Just wait until the first Ivy goes test optional and watch the hysteria that unfolds. Just imagine for some students and parents."
So let 'em. They can do whatever they like. They are obligated only to their own missions.
Kids still should be careful when estimating the tip a sport “could” offer. It depends on circumstances and, as ever, the rest of the picture.
In some respects, being good at music, having a record of participating and an increasing role in music (that first chair or regional youth orchestra, All State, etc,) can suggest you will continue music involvement in college. Far from suggesting you’e a carbon copy of anyone else whose relatives came from the same corner of the world. Or that you’re somehow padding. Or unimaginative.
Yesterday, I found a program from an opera performance at the college. 7 of 25 in the orchestra had Asian seeming names. Clearly they weren’t hiding in some lab. The tenor, lighting designer and one rehearsal accompanist, too. I looked up a few- one was on ultimate frisbee, one was a physics major, into film and animation (and now working in that.) Another physics kid is teaching at a prominent sci high school, has a few other unexpected interests I’ll skip.
Start to see why it’s so frustrating to hear flat pronouncements about As-Am kids? See why just considering your own hs context is too limited?
And nowhere did I say that they are. I was simply trying to answer a question someone posed earlier about why Asian immigrants often have such a narrow-minded view of colleges.
And part of having that narrow-minded view of college is a reflection of a different type of intelligence – the intelligence to open your mind to the concept that things are different in your new country versus your old, the intelligence to look around and see that the vast majority of upper middle class people in the US did NOT go to Ivies or to any elite school, the intelligence to realize that (if one defines success by money) one can make just as much money owning a chain of restaurants or car dealerships or what-not, the intelligence to realize that the mobility in the US is on a different plane from elsewhere.
Not to mention the intelligence of realizing that a DUMB strategy is for everyone to crowd the same 8 or 10 or 12 schools, and a SMART strategy would be to try to zig where others zag.
This thread is interesting in so many ways. Two factions emerge, one couching protectionism of the status quo under various guises, such as too many of one race focused on too few colleges, scores and GPA’s not being the be all, end all, etc. etc, while the other having the misguided notion that college admissions should reflect the American ideal of a true meritocracy. Elite colleges have no such noble intentions, They are instead focused on the democratization of the pathways to influence and power.
I’ve read some of these “clearly I didn’t get in because I’m Asian” threads - one for example had someone with middling to poor ECs (no state or national, no significant leadership, no breadth) with excellent GPA and test scores. Don’t people get that especially at universities like Penn, they want ALL their students to be diversified in their interests? And at least the best in something at a state or national level?
This article shows how “biased” Penn is vs. other area colleges:
http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/Former-Penn-official-College-admissions-biased-against-Asian-Americans.html
IMHO, she is drumming up business, and good for her and all (having quit to be a SAHM and then returned to start her own business).
I personally know more than a few Asian-American kids (including my son, multiracial who lists white and Asian) who got into reaches. Wow, how could that happen!!?!?!?!?
Seems like they are more focused on ensuring that their students succeed later to bring them glory and alumni donations, so selecting students with what they think is the highest potential in their admission processes is a goal of their admission processes. This does not necessarily mean “democratization of the pathways to influence and power”, since they tend to have a very skewed SES distribution of students (about half of the students at elite private schools are not on financial aid, meaning that they come from top few percent income and wealth families, and even the financial aid recipients could be from upper middle income and wealth families).
That’s exactly what they’re focused on; it’s very obvious. I don’t see how it can’t be obvious.
How do you even begin to say this is about future “power?” And glory can be quite simple. The people who measure it all in national or numerical terms (political, corporate, buying power, etc, miss some more basic understanding of success. (And that would help applicants, too.)
Yale, eg, says “future leaders,” but the savvy don’t stop there and assume. (Again, that word.). They keep reading. All this just isn’t always about being Top Dawg. Leadership is a quality, not a title.
And a key factor in donations (remember, not all grads are millionaires,) is satisfaction with the experience. Again, a qualitative concept. And influenced by the 24/7 community they build.
@lookingforward
I don’t think that ucb’s comment, and my agreement with it, exclude the factors you mention. There is nothing wrong with glory, and it also doesn’t exclude a satisfying student experience. However, the college is striving for that satisfying experience partly to encourage retention, graduation, reputation, and eventual alumni donations. A student who feels lukewarm about campus life will be less than enthusiastic about later fundraising. I think there’s absolutely nothing wrong with a college wanting a handsome public profile of itself and graduates who succeed in careers. As to leadership, I didn’t bring it up, but it can be secondarily important (I know what it is because I interview for it, and I know it’s not a “title”). Helpful on campus and after graduation, and not always for “power” reasons at all. Why shouldn’t a college want to facilitate the entrance of a student into a successful life? Even if that didn’t bring the college glory, it’s a constructive social role for a college to play.
Epiphany, it’s just that glory and leadership can be quite simple. Eg, an inspiring school teacher, not necessarily a CEO. And, in many ways, the $50 donations add up, too. (“Percentage of alum giving” is as important a measure as the newsworthy million dollar gifts.)
And the trickle down effect. We’re used to seeing that through one lens- the Harvard grandfather who facilitates his children’s and grandchildren’s life success and wealth. But it’s not limited to this old view. This sort of cycle works with all SES, as some go on to inspire others and facilitate their paths.
No, nothing wrong with a school working its image. It’s just not flat. Many forms of “success” can seep through and bring their own new influences to the present around us and next generations.
I know these schools are institutions first. But the notion of “bringing them glory” is fluid. The idea this is about measurable success needs to be thought through. The applicant already working in the community, who maybe goes on to be a social worker, can be every bit as important as the doctor who hangs his diploma in the hallway.
“How do you even begin to say this is about future “power?” And glory can be quite simple”
Leadership, power, influence, glory, ability to donate meaningfully, are roughly parallel attributes. What I meant by “democratization”, was that they don’t want an increasingly disproportionate representation of one race in the pathways to these attributes, over which they ultimately have inordinate control. Either that, or they truly believe higher stat Asians might not necessarily be more successful in realizing these attributes, i.e., advancing stereotypes perhaps?
@lookingforward
I’m aware of all of what you said in post 252. I think you’re looking at my and ucb’s comments too narrowly. I’m aware of fluidity and all that stuff. Very aware. Just because some people are not aware does not mean the whole population also isn’t. I’m not sure why you feel you need to teach me about success and being a model. Again, I am aware of all that. I think the people who are not aware of that do not know much about college admissions, college experience, and a college’s mission, but that wouldn’t be I.
Mich, I got your point about democratization. But it was unclear whose “glory” you mean- the individual or the school. This is not about whether the elites think As-Am kids will or won’t advance the school’s “glory.” It’s not even about one race; it’s about individuals. And then putting together a group of individuals to form a whole that works for them and for the school (eg, balance in majors, interests and strengths.) It’s not about inordinate control- it’s about what the kid can present (and thus, represent) when he/she applies.
I have never seen an adcom stereotype the way CC does. Nor comment on future giving potential. What I have seen is a focus on the four years, what sort of fit and thrive, how the kid may contribute to the campus community, keep that train running. Lots of kids present with big dreams. Not all have a record that “shows”
Again, @lookingforward
I appreciate and can understand why you might feel defensive about the term “glory,” but I assure you that I did not mean it in some brash way. I meant it in a most positive way. 
I completely agree about the priority of the “4 year experience working for the student and for the school,” but it is also not only about that. You see, the problem too often is that students and their parents assume that the process is student-driven. If it were primarily student-driven, then all private colleges would have to expand phenomenally, because there are far more sincere, “deserving” students who would fit into that campus and thrive for 4 years, and contribute positively for 4 years, than there are available seats, and you know that. It’s important that students and parents understand that the institution has to be looking simultaneously at the probable after-life of the student. And of course, yes, that can and does include students who are not extroverts, not conventional “leaders,” and not seeking power in the halls of congress or Wall Street or the State Department. Since I have a child who went to an Ivy for undergrad and is now at a different one for grad school, and who is extremely quiet and modest, you don’t have to convince me that quiet students who quietly achieve and quietly role-model are considered seriously & just as often admitted as other personalities are. 
@lookingforward curious for your take on post #247. Do you think these elites want all their students to be best at the national or state level at something? (Realistically, how many things can there be, times 50 states!)
Ephipany, you and I agree 95%. We’re x-posting a bit. I was commenting on Michalum and the notion this is all about measurable glory, who will give what dollars, that there is some sort of calculation in there.
What epiphany and I know too well is how a kid’s actual app can fail, no matter the measurables.
*ok, it’s ucb who mentioned glory and donations. Sorry.
Test optional is among the most cynical techniques that colleges leverage to both use the tests (which they secretly believe in) while also admitting less qualified Hooked individuals. It conveniently increases their federally reported test scores. If these schools really don’t believe in the tests, why not disregard them entirely for all students? Credit to any that do that (are there any?), but the hypocritical “test optional” schools are just gaming the system.
Epiphany, we’re not at odds. And I don’t feel defensive. If I’m understanding what you mean by “student driven,” I do think that, for a top hs performer, in the initial rounds, it’s his to win or lose. The colleges won’t increase class size because there are more great kids than seats. They will continue to cull.
It’s hard to predict the “after” for a 17 year old. You look for the basics. Can this kid think? How did he use his energies? Does what he “tells” you match what he “shows?” Eg, know how many kids want to be biomed engineers so they can “invent” prosthetic limbs and save third world amputees? And how many of those have no record of concern for others, no projects they committed to, no evidence of (some sort of worldly) perspective…no robotics, no STEM LoR. And maybe wrote the essay about a first grade experience.
Sorry, that’s harsh. But flip it around, for heaven’s sake. If you want to be a biomed engr, go do the things that will bring you closer to your goal. That’s not rocket science.
As for @foosondaughter, read the thread. They are not taking less qualified hooked kids. Find the link to MITChis’s blog about this. And the test optional schools I know ask for all kids’ scores, after admission, and report those for their matriculating students.