parent. I wonder how much this lack of experience as a parent may color their expectations. They may view adolescents as more mature and capable than some really are. They may expect more “leadership” or other activities than many 16-17 year-olds are capable of. "</p>
<p>This question presupposes that there actually is some sort of “shadow class” that the college should have accepted, but instead they accepted the “wrong” set of people based on the “wrong” criteria. Um, if a college were dissatisfied with who wound up going there, they’d change the criteria for the next go-round. Is there any evidence that colleges are displeased / dissatisfied with who they wind up with?</p>
<p>Getting into a top college isn’t a reward for high school performance- too many parents and kids see it that way</p>
<p>Yeah, that’s why I see so many of the graduates of these schools managing Pinkberry’s and Starbuck’s these days</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>But SAT scores and GPA also correlate to admissions into colleges - on average someone who scores a 2400 on the SAT or gets a 4.0 is more likely to get into whatever school than someone with a lower score. That does not mean that students with a scores of 2400 are going to get into whatever school before they’ll admit someone who received a 2390. It’s hard to quantify things like EC’s, recommendations, essays, etc., and colleges don’t talk about them anyways, but I wouldn’t be surprised if SAT scores and GPA were better predictors of admissions than all of those. That does not mean however that everyone with a 4.0 and a 2400 will get accepted into whatever top school, while those with a 3.5 and 2100 will always get rejected.</p>
<p>With regard to an issue raised earlier, whether the prospects of shy young geniuses might suffer under a holistic evaluation process, I just don’t see the future Hawking or Einstein falling through the cracks with the math, physics, and other olympiads that exist today that they could participate in. I believe that many elite schools consider exceptional performances at olympiads as important data points in holistic evaluations.</p>
<p>Given Einstein’s severe learning disabilites and need for others to help him with many of his calculations, the idea that he would NOT have fallen through the cracks in our standardized test score madness is laughable. </p>
<p>There would be no Einstein, today.</p>
<p>Einstein did fairly well in math and science. </p>
<p>[Albert</a> Einstein’s certificate of qualification for university matriculation](<a href=“http://www.einstein-website.de/z_kids/certificatekids.html]Albert”>http://www.einstein-website.de/z_kids/certificatekids.html)</p>
<p>from your text:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I can promise a kid who did not pass his original test would not be being considered for an Elite U in this day and age. He was sent off to directional state U. Think about it. Genius doesn’t always “look” like everyone else, that’s WHY it is genius. But, we don’t allow for that, anymore. So it goes.</p>
<p>You can fail a science lab, these days, because of bad spelling and grammar. LOL</p>
<p>^^^
That’s ridiculous. In this day and age, he would have found out ahead of time what areas he needed to improve in and take the extra lessons beforehand. Or he would “superscore,” or use score choice. Einstein eventually got in on his own steam after reviewing, so he didn’t fall through any cracks.</p>
<p>Or he would have started taking the SAT in 7th grade like people do.</p>
<p>I know of no student these days that is out of the running for most, if any US schools based on performance on a single test date.</p>
<p>But primarily I post this to dispel the rumor that he couldn’t do math in school or that he flunked out. It simply isn’t true.</p>
<p>I never said he flunked out.</p>
<p>I will say that his higher level calculations were always done with assistance.</p>
<p>And, having a tremendously high IQ dyslexic, I’m not dissing Einstein.</p>
<p>But, I cannot tell you the number of times parents of dyslexics laugh at what our current school “system” would have done to Einstein and Churchhill.</p>
<p>ETA: you are wildly misguided if you believe a poor einstein in our culture is not being missed all the time. Seriously.</p>
<p>Top colleges will take a few outliers, sure. But they love balanced, interesting kids. That’s a big part of holistic. Lots of kids do olympiads. It’s important for a STEM kid to be involved in this and other science or math related activities. Just as important to be in performances of some sort, do service projects, be in student govt, play a sport-- whatever gives them a picture you are well-rounded and can commit yourself to more than your own narrow academic interests. Sometimes, I think of this like marriage: you want the top stats, best in her/his chosen work? Or, something more, some breadth, some surprises, good communicator, great recs?</p>
<p>
I never said you said he flunked out. I said it’s a rumor. I’ve read and heard it many places.</p>