<p>"Three big lies are gaining traction with families as they embark on this years tougher-than-ever college admission sweepstakes. Believing some of these lies will cost families money. Others can make the difference between an acceptance and a rejection." ...</p>
<p>The</a> Three Biggest Lies in College Admission - Forbes</p>
<p>The title of the article SHOULD be the three biggest lies in Prestigious college admission. I should have realized the expected demographic of the audience from the publisher - Forbes. Top Public Us have gone away from formulaic admissions relying primarily on SATs and are now moving toward holistic methods. Public Us (and many/most private Us) don’t care about ability to pay. The student will just be gapped. There was NEVER a level playing field in college admissions. Anyone who believes students from an inner city school are leveled with students from Choate is absolutely wrong.</p>
<p>I wonder what the “Magic 700” is suppose to be? An 800 SAT category or SAT II score? Can someone writing a college admissions article really be so dense as to get this wrong?</p>
<p>I believe that the Magic 700/700 is supposed to be scores of at least 700 in reading and 700 math on the SAT–just for consideration. 680/690 goes automatically into the reject pile.
(Unless you have some other special “magic”–billionaire parents, athletic talent, etc.)</p>
<p>I don’t find this article to be so spot on. I realize that in many cc chances threads, and in guidance offices, the kids are told that they must be in the range near the top 25% of the standardized test scores to be considered. This is too much of a generalization. This may be true for schools that have not historically sent students to the particular college, or schools that are unfortunately poorly performing etc. However, a school’s own success in sending students with certain SAT scores should be a starting point for scores that are in the ballpark. THe truth is that 75% of the students will not be in the top score range of the college, and they all won’t be diversity, athletes, development or alumni kids. It is plainly contrary to everything I heard from guidance and colleges, that a reach candidate will do better applying ED (where they promise to come - NOT EA) than regular decision. This does not apply to HPYSC and some other EA schools where only la creme de la creme (and other recruited athletes and the like) will get in EA.</p>
<p>I haven’t finished reading the whole article but there are no athletic scholarships in the 'CAC so the fact that schools have to report SAT/ACT scores for scholarship purposes makes no sense at all. </p>
<p>“NESCAC institutions also believe athletic teams should be representative of the entire student body. Thus, admissions and financial policies are consistent with the NCAA Division III policies that prohibit athletic scholarships and award financial aid solely on the basis of need.”</p>
<p>[url=<a href=“http://www.nescac.com/about/about]NESCAC[/url”>http://www.nescac.com/about/about]NESCAC[/url</a>]</p>
<p>Also, not every kid who decides not to submit their scores have lousy scores. Some kids choose not to submit simply because they are opposed to standardized testing.</p>
<p>/sigh</p>
<p>The real question should be about what it takes for anyone to “getting in” Forbes nowadays. We already know that it does not require much to get Forbes to endorse your “crap” rankings, and now … this! </p>
<p>Here’s another gem from that self-made know-it-all: </p>
<p>From [Getting</a> In! Spotlight: Steve Cohen | More Than a Test Score](<a href=“http://www.morethanatestscore.com/2011/06/02/getting-in-spotlight-steve-cohen/]Getting”>http://www.morethanatestscore.com/2011/06/02/getting-in-spotlight-steve-cohen/)</p>
<p>“Good colleges are not looking for the well-rounded class; they’re looking for the well-rounded class”</p>
<p>Say what?</p>
<p>I realize that he tried to repeat (without much success) a phrase that has been (over)used many times on CC, but could he not try to make some sense.</p>
<p>As far as the article, it is obviously easier to repeat the non-sense gleaned around the web than actually looking for facts, let alone understanding them.</p>
<p>Forbes might consider hiring an editor and stop writing about education until then.</p>
<p>I thought it was a nice article but nothing that most people on CC don’t know already. I agree that those three lies are lies.</p>
<p>Forbes has no more credibility about education than most mainstream media does.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Forbes appears to have no more credibility about education than most regular CC posters; probably less.</p>
<p>Xiggi,
It was,
</p>
<p>Say what?..</p>
<p>I had to read that quote too a few times to get it…How true is it? We’ll find out in April when we hear from the schools where S3 applied. You can look at Naviance, collegedata and satscores.us but who knows? As an reader of this board knows, there are plenty of BWRK, some who get in to the top schools while other equally qualified ones don’t. Hopefully he’ll have a few choices among the ones that he really liked but he’s realistic and is much more relaxed about it than his parents. As he said,“there’s nothing more I can do about it” once the essays, supplementals and everything else was submitted.</p>
<p>^^ Im confused by people not understanding the above. Colleges for years said that in order for the class to be “rounded”, a kid they want needs to be “lopsided”. Ie, “follow your passion” means a lot for college admissions - they dont want a kid who is involved in ten different clubs, plays three instruments, etc. They want a kid who is the best in one thing and follows that thing through. Of course that kid needs to have the scores and the grades.<br>
What I would say is wrong in the article is the 700 score. It seems that for the top colleges the number has been edging towards 750/750.</p>
<p>The schools we visited all emphasized the well-rounded class vs. the well-rounded student, so I don’t think that’s a lie at all. They all said that they aren’t looking for students who’ve had many, many extracurricular activities. They’re looking for students who have delved more deeply into one or two ECs – consistency, commitment, and leadership. Imagine a class of five people. Colleges aren’t so interested in filling it with five people who’ve all taken ballet for a few years, volunteered a summer at a museum, are in the writing club, play soccer, and were in band for a year. They would rather have a ballet dancer who danced the role of Clara in a well-regarded production of The Nutcracker; someone who’s volunteered as a docent in a history museum for seven years; a writer who’s won regional writing competitions; an all-conference soccer player; and someone who’s been in an African drumming group for ten years.</p>
<p>I’ve just seen mhmm’s post above. :)</p>
<p>^^^^ Posts # 12 and # 13.</p>
<p>That’s also what I’ve read and heard from every school we’ve visited.</p>
<p>
I think the writer is saying that because colleges want the “well-rounded class vs. the well-rounded kid” that the playing field is not level (lie #3) because well-rounded kids are not going to have the same chance as the kid who is a superstar at one EC or another.</p>
<p>I think everything the writer says is true…at some colleges. The problem is that they’re true at different colleges, and there are plenty of colleges where most of them aren’t true.</p>
<p>It’s a skewed argument to make his point. And, so often, the point is to rile people up.</p>
<p>There’s a recurring sense on CC that you have to be a cancer researcher or near Olympic athlete. Or, the greatest dance kid or invent something. But, really, “superstars” can seem one-sided. Sometimes even unlikely to get engaged on campus, try new things, be part of an effort- unless it is super important to them.</p>
<p>Well-rounded means your head is not stuck in your own narrow sense of what you want, what’s right for you, what you prefer to be doing, what you excel at or what scores you social points in hs. Ie, you can see the world around you and make a variety of choices. That’s good.</p>
<p>I think the issue is most hs-age kids don’t have that vison (certainly not as 9th or 10th graders.) So, they need guidance, from somewhere. If we keep telling them to follow their passions, they risk limiting themselves.</p>
<p>We never checked with any publications / ranking whenchoosing colleges. Did research ourselves to match the kids’ personalities and wide range of interests to colleges. So, our family is not influenced by any of this as well as by any advertisement of any sort for any products / services. We just research, check out. most of the time, nothing is very well known until you apply any way. You can gestimate, but it woudl be off and in some cases by whole ton. And they might even change after you declare intent to attend. And again, nothing is cut in stone. They have to maintain certain COLLEGE GPA to be able to renew their awards and on the other hand, if they do very well, award might go up substantially. So, we can talk the talk, but walk will be significantly different.</p>
<p>A lot of inflammatory statements without much in the way of explanation of the sources for the information on which these statements are based.</p>
<p>In the end though, my gut has always told me that many of these statements are true.</p>
<p>Why do you all think that colleges are not more upfront about this?</p>
<p>What would they have to lose by coming clean and telling the secrets?</p>