“Never think of think of a reason why Harvard would encourage her to apply, unless it was to boost its numbers.”
Really? I mean this gently. Of course, there can be other reasons. Or maybe limits to how they can sort. Maybe they’re getting their name out to an area, not one particular kid.
I never thought U Chicago was appropriate for D2. Never got excited. In fact, I remember being annoyed I’d have to open it to shred her name, then recycle. No brain cells wasted on analyzing. No conclusions drawn.
Some have claimed that those lists, offered to colleges, help garner support for standardized testing - whenever there has been “silly talk” of going test optional.
Could be that. Isn’t it revenue generating for CB?
In all this, my thought is that, when the mindset is so tuned to our kids, the info they get, the info missing/not made plain, we can race to conclusions. Based on what little we do know. It’s time better spent, IMO, on learning more.
The best, most superb, incredible applicant I ever interviewed for Brown decided to apply because he got a mailing. I’ve posted about him before- first Gen, impoverished family, perhaps the combination of sky high SAT scores and his zipcode got him on the mailing list. He was heading to Community College (not that there’s anything wrong with that) until he saw the pictures and the heading “Need Blind/Meets Full Need” or something like that (and he had a lot of need).
That’s what direct mail does. I get solicitations to put solar panels on my roof (my house is surrounded by woods and the roof gets no daylight), I get brochures for BMW’s (ha ha ha), I get mailers from urologists advertising services which are “anatomically impossible” for me to benefit from. Do I take it personally? Do I think there’s a nefarious plot on the part of urologists to market to unsuspecting women who think they are candidates for various impotence products?
No I do not. I put them in recycling. And just because they have my name on them, I do NOT think that their services are actually being targeted to ME.
Interesting. But isn’t that more a reflection of your interests and value of what YOU think is important in a candidate than anything else? You might have thought that candidate was the “greatest” ever while someone else would think a kid who had different attributes was the tops.
I agree that the marketing generally is to expand the pool of potential reaches and let them know about a product or service. For colleges looking to broaden their demographics might be the sole goal. Seems that way given the mailings my kid has received.
“Interesting. But isn’t that more a reflection of your interests and value of what YOU think is important in a candidate than anything else? You might have thought that candidate was the “greatest” ever while someone else would think a kid who had different attributes was the tops.”
Kid growing up in an impoverished family who took three buses to get to me (if I’d known he didn’t have any other transportation I’d have gotten in my car and driven closer to him) who was a voracious reader, an intellect of the highest order despite having parents who never graduated from HS, a kind and generous soul, sky high stats, participant/winner in several national level competitions despite his HS having no advisors who even knew what these Olympiads/contests/AIME thingys were.
This is not me making a value judgement. This was me helping the Adcoms (who didn’t have the benefit of a face-to-face meeting) understand that with all of these stellar accomplishments, this was a young man with a profound sense of humility who was excited at the idea of attending a four year college. And yes, I told the Adcom’s in my write up that he didn’t want to “inconvenience me” by suggesting a meeting place closer to his home.
No, I don’t since it was spelled out specifically what the determinants were: first gen ( kid has no impact/control here), low income ( same), high SAT scores ( maybe he studied or maybe it was out of the gate-could be an attribute) . BTW, I was this kid 30 years ago and I hope that I got into college not on the basis of income but one actual achievements.
I just read perhaps unfairly that the kid is the “best” based on overcoming income (something he has no control over) rather than something he did (fill in the blank). There are many low SES kids with top things that they have done.
I’d personally give all candidates equal footing but expect kids who have more opportunities to have taken advantage of them. Can’t say low income SES kids are going to be the winners ( that seems more of a political bent than an application question to me). But I think AO’s already do this, so I’m not worried about college interviews. From what I have heard from friends who interview for their alma maters, it’s rare that the recommendation and outcome is the same.
Perhaps there is something which really stood out that isn’t mentioned.
But that mailing from Brown to your first gen example makes sense. Ivies and other top colleges WANT more first gen students. They’ve made it part of their mission.
Trust me, I did not get excited about the mailings! As I noted, my wonderful D18 was not an ivy candidate. I didn’t say she applied and didn’t get in. She didn’t apply. Neither she nor I nor her guidance counselor would have thought that appropriate. That’s my point. She was not a likely candidate even as a reach. She was in no category like first gen that could be construed as a reasonably target for outreach. There was no imaginable reason why Harvard would mail things to her except as “here’s someone who will be going to college next year…”
So again, I genuinely wonder why. What does Harvard (and similar) gain from such apparently untargeted mailings?
UChicago is the worst in that regard. All these colleges claim they target segments of populartion they don’t normally reach. They must consider these marketing campaigns cost effective. Otherwise, why would they send hundreds of thousands mails just to get a few 1st-gen and low-SES kids? The robocalls are cost effective too. There’re always people who fall for them.
Well that’s a bit different and puts it into perspective. Showing humility, tenacity and initiative is rare in any teen. Not only found in low SES BTW, which I’m sure you know. Possibly, many of your interviewers are far different. Let’s face it, not many low SES kids apply to Ivies outside of certain programs. The Ivies have tried and improved things but these kids are pretty rare.
Kid also could have conveyed those things via the application. Probably did.
Blossom said he was her best, not the only best, nor implying her judgment is a final mandate to adcoms. Nor did I think she was limiting him to catgories of challenges. Some of these kids, of whatever SES, are phenomenal.
I believe all candidates get equal footing, as an interview starts. Kids raised with “more” may be expected to have taken advantage of that. That’s not all about test prep/stats, hand holding. And interviewers usually don’t know more about a kid before meeting him/her. Maybe a few generalities- possible major. Maybe not even that.
My experience is that wealth doesn’t make any sort of “better” candidate. I’ve seen many kids like the one Blossom mentions- determined, eager, capable, successful, taking advantage of opportunities that do exists, good will, grounded, well-presenting, and more.
And plenty of reports of kids who just don’t engage, in whatever ways. There’s no predicting which kids will come across successfully (though, of course, there are ways to anticipate what a good interview position is.) This problem goes across SES boundaries. Unfortunately, it’s usualy on the kid. (There are some rotten interviewers, but an attempt to cull those out.)
Definitely true. I just think there is often a lean on CC toward thinking certain low SES candidates need more help or a boost to get into top tier colleges ( ivies and the like) and likewise certain high SES candidates are unworthy because of their advantages. Certainly not the case in Blossoms low SES example. I have seen many on CC obsess about privilege and moralize about fairness esp when it comes to top schools. I was very low SES and my kids are high SES. Yet, I think I made a good candidate and my kids would also. Bias is implicit in most decisions in any case. There are just too many candidates who can fit the bill in many ways.
@DoingOurBest Most schools don’t participate/know about these contests. Generally, they have to be administered and “managed” by someone. Likewise, there are many organizations similar to the Y, that have after school programs. Sometimes they have math clubs, circles and math teams. These groups usually know about the national tests. In recent years, the tests have become more popular but they are still relatively unknown. What can happen is a kid who is very advanced in math ( or science or even history) can often find things online which match their interests.
Kids who are deeply involved in math (or any other EC’s usually will find out about related events). They get on email lists or they run across related organizations at local events. Some tests have to be administered by a school, others can be taken in other ways. In some instances, it’s tough to take a test. In other instances the tests are given to everyone in the grade. So it really depends on the test and the school/kid.
That “lean” on CC isn’t necessarily reflective of the interviewer or reviewer position. It’s CC. A poor performing lower SES kid is likely to be recognized as such. The first need is kids who can keep up with the competitivess at an elite. That does include academically and socially. As well as, how they participate in college activities.
There’s no lean against a higher SES kid. But bear in mind, their so-called advantages don’t always add up. Many do take the easy path (I’m talking choices.) Or overestimate the value to the college of some things their privileges allowed them. In effect, they can go OT in their apps/supps. Not always.
I happen to like the drives one can find in the lower SES. It’s not about all kids wanting college or applying to a tippy top. It’s a subset, well-ready. I don’t just go and like them for the challenges they faced. Rather, it’s for what they’ve clearly gone and made of themselves. The people they ARE. Not all, of course.
It’s hard to describe some of this, without risking offending those who can defend their kid’s examples. Anyone has to get away from stereotypes and assumptions- and some of the assertions on CC.
Adding: is it all rosey, hunky-dory? Nope. But FWIW, the first instruction I was given, as a newbie, literally the first, was: no assumptions. No saying this kid’s acores should have been higher because he’s ORM or wealthy or whatever. Hand in hand with that, no assumption all a poorer or struggling kid needs is an admit.
Well there is a lean both ways. If someone thinks income is the major determinant of outcome then you come out with very different results. Don’t want to get into too much back and forth since it become argumentative.
There are many great candidates. Too many for the number of spots. Some kids have done great things at a young age. Some are amazing in their personal characteristics. Some things can be measured. Some cannot.
One can find drive in low and high SES. I could give you examples of teens and the elderly. I had a friend in college from Appalachia. She had started a hospice for HIV patients. She came from a very very low SES. I had another friend who came from a major American well known family who set up an amazing philanthropy program that still is growing. Both are equal IMO.
I think we agree it’s not perfect but balance is key.
“The very fact that some students are allowed extra time due to “processing issues” is kind of a huge hint that the test, normally administered, rewards those who process information more quickly.”
That’s only because it’s the easiest accommodation to give, that and changing the place or allowing the tester to be by himself/herself. What LD students really need is a change in the format of the test to accommodate different types of learners. I have taken a few tests that some employers give before they start interviewing, those are more processing tests, the SAT or ACT may test some processing speed, but they’re not processing tests.
“The kids that are using test prep are not very good students to begin with.”
That’s definitely not true, it’s probably the better students that do the test prep.
"But the US looks at holistic admissions ( the whole person). "
The US is not holistic, only 10% or so colleges use holistic in the guess, there are 3000 4-year colleges, another 1000 community colleges, it’d be surprising if more than 250 used holistic. The US is gpa and test based, again most colleges do not require essay or LORs.
“One could make a similar “beware” statement about relying on information listed on college websites,”
Sure but you’ve relying on the MIT website for all your advice on applying to MIT, they could also be making inaccurate statements?
Anyway on the essay, there have been quotes from admissions directors (I think Stanford for one) who have said that outside of some applicants here and there, an essay has not given anyone admission or denied anyone admission.