Any time you weaken criteria, or question notions such as who a “more qualified” student is, you are chipping away at the credibility of and confidence in educational institutions. This will have long term consequences. We as a society trust experts less than we used to, for instance, and we wonder why. Some of these issues are political, which I don’t want to get into here.
2 Likes
I’m not disagreeing with anything that you are saying.
But with regard to the idea of fairness, manipulation of the yield is IMO small beans compared to other issues.
Most schools, especially the Ivy League, were not historically known for their meritocratic admission standards. I am not an expert, but I think it is quite possible that schools are more meritocratic now than they have ever been. That’s not to say there isn’t room for improvement.
The competitive schools are claiming to use a “holistic process” in making admissions decisions. They are not claiming to be fair.
4 Likes
That’s exactly what our kid did. We read the tea leaves on high stats students without a hook esp from certain states and well known high schools and realized that applying to many schools was an optimal strategy. Personally, I don’t like it, but you need to match your strategy to the current cycle or be left out.
4 Likes
You can point to the other guy and say they are also a dirty shirt :-). I tell the kids to stay as far away as possible from a govt dependent employment, because you will be discriminated against. Period. Even in large private sector, you are being discriminated for or against these days, depending on who you are. People must understand that this runs both ways. People that hold resentment from their time when they were entering college may treat people on whose behalf they were discriminated against, less well when they enter positions of power and influence 10,20,30 years hence. Nothing is free.
When my son accepted a summer internship recently, he commented to me, that there appears to be zero discrimination of any kind. He particularly noted that. When he got a referral at a different company (based on working together with an employee of that company), he was told that he was lucky, and without that referral, that company stopped considering candidates of his ethnicity. These patterns of behavior will not be without consequence.
Do you think if a kid really wanted to get into a school, and he was yield protected away, 10 years later when he sees a resume from that school, he would have any regard for that resume?
But the issue is that “more qualified” or “less qualified” is subjective, so framing this as weakening the criteria is flawed because the criteria cannot be objectively defined, despite the desire of many of those on this thread to do so. A higher class rank does not, by definition, make a student more qualified. Neither does a higher SAT/ACT score. Qualification is evaluated by the composite of the offering, aka holistically. And that lower rank, GPA, or SAT/ACT may be due to hours spent on some spectacular EC that classmates know nothing about.
From a school’s perspective, the attractiveness of the candidate may be impacted by the student’s actual interest in attending the school. When a student is admitted to their school of choice (I’ll avoid dream school) they might be more eager to attend and therefore be a better school community member than someone who feels they are “settling.” It isn’t just about accepting the best (ok, most qualified?) students who apply; it is also about creating a class that will represent the school well and take advantage of what the school has to offer. Those who end up at their safety or a target that they think is beneath them may bring that attitude with them or, worse, start at the school with the goal of transferring out. How is that good for the school? Choosing those who are perhaps better matched - qualifications-wise AND interest-wise - may result in a better overall result for the school. They may know that those they reject - those that many here say are for yield protection purposes - might not bring the right attitude to the school.
Often yield protection is done more with deferrals and/or waitlists and if those students truly want to attend the school, rather than just collect acceptances they will decline, they can demonstrate that to the school and, in many cases, that commitment will result in an acceptance.
2 Likes
I think there is a problem with the idea of “more qualified” in holistic admissions schools that a lot of parents and students just don’t get on a fundamental level. The only real question in holistic is qualified vs. un qualified.
Once a kid is past the base hurdle (ie can succeed academically and benefit from the resources at the institution) then it’s ALL shaping the class to suit what the school needs that particular year. So having a 1480 vs a 1560 is kind of irrelevant if a 1450 is the mark of “qualified” and the 1480 kid fills a niche that the 1560 kid does not.
10 Likes
You will have some view that your kid is better qualified than another kid in your school. In fact, let’s assume your kid in the 95th percentile. You wouldn’t be saying what you just said if your kid’s placement is worse than the 50th percentile kid in your class. You wouldn’t be philosophical about what the meaning of measurement is, and what qualified means. You would be seriously pissed. Why don’t we abolish all testing? Let’s just draw a lottery with kid’s SS numbers and allot them schools and jobs after that.
This kills all incentive to work in the society. You can’t credibly tell kids to study hard. They’d laugh at you.
1 Like
HYP in decades past were less meritocratic overall, with a relatively small portion (but just enough) students admitted on their own academic achievements (which helped their elite reputations) among many who were basically given “inherited” admission as scions of the SES elite. Over the decades, the meritocratic part of the class has grown, and even the connected (LDC) mostly have to show strong achievement (though perhaps a bit less than the unconnected), but the meritocratic part of the class has also gotten much more competitive and presumably less transparent as academic stats get pressed against the ceiling.
1 Like
Right, I have some view but someone else has a different view. And yes, I watched as an - academically less qualified - classmate of my student was recruited by and accepted to Stanford with a significantly lower GPA and lower test scores. That doesn’t make me less philosophical; perhaps a little frustrated but not seriously pissed. I also know how hard that student worked at her sport and just because I place more emphasis on academic excellence than athletic excellence I know that she also worked extremely hard for that placement and she was a 99th percentile kid in her sport.
I think on average the 95th percentile kid is not going to get a worse placement than the average 50th percentile kid. I think that worse placement happens when there are other interests that are met by that 50th percentile kid. I have no trouble explaining that to my kids; they get it too, and have plenty of incentive to work.
2 Likes
That’s the problem with holistic admissions The criteria for qualified vs unqualified is amorphous and fungible. It basically means the admissions office has the prerogative to define (only to itself) what it likes and who to accept. So if the admissions office feels that a SAT score of 1270 with a weighted GPA of 4.2 means you are qualified enough to attend Harvard, it is.
3 Likes
I assume you mean these students should apply ED or ED2. However, there’re plenty of legitimate reasons students may not want to apply ED/ED2, other than using the school as their “safeties”.
No, that’s not necessarily what I mean. Sure, for those who have a first choice, ED is an option. I believe that there are myriad other ways to demonstrate that commitment, including but not limited to: essays that reflect a genuine knowledge of and interest in the school, attendance at admission events (in person or online), research about the school and its “unique” attributes, communication, when appropriate, with admissions and/or faculty. Once the deferral or waitlist decision is made, a LOCI and other appropriate communication. If the student actually would attend if accepted (whether this was the original intent or a new decision based on the application results), conveying that message is powerful; but, the message needs to be genuine.
Those familiar with the history of how holistic admissions came to be will recognize that this “amorphousness” is by design. Although now presented as a “better” way to evaluate applicants (and I do agree with the multi-faceted evaluation approach of holistic admissions), it was originally designed to allow the admissions office to deny those that they deemed less desirable without having to explain why.
3 Likes
@1NJParent , they can accept a place on the WL. And when they do it, they can say – if they mean it – they will attend if accepted. They can even do this when they are deferred.
For a tippy top student, they might not want to make this promise until they have confirmed that none of their higher ranked options will have them. Which brings us full circle.
4 Likes
There’re students who have done all those things at some of these schools and they’re still deferred and waitlisted.
That’s essentially the same as ED/ED2. Perhaps we should call it ED3?
1 Like
Still is!
2 Likes
But it’s not! Because when they accept that WL position in April, they have seen all their results.
1 Like
The school may not have open seat at that point.
as an aside…
Northeastern (a much cited school on this thread) does not have a supplemental essay that allows applicants to show fit or interest; and apparently attending online events and reaching out to AOs doesn’t seem enough to avoid a deferral 
You are not being genuine enough 
. The proof that you are not genuine enough is that you did not get in.