Again, you are assuming that a super academic achievers aren’t capable of performing in other arena (research, volunteering, varsity sports, competitions, essay writing and such) - they are! I know my kids were. What I am trying to say here is that they are viewed as uninteresting/unidimensional applicants because they had access to educational opportunities that others didn’t. Anyway, time to move on.
2 Likes
The “problem” is that there genuinely ARE that many super smart, competitive applicants.
This is a problem created by lack of objective standards or dilution of them. Eliminate subject SATs. Now there are more students qualified. Eliminate SAT. Now there are even more qualified students. Let us then eliminate GPA :). Now everyone is a super qualified student. See by eliminating rigorous academic standards, universities/colleges increase the so called super student pool for their tea leaf reading (ahem holistic) admissions process.
4 Likes
Edited
In many countries, you have a single entrance exam to determine where you land in college. If I had a choice between that and the way that the US system handles admissions at all levels, I prefer the latter using a more “holistic” system. I think there are some schools, like MIT, that favor straight gpa/test scores. Unfortunately, there are many, many qualified applicants that have those stats, so even they need to look beyond gpa/test scores. Students still face high rejection rates.
2 Likes
Out of curiosity, if you were the dean of admissions for uchicago, what specific data would you want to look at besides gpa, act/sat, and ap scores (if available)?
1 Like
For objective criteria I would use below:
- GPA and weight that said GPA with Rigor from a specific high school (not all 4.0s are the same)
- AP test scores, # of AP tests taken (not AP classes taken)
- All applicable Subject SATs for a major/school (Subject SATs need to be more rigorous as current tests have been diluted by holistic admissions AKA Oxford tests)
- SAT/ACT
- Academic Class Ranking
I would start with those and if there are ties use additional factors to break the ties.
I don’t think students are viewed as “unidimensional” for having access to educational opportunities. I certainly don’t write recs like that, nor do I choose students that way and I don’t think I have ever had a colleague who would either. I also made no assumptions about anything which is borne out by this statement: “I am not suggesting any of this is true of any of you”. I was simply responding to the idea that data is somehow the oppositie of holistic or that subjective and objective are a binary that could drive admissions. There is always some degree of subjectivity baked into it - GPA is based on grades which can never be wholly objective. Teachers who write recommendations are human beings. So are students. So are admisssions officers. People are not data. I find it fascinating that we would want them to be.
1 Like
That makes sense. At my kids’ school, they apparently got rid of valedictorians, class rankings, and king/queen of prom. With test optional/super-scores, it’s definitely a different world they live in and adds more complexity to the admissions process.
My kids went to one of the most academically challenging HS in the country and they do not have rankings - they would have to go out to multiple decimal points and students would thrown themselves off the building. This is a school where kids do truly truly amazing things - it is a building full of academic superstars. And they all find their place. It will truly work out. They have so much talent - it will go to good use. Trying to quantify talent and skills as data points feels besides the point to me, and seems truly undoable at a human level. And I am not sure, even if it were doable that it would be a good idea.
3 Likes
Edited
2 Likes
Thank you. I agree. There is much to celebrate about everyone who has gone through this process and much to offer from all candidates. It is not a referendum on anyone’s relative worth. I am sad anyone would see it this way.
2 Likes
If your kid had only undergraduate degree expectation, would you rather this kid accept a challenging curriculum at T20, or is state flagships sufficient for you? There is a reason why we grade papers, take exams, and provide relative rankings of a student’s performance over others. I just don’t buy the argument that there are too many of these super achievers. Less than 500 score a full 1600 on SAT, and not all of them apply to every T20 school. There is a place in our academics for objective evaluation, otherwise, there’s a trophy for everyone for just showing up!
1 Like
You have just described half of the kids at my son’s HS. We are in a very competitive district in NY and rank in the top 500 high schools (out of 24,000) in the country. 50% of the kids have a 92 average or higher. Whether thats grade inflation or not, how would an admissions officer know? The top 10% are taking all APs (its not unusual for them to be taking a total of 10-15 APs in their HS career), scored well on the SAT/ACT (a 1500 or 32 or above) and our school does not rank. There are no more SAT Subject Tests. If the process is not holistic, how does a college differentiate who is a better fit. High GPAs, SAT/ACT scores are a dime a dozen.
The minute we start telling a child they are nothing but an academic score or grade, we are doing them a terrible disservice. What makes them unique is everything else that makes them who they are.
6 Likes
They are not, only 500 or less score a full 1600 on SAT and 0.3% on ACT nationwide. In each one of these metrics, GPA included, super achievers standout from others, and rarely have a path for acceptances at T20 without hooks. They are destined to state flagships, often on scholarships (and that’s ok too) - but believe me, they put in heck of a lot more to get there than any essay or LOR ever would. Schools and colleges have become holistic in admissions in search of future leaders,
2 Likes
Just so people know, that was not the original reason for holistic admissions. You can look it up.
10 Likes
All due respect, the SAT and subject SATs and other objective criteria have been diluted that it has resulted in this. Everyone has to get a trophy culture has permeated academics. When teachers and professors used to give As to top 10% now, unless one tries it is difficult not to get an A.
“The minute we start telling a child they are nothing but an academic score or grade, we are doing them a terrible disservice. What makes them unique is everything else that makes them who they are.”
This is fine and dandy as long as a meritorious student was not adversely impacted due to that. It should not be ok for a meritorious, hardworking, excelling student to be not admitted due to lack of quirkiness or they did not write better tea leaves. Now what does one tell that student? At the end of the day they have been given terrible disservice.
My point is no need to convince holistic admission believers or objective admission believers. Why can’t some schools go to the alternate system that some students/parents can choose to go to.
2 Likes
I remember when only 10 people got a perfect score on the SAT. Those were the days.
Overall, there are about 8k who get more than a 1550+ and about 16k who get a 34+. If they have a good gpa’s, I presume that they are part of the pool to get considered for the T10. Then the question is how should they differentiate? It’s hard to do that without ECs/essays/LORs.
By the way, who mandated that students that have the highest gpa/scores get admitted to the T10? These are private institutions. Ultimately, they can choose who they want to admit. If you look at Harvard (because their data are known), they prioritize 43% of their slots to legacy, donors, and athletes. Are people suggesting they get rid of those slots for those who have higher gpa’s and test scores? Why would that make sense for Harvard to do?
2 Likes
You are right. Academic rigor keeps getting diluted and that’s what is resulting in this super pool of super qualified students. I 100% agree if Harvard wants to stay that way, let them. All I am saying is some T20s can go to the alternate model and let students/parents make the choice that works for them. The current tea leaf reading process or holistic admissions is adding way too stress to college admissions with “what if I had done that”, “what if I wrote the other essay” angst to everyone and college confidential is reflecting that. It has become random with no objectivity and many top academic students are starting to fall through the cracks as they are not getting admitted due to whatever reason from all of the colleges they apply to with nary a recourse/guidance.
2 Likes
I think there are schools like this, where the top x% of students within a certain state, get auto admitted. These are all public.
As for the T10/T20, they are private institutions, so if they think this makes sense, they would. I think there are many competing priorities. Enrolling smart kids is likely one of them, but certainly not the only criteria.
Agree. Private schools can do whatever they want as there is no regulation in USA. But they are 100% happy to take public $s in loans and R&D funds. I know how it is. I am just hoping some of them do change the model to reduce this angst for students/parents and contain the burgeoning tea leaf reading industry where consultants are charging parents $10000 to curate the tea leaves. Middle class meritorious students who cant afford or don’t are left to wonder where all of their academic hard work failed them in the process.