If Harvard’s definition of a stronger app is having Harvard-specific knowledge derived from their parent’s legacy status or going to a handful of well-connected prep schools, doesn’t that prove Harvard is elitist in how it has selected its criteria for admissions?
Many people, uncomfortable with ambiguity, demand that schools be “transparent” in their decision-making process – able to “defend their decision” on demand. The only problem is that most universities don’t craft their classes with a purely analytical process. They consider their selection process an art and not a science. And yet, posters on CC struggle when a 4.0/1600 applicant is sometimes not admitted while a legacy applicant with lesser “hard qualifications” does. While, everyone on CC loves the fact that college campus cultures are so different they seem to want everyone to use a singular, transparent, repeatable, selection process. Hint- university cultures they didn’t get that way by accident, they got that way by design. MIT is very different than Harvard - vive la difference.
I wonder what would happen if MIT used Harvard’s selection process and Harvard used MIT’s?
A lack of transparency suggests one has something to hide, and an inability to rationally defend one’s decisions suggests that there is no defense, that decision making is arbitrary/capricious, or possibly using illegal factors. Both rationality and transparency are generally valued in modern times.
Or we could just rely on magic. That is one approach, as well.
"I get that people want to think top stats and hs titles/status make one more “qualified.”
Not at all, these are kids got into Yale and Stanford but not Harvard. I don’t think you’ve answered why the kid didn’t get into H. Most of us are saying it’s a combination of H preferring a ALDC, with L being the biggest factor. If MIT and Stanford admit a stem student, I have a tough time thinking that person would not contribute at H.
“This thread is not about Harvard, even though we all use Harvard as an example from time to time.”
Well the Harvard data is out there, and it’s probably the school among elites, that gives the biggest advantage to legacies.
Some things in life are easily explainable and reproducible. Others, not so much.
I think admissions are pretty rational and transparent given what they have to work with. Let’s see: GPA - oops that’s no good enough because HS are not all created equal. OK, standardized test scores? Oops, that’s no good because the wealthy can afford test prep. ECs? Same. Random lottery? Some actually want that. Wow. How about we remove all forms of preference? Legacy? Check. Athletic? Harder, but OK, check? URM? Uhhhhh, maybe not.
All the transparency in the world will not stop some from attacking (for example) Harvard’s admissions process.
Some things in life require a little creativity. A little “magic” if you will.
In a world where only 5% of tens of thousands of applicants who “deserve” to get in get in, and subjective evaluation is a necessary part of the process, transparency is an impossible goal.
We have have a lot of data and we know pretty much what the schools are doing and why. We know they care about yield, reputation, diversity, sports, money, tradition, etc. That’s a lot of transparency- short of opening up all of the applications for public review, what else do people want?
At the end of the day, the issue seems to be that the people don’t think the results are fair because not everyone who deserves it can attend or afford to go. Ok. I am sympathetic to a point. But the world isn’t fair. The super selective schools owe us all nothing. And if they mistakenly don’t see the value of admitting one kid over another - isn’t it their loss?
It depends on your perspective. According to the tax record study listed in the NYT series, Williams had the following income distribution. It doesn’t sound socioeconmically diverse to me, although I’m sure there are some anecdotal examples of a few lower income students being in the class, such as the one you listed.
Inflation Adjusted Median Income – $202,000
Top 1% – 18% of students
Top 5% – 42% of students
Top 20% – 67% of students
Bottom 20% – 5% of students
A large portion of students being on FA also isn’t a good reference for being SES diverse, as Williams’s NPC suggests it gives need based FA to some families with incomes of as high as >$250k.
I do agree that Williams and many other “elite” colleges do a good job of trying to reduce SES segregation, including things like making the activities on campus have no additional cost beyond tuition+room+board, and grant FA nearly fully covers those costs for many not higher income students. My personal experience at Stanford was similar in this respect.
One thing that is different from Williams and HYPSM… type elites is the large portion of athletes. Williams says that 33% of students participate in intercollegiate varsity athletics. Federal databases lists a bit higher percentages… as much as 40% of the class are varsity athletes in some years. Williams also competes at a higher level than most Div III schools, winning the NACDA Director’s Cup for best overall in Div III athletics during 19 of the past 20 years. Admitting this many quality varsity athletes no doubt has some negative impacts on diversity. Legacy appears less influential in SES diversity at Williams than many of the other colleges we have talked about. In the most recent class, only ~7% were legacies.
This list of “smartest colleges” appears to simply be based on the average of the reported 25th/75th SAT and ACT scores from several years ago. To avoid derailing, I won’t get into problems with using 25th/75th test scores ranges to determine which college is “smartest.” Instead I’ll emphasize two other points about focusing on which colleges have the highest 25th/75th test scores.
One is you need to consider the applicant pool, not just the average scores of the class. A college can be extremely elitist in admissions decisions while still maintaining high scores, so long as the applicant pool is full of high scoring students. The “elite” colleges I am familiar with do usually have a higher admit rate as scores increase, but they are certainly not simply admitting the highest scoring students, nor just focusing on merit. For example, the previously linked Harvard reference, the overall admit rate for legacies regardless of stats was higher than the admit rate for non-legacies who scored a perfect 2400 (when SAT had 3 sections). I realize that there are many important criteria in admissions decisions besides scores.
The other point is taking the average of 25th and 75th percentiles means you ignore the specific scores of those at the extremes. Suppose a theoretical college admitted 24% of the class based on purely elitist criteria that did not consider merit, and 76% of the class of purely merit criteria. The 24% elitists could bomb their SAT/ACT, without having much effect on the reported 25th percentile. However, there would be numerous negative consequences for the students of the class an the school itself, even if there was little impact on reported 25th/75th test scores.
Where in the world is an opaque process, any process, better than a transparent one? It’s only better, perhaps, from the perspectives of those who benefited, or would like to benefit, from an opaque process, and those vested in such a process. There wouldn’t have been the “Varsity Blues” scandal if admissions process were transparent, would it?
Well, let’s use Harvard. With all the court docs and stats detailed on this thread, their process appear pretty clear. So we all good - right?
Or if “we” need even more info what is it? Then we’ll all be good. Right?
I think “transparency” is a canard for people who want admission policies to change and I have yet to see any changes that would benefit everyone: the schools, the student, the parents, and the CC posters.
“Match.” Not just what you “want” or dream about, but if you meet their expectations. An app pkg is difficult to pull together well when based on assumptions.
No, the “definition” of a strong/er app pkg isn’t “…based on legacy.” So, no, that doesn’t prove they’re elitest. Not when any kid could do this digging (which we’ve argued ad infinitum.)
Some seem to be saying, "if there are more rich kids, it means they’re picking based on wealth. Huh? Everyone submits a full app and each applicant is responsible for his/her own. Some posters provide data and more data about how many rich kids or legacies-- that doesn’t prove they pick based on that. Ask yourself why there are more wealthy kids or a chunk of legacies, explore it, without cycling back to, “It’s elitism.”
Let’s start with the release of the complete and stratified profiles of the applicant pools, and same profiles of the admitted students. Tell us how various “hooks” and “tips” are used in the process, and the weights they are given (don’t tell us they’re arbitrary). Most importantly, tell us the guidelines, if they have any, they use to reach their decisions, so we tell if they followed their own guidelines.
While improving transparency is a good first step, being transparent does not mean nobody will criticize the admissions process. It also matters what the admission process actually is. If the admission process does not match expectation or claims by the college, transparency will likely increase dissatisfaction with the admission process. An example is the recent “Varsity Blues” scandal. This leads some to assume such reasons for lack of transparency .
Varsity Blues is an orange to this apple.
I don’t disagree with @1NJParent that the actual look at apps would offer a better view. But don’t try to stratify a holistic practice or expect there to be fixed “weights” for hooks. Or assume there’s a secret formula. And, if only they’d reveal it, then you could determine whether they’re lying.
How about this example: the dreaded Why Us? You think there’s a guideline? “Must mention x and indicate interest in y? If x is there and y is not, subract a point?” Not. But there is an expectation the answer reflects what the college truly is, offers, life is like and your match (a bit personalized, based on reality, and with a hint of enthusiasm. Not, “You’re a top college and I want a top college.”) You do it well, okay, or not at all. It’s part of the overall picture you present of yourself, vis a vis, what they want, their community.
Have no idea what they want? Can’t stop to dig a little deeper? Then why are you applying?
Then what…Just try to get to a logical conclusion here.
The “data” is numerous studies including those published by Harvard itself that show beyond any reasonable doubt that Harvard (and many others) gives a strong preference to legacy applicants in the admission process. There are also direct quotes from admission readers suggesting legacy status is changing the admissions decision for numerous applicants. Yes, legacy does not guarantee admission and is not an auto admission stamp . It’s certainly not the only factor in their admission decisions. Nobody has claimed this.
You can ask yourself why the legacy preferences exist, or you can take the word of the Harvard Dean of Admissions. In a trial document in which he is the first listed author, the following reasons for the legacy preference are listed – “cementing” bonds with alumni, improving financial support from alumni, improving volunteer support from alumni, improving sense of Harvard community among all undergraduates, and alumni kids tending to be strong applicants. The reasons listed for having Z-list deferred admits are approximately the same.
However, as I’ve stated many times throughout the thread, there are numerous other factors, including self selection effects. Legacies are no doubt tremendously overrepresented in the applicant pool due to self selection. They are also likely stronger applicants than the overall pool on average. There would be a lot of legacies in the class, even without special preferences. One of the referenced studies estimated that the admit rate for White LDC applicants would drop from 33% to an upper bound of 14% (may be lower), with special preferences removed. An upper bound of 14% is still quite high compared to non-LDC admit rate. Children of faculty had an especially high expected admit rate without preferences. Most children of faculty who were previously admitted expected to still be admitted, without special admission advantages. The existing of additional contributing effects does not mean legacy preferences do not exist or it is impossible to know whether they exist.
There’re people, and lots of people, who question the fairness of the process, and even whether the process is corrupt at some places. Transparency is the best cure. It would help people understand how and why applicants are chosen, reestablishing their confidence in the system. It would help people better target their suitable colleges, reducing the number of frivolous applications.
Colleges certainly don’t need to give us their secret sauce, but their decisions aren’t arbitrary, even with respect to the hooks. Personally I’d prefer they eliminate all the hooks. But if they have to retain these hooks, they should tell us how they would use these hooks, what guidelines they follow regarding these hooks.
People in positions of power (AOs are in positions of power in the admission process) always prefer to make their decisions without anyone else second-guessing or challenging their decisions. That’s human nature but it’s also a bad practice. It can lead to poor decisions, lost confidence by the public, and even corruptions in some places.
Not going to hold my breath on this. Seems like there is no shortage of frivolous apps at schools with relatively more transparent processes such as the UC system, U Texas, and even at Iowa and Iowa State whose admissions are based on very simple, published mathematical formulas.
AOs do not operate in a vacuum and do not hold all, or even most of the power…they report thru admissions and enrollment senior management, who report to senior leaders including the President, who reports to the Board of Trustees.
Senior administrators and the trustees are also involved in defining, creating, and approving the entire admissions process which at many schools involves incredibly detailed analytic models in addition to human decision making based on a multitude of objective and subjective factors.
Any one adcom does not review and decide alone, either. There’s conversation via the notes from other readers of these same individual apps. And then the final discussions, where decisions are made.
In building a class, don’t forget the roles of geo diversity, balance among majors and genders, and more.
So, you want to know why Billy didn’t get in, with his 4.0/1600 and EC titles, but Mary did, and she’s a 3.7/1550 legacy. But you’d need to see the apps, what each was offering beyond stats, the whole of it.
Maybe there’s an assumption that a hs top kid only needs to write that decent essay or have enough titles or win a national award. Again, not. A lot is made on CC of just doing ECs you want, not to satisfy adcoms (see the problem there?,) or writing the pers statement that’s so “you” that anyone would know you’re the author. Maybe that’s a simplistic view of what it takes to be one of 2000 or so out of 42,000. Or whatever numbers it is, for other elites.
You can’t look at a handful of apps and see the rise an individual needs to reach. It’s not just about his own hs or accomplishents. It’s the whole of the self presentation and those of every one else who moves further toward finalist.