The Secrets of Elite College Admissions

Applying to College
61

What “secrets”? Not to those of us regularly on this forum. Yes, there are those with distinct advantages. Development, Athletes , Legacy , URM, Employee relatives, Friends of, and “Easter Eggs” all CAN have distinct advantages over and above academic indicators. Not all, not always.

A close friend of mine, who worked at a major university, and gets free tuition for certain family members, was given personal notification of her daughter’s rejection from that university. That’s how much her admission’s clout was. And, the girl was well within upper 25% of academic stats. She also was well acquainted with the AO. I know many legacy offspring who are not accepted, many URM. The same, and though athletes do have larger accept rates, it can be whole other nerve wracking process negotiating selective admissions for a recruited athlete.

So, some inside knowledge and connections can help and does in many situations.

Some serendipity can help too, and luck can be bad as well as good. If your the sixth and least effective essay on victory in eyes of defeat or other hackneyed subject, it’s not going to put you in as good of a Positionieren as the first one read, especially if your application reads so similarly to many on the desk. Once a critical core of academic stats is established for some schools, they are not as essential as putting together a diverse and vibrant university community. And a computer does not order the test scores and GPAs. A perfect 1600 might be accorded the same weight as a 1530 when considering test scores, for example.

62

“all other things being equal, they favor the wealthy.”

there are a few that now work against the wealthy, low-SES obviously, URMs, first-gen, all pretty significant hooks. And they’re expected to score higher on standardized tests.

“but rather an indication of the money-making capabilities of some members of the family.”

You almost make it sound like making money is bad, and losing money is good.

63

“A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds” ?

I’ll therefore summarize:

**Private “elite” colleges: **

A. Private “elite” college admissions aren’t fair, egalitarian, or purely merit based, but that there is no reason for them to have to be so, and that it is against their interests to be so. It would be nice, but I do not see this as the Major Issue Of Our Times, nor do I see it as The Major Issue In Education. I do not see how Bringing Down The Ivies will aid the rest of the country.

B. However, I have a problem when “elite” private colleges claim to be fair, egalitarian, or purely merit based. So Harvard can accept students in any legal manner that it wants, but it shouldn’t be considered as only admitting The Best Of The Best Of The Best.

Public “elite” universities

A. Admissions in these are also very often not fair, egalitarian, or purely merit based, but that is a problem, since their mission is to serve the people of their state and of the USA, not their own reputations. U Michigan should not be preferring in-state legacies or high income students over other in-state students, and it should be doing a better job of admitting Michigan residents from a wider range of SES levels. Same for GTech, Berkeley, and other state universities.

B. State and the federal governments should provide enough funding that public universities would not be required to enact admissions policies which are aimed at providing the funds required for state schools to compete with private universities.

“Merit”

A. Standardized testing favors the wealthy. So does GPA in many cases, since grade inflation is much more common in high SES serving high schools. All other things being equal, there is a correlation between these and the academic talents of a student. However, all other things are definitely NOT equal.

If affordable, high-quality and standardized K-12 education was available to all, GPA and/or some type of standardized testing would be a good indication of a student’s academic talents. As it is, low SES students have worse, in many cases abysmal, schools. Moreover, education in the USA has awful policies which require resources that low SES families rarely have, such as personal areas at home and broadband internet access. There is also widespread food insecurity and lack of affordable healthcare among low SES children which has a profoundly negative impact on education, etc.

This circles back to the first issue. In many ways, demanding that “elite” private colleges be more egalitarian and “fair” in their admissions is, expecting private colleges to be able to solve the mess that the state and federal government have made of K-12 education.

BTW, lack of affordable high quality K-12 education IS, in my opinion, a Major Issue Of Our Times, and The Major Issue In Education.

PS. One of the strengths of “elite” private colleges is also their weakness and one of the greatest impediments to any change - strong alumni support. Much of the wealth of private colleges is the result of a strong alumni support. However, this also gives alumni a huge say in things like policies and admissions, and alumni often prefer that their Alma Mater will remain similar to how it was when they attended. So they will tend to resist change of any kind, including removing preferences in admissions to athletes and legacies.

64

You’re still generalizing. I won’t go over it by bullet, but feel folks should recognize their assumptions. Backing these up with studies misses the individual.

“Merit based” does not refer only to stats. That’s the hierarchical view, akin to “rack and stack.” Narrow. Holistic asks for better evidence than that.

65

I am generalizing, because it is a single post (albeit a long one). I know that there are a lot of assumptions, and that there are some simplifications. However, since you commented on “mixed message” was putting them together to demonstrate why I think that they aren’t contradictory.

I am glad that you didn’t go over it by bullet, since then i would not be able to resist providing a response to each, and by the time we were finished with the six sub-discussions that this would have spawned, everybody else here would be bored to tears, but each of us would still be holding on to our original opinions.

Regarding “merit” - my point wasn’t that “holistic” was not based on merit, it was that non-holistic admissions aren’t really based more on merit than holistic admissions. My point was that Oxbridge-type admissions do not provide any more opportunities for smart and talented low income students than do holistic admissions.

I spoke to stats, because most merit scholarships are either based on stats alone, while for others, stats are used to determine eligibility to apply for the scholarship. They are also the factors most often claimed to be related directly to academic talents. I absolutely agree - it is a narrow view, and not one with which I agree (obviously), but it’s a common view.

If it’s not obvious, my opinion is that holistic admissions can be used both ways, but that I think that they are, on the whole, a better way to admit students to highly competitive colleges. While this method can be used to discriminate against applicants from under represented and underprivileged groups, it can also be used to accomplish the opposite. Moreover, holistic admissions have the potential to identify applicants who have immense potential which cannot be seen if one focuses only on standardized measures and averages.