<p>I dont know, but it seems that even your more than perfect students (4.0,2400,president of 3 clubs) are being rejected.</p>
<p>It seems that college admissions (private colleges) is not about you, but about the school. I think I'm looking at it too much on my own view as a student. As a college, i would base all my admissions on what they have to offer to the school.</p>
<p>So i guess what I'm saying is that we are servicing the college by applying. Its not that college that wants to do the service to us by admitting us. And by understanding this, we can make better applications, right?</p>
<p>So what are your thoughts on how adcoms look at applying students?</p>
<p>Yup, paying $50k to get a good education isn't enough. They want kids that will be active at college, how that helps the college could be a debate. Bottom line, they can and will do whatever the heck they want.</p>
<p>Until April 1. Then they most definitely had to worry about what the kid wants (and their parents) and spend the next four years hoping they don't leave so they have to stay competitive in that regard as well.</p>
<p>
[quote]
It seems that college admissions (private colleges) is not about you, but about the school. I think I'm looking at it too much on my own view as a student. As a college, i would base all my admissions on what they have to offer to the school.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Congrats, you've figured out a crucial concept that seems to elude at least 90% of the high schoolers on here. :)</p>
<p>This is my analysis for Harvards acceptance pool
30%: children of the powerful ones likes she is the daughter of (you name it). This includes children of American and also international big names
10% minorities
10 low incomes
5% sport connection
10% real talents
15% potential community super stars
15% potential academic super stars
5% lucks</p>
<p>my 2 cents</p>
<p>I have most certainly learned something about this subject after many long conversations on here. The simple conclusion is that I am quite certain admissions aren't randomly conducted, BUT the end effect is that your chances at being admitted are likely fairly random. I.e., it seems the applications are viewed very carefully, in consideration of your background as a person, and you're admitted because something about your background + what you did with it makes you seem to contribute something to the campus. </p>
<p>I think my one and only criticism with the current system [and this is of course based on my opinion, fully acknowledging that these universities can do as they please] is that a purely intellectual student might find it very hard to get into some of the top schools...and the top schools are, after all, not just schools with great student bodies, but particularly GREAT ACADEMICS and faculty -- so I think not admitting as many of the pure intellectuals creates a smaller pool of these types to enter the school, and I think some of these could use their time at Harvard particularly well. I.e., I judge a school's success in its admissions process by how well students can use its resources. And while I'm sure most of the students use the resources great, there's nothing that seems to stop schools from being a little more open to admitting people who are pure intellectuals, nothing more.</p>
<p>Pure intellectuals meaning, showing academic potential <em>beyond</em> exceptional SAT scores, and great SAT II's and GPA. Not everyone with good scores and grades is at all the same. It seems to me that unless one is an Einstein, and is anywhere in between that and an average good scorer, academic spirit doesn't factor as much in favor of students in many top schools, exceptions being schools like Caltech. </p>
<p>In regards other than selecting intellectuals in the most ideal way, I think our system has great success. I discussed this subject at length with a particular individual well read on the subject, and I think our end conclusion was that the "real intellectuals" are hard to actually spot until they actually <em>start</em> college, where the resources are amazing.</p>
<p>Eh, Harvard above being just a particular example.</p>
<p>I think it's more than just being "intellectual." I mean.. what are you using that intellect for? In what larger way does/will your intellectualism manifest itself? Frankly, feeding into something larger than one's own intellect is paramount. It would be my impression that it would be necessary to sell that part of your intellect. How will you contribute to either the school or the larger world at some point? You need to show there will be a mutually beneficial result by admitting you. Otherwise, you're there just to serve yourself and that's usually not a very attractive personality trait. </p>
<p>One of the very smartest people I know is a complete mooch and pretty much a bum. Although he graduated from a top college, he only does odd jobs here and there as his sole means of income. He paints houses etc in the summer. He lives a hugely modest lifestyle where he basically inherited his house and since he's pretty handy, keeps it in good shape. He does not even own a car. I just never got the why behind it until I started paying attention, but he lives with the caveat that decisions are made by how they serve him and him alone. I've known him a lifetime and it just seems to me that he's become an incredibly self-serving individual and I am always waiting for the next time he asks one of us (a group of really old friends) for something or just merely shows up for dinner during the summer. He brings nothing to the table except philosophical discussions which only further prove how smart he one had the potential to be, but now is probably only truly applicable during these reunions once a year or in a college dorm lounge at 1am. He's 52.</p>
<p>compaq: So you think that there is no overlap between minorities or low-income students and "real talents" (as your numbers do add up to 100%)? That's...an interesting assumption.</p>
<p>"In what larger way does/will your intellectualism manifest itself? Frankly, feeding into something larger than one's own intellect is paramount. It would be my impression that it would be necessary to sell that part of your intellect."</p>
<p>I most agree with you that there're intellectuals who'll contribute, and those who won't as much...but one thing you should notice about my point: it is quite true that most academic students really show their true colors most in college. Actually, that's true of most students -- what one does before college really can't compare in most cases to what can be done with the opportunities college provides [e.g. having access to world class faculty at your school]. I think honestly, it is <em>quite</em> hard to actually predict what these students with intellectual potential will do [though, honestly, this holds for students in general with their EC's too -- I know too many who completely dropped activities like debate, after getting into schools having been great at that activity]. What I ask is that a higher percentage of such students be given a chance. It's ultimately about seeing potential, and giving 'em a chance -- which I think, it's fairly noncontroversial to say, HYPS type schools do a little less willingly, unless the students are impressive in some other way as well. Now look at Caltech, for instance, and there'll be at on of students like the ones I'm talking about. I feel like these students can often get into prestigious small colleges [a poster, Northstarmom, graduate of Harvard, seemed very much to think so], but not so much into big top schools. But there are great advantages to big top schools for these students is what I'm saying.</p>
<p>By the way, note, I am not using the term "smart" -- I am using the term <em>ACADEMIC</em> and <em>INTELLECTUAL</em> which imply a certain degree of active involvement in academic affairs beyond just being a smartypants. Quite a few times, I think it isn't clear to posters how deliberate my choice of these terms is -- posters have mistook "academic" to mean "smart," and "academic" to mean "better or superior" and got offended. It's a very specific trait I'm talking of. Hardworking, enthusiastic intellectuals, who may shine <em>purely</em> in this area, and not elsewhere, but shine in this sense particularly well. E.g., I can name students who couldn't get into MIT for undergrad, but could get in to their <em>far more selective</em> graduate programs.</p>