Is it really relevant if a community college with open admissions requires an essay? How would admission decisions change if a college with essentially open admissions required an essay, LORs, etc.? The colleges for which it makes a difference are the at least somewhat selective ones, and those colleges colleges generally consider more than just stats in making the decision.
Sample College Group
16% accept <50% of applicants
42% accept 50-70% of applicants
33% accept 70-85% of applicants
8% accept >85% of applicants
In this not super selective sample of colleges for which >80% accept the majority of applicants, the overwhelming majority of colleges said they consider both essays and LORs in their admission decision, implying at least somewhat holistic decisions. Specific numbers are below:
Considerations in Admission Decisions
98% consider test scores
97% consider grades
93% consider strength of curriculum
86% consider counselor LOR
83% consider teacher LOR
79% consider ECs
74% consider essay or writing sample
71% consider demonstrated interest
Iâm saying that one should consider the source when reading almost any website rather than just have blind faith that everything must be 100% accurate , without any missing content. Itâs more reliable to make an informed decision with as much information as possible, preferably from multiple different sources. I think MIT is especially transparent about their admission process compared to typical collleges, and I trust MITâs website content more than most. However, again itâs still best to use multiple sources of information and confirm that other sources are consistent with the information stated on MITâs website when possible.
From what I know about Stanford admissions, I donât think this is accurate quote, or at least it is a misleading one. Essays are important and definitely do have a noteworthy influence on the admission decision for many. However, it is one of a large number of factors. i expect that removing any one single factor wonât change the admission decision for the vast majority of applicants. This applies to both removing essay, and removing SAT/ACT as part of being test optional.
Fascinating debate. Who could believe that having an outstanding young man fall into my lap-- and for me to write a report describing him (note- I am a volunteer and the interview is by far the LEAST important part of the application process) could be at all controversial.
There are kids- at all income levels (not that I know their income, but one can form an impression based on the address/high school/other elements) who literally reek privilege. I wonât tell tales because Iâll get pushback that Iâm prejudiced against wealthy kids, or am too generous with lower SES kids. I donât believe Iâm either, but Iâve certainly interviewed my fair share of spoiled brats- as has anyone who volunteers for their college and meets 17 year olds who are trying to impress. Note- if âDaddyâ is having our Senator (who did not go to Brown and does not know the kid) write a letter on the kidâs behalf, itâs ok not to tell that to your interviewer.
No kid is getting into a mega selective on the basis of just being poor. But it is demonstrably harder to accumulate the academic record required to get into a mega selective if you come from a lousy HS (which may have a few fantastic and dedicated teachers-- or not) filled with kids who have low expectations of their education, run by administrators who have their hands full dealing with a whole host of problems which have nothing to do with learning Trig or reading Jane Austen. And if you come from a home where continuing in HS past age 16 is an anomaly- these kids are figuring stuff out on their own which an upper middle class kid inherits along with a ton of social capital.
I believe that Adcomâs do understand that not every HS has an advisor who runs the Robotics club, and a volunteer parent (who works as a research engineer at IBM by day) who can run âmath leagueâ at night, and dozens of parents to chaperone the regional debate competitions, and an assistant principal who figures out how to raise money for the finalists to attend the state science fair, etc. But for sure this is not a stark ârich school/poor schoolâ issue. In my own region, there are schools in low income areas which punch above their weight across the board- arts and literary contests, science fairs, competitive math league. Sometimes itâs because a foundation or corporation has âadoptedâ the school-- and they get volunteers who know about such competitions who then bring those programs to the school (and help fund, and run them). Sometimes itâs because a critical mass of students from these schools are involved in Boys Club/Girls Club or Scouts and the adult leaders of these programs realize that there are kids who donât want to play basketball everyday after school- theyâd rather play chess.
But agree itâs haphazard at best. My kidâs middle school had a math teacher who was a force of nature in terms of engaging kids (and not just the top math kids) in various programs. She had a mental rolodex of different programs, ideas, activities and was a natural organizer. When she retired- a couple of years of some lackluster activity, but nobody else seemed as motivated as she in continuing the effort (which for SURE took a ton of her personal time).
Thank you for this very thoughtful post. It just goes to show that colleges have a huge task in assessing what environment kids come from and what role that environment played in shaping their application.
Iâve know a bunch of thoughtful, humble, smart kids who did ECs and community service just because they loved it. Unfortunately, no matter how great a kid is, they also have to figure out how to market and package themselves to a college. For kids that are genuinely humble, that can be a tough task.
Unfortunately, Iâve also known kids who dip their toes into ECs and community service for the sole purpose of resume building. They join but donât get personally invested or immersed. But, damn, some of these kids know how to package themselves and write in such a way that âilluminatesâ the highlights of their involvement.
Itâs relevant because the statement is US is holistic, which is factually not true. The US is not just highly selective colleges but also community colleges, regional publics and state flagships, who by the way educate most US students.
Your essay number of 74% is also a little misleading, first off it looks like itâs only 170 or so colleges (unless I read that wrong), hardly representative, that participated in this, second is the importance of essay which is only 17% say itâs considerable, 37% moderate, 21% limited 26%, none. You could easily say essays donât matter to half of even selective colleges.
âSave for the few instances in which candidates write essays so completely lackingâŠin my experience no on is ever admitted solely on the basis of a great essay and no one has was ever denied admission sole on the basis of a poor essayâ.
Fred Hargadon, former dean of admissions at Princeton and Stanford
Adcoms say that essays, interviews donât really change the directions where applications are going.
I asked if it was relevant if a community colleges with open admissions required an essay. Community colleges with open admission also generally do not use scores in their admission decision (may use scores for placement), so it doesnât support the idea that their admission is based on just stats. Near open admission is more of a 3rd category, separate from just stats vs holistic. You might be surprised how many publics use holistic decisions. In the CDS, ~60% of publics (who fill out relevant section) say they consider both LORs and essays in their decision. A good portion of their public college admission websites specifically use the word âholisticâ when describing their applicant evaluation system.
Itâs not a sample size issue. A much larger number of colleges fill out the CDS, and the CDS results point to the same conclusion. Specific numbers from the portion that filled out relevant section of CDS is below, The percentages donât match the NACAC survey exactly, but they are quite close for both LORs and essays:
Percent of Colleges who Say They Consider Admission Factors in CDS
99% Consider Grades
95% Consider Scores
81% Consider LORs
75% Consider Essays
Itâs unclear exactly what âmoderateâ or âlimitedâ importance means, but the majority of colleges said both essays and LORs had at least moderate importance in the survey, and the overwhelming majority say it is at least considered. That doesnât support your claim that âonly 10% or so colleges use holistic.â
Older (2019) thread listing what colleges says they consider in their Common Data Sets:
Obviously, some individual collegesâ Common Data Sets may include erroneous or misleading information compared to their actual admission practices, but the overall percentages should give some idea of what âcolleges in generalâ consider.
Also, private non-profit colleges use non-stat aspects more than public colleges, and USNWR top colleges use and more heavily weigh non-stat aspects than other colleges generally. Should not be a surpriseâŠ
But also note that since public colleges tend to be larger than private non-profit colleges, the percentage of undergraduate students in colleges that have stats-only or stats-mostly admissions is greater than what may appear from the percentage of colleges that have stats-only or stats-mostly admissions.
The CDS is not about whatâs of relative importance. I wish people wouldnât use it as some formula. Again, itâs not holistic thinking to do so. You hang too much on it.
The interview is not the least important aspect. Every piece is important. I think people get confused in that it, alone, is not going to swing a kid in. But itâs a vital support component. Or not. Time and again, the report content can influence.
âŠ
"no one is ever admitted solely on the basis of a great essay and no one has was ever denied admission sole on the basis of a poor essayâ.
No, as with the interview, not solely. But it IS another vital component. For all the reasons Iâve mentioned in the past week or so. You donât get to sleepwalk your way through a tippy top app. Unfortunately, many kids are not as holistically impressive as assumed
And, âIf someone thinks income is the major determinant of outcome then you come out with very different results.â
Whoâs thinking that? I donât mean theoretically. Weâre talking admits and the process.
Itâs a very CC belief. For various reasons. I donât think it.
And at a needs blind, you canât tell family income. Itâs part of the Questbridge app. But not ordinarily a component of a CA app package.
You can tell a less successful hs. But youâre admitting kids, not high schools.
You canât always tell income but often you can. If my zip codes 90210, then someone is going to make the assumption that I am high income. Not the only factor but there are many âtellsâ A kid that rides nationally on an equestrian team ( a big $$ tell), a kid that works 30 hours a week during the school year ( a tell, in the opposite direction). AOâs can tell a lot without getting any family income.
Iâd bet based on the ECâs anyone could tell the likely SES of most candidates.
Had my daughter not applied through Questbridge I canât imagine what AOâs wouldâve assumed about our family income bracket- she traveled every summer, sometimes abroad, and she competed in a very high hours expensive sport, and we always rented the tiniest apartment possible in the best possible area. Our income was usually a tiny fraction of the average of the areas where weâve lived, and my daughter won scholarships to pay for the rest. She did apply through questbridge, so itâs moot, but now I wonder.
Probably someone would have made assumptions that werenât true. Maybe even would have gotten labeled as âprivileged, spoiledâ or other terms that really did not apply.
Thatâs my issue. You canât really know something unless you know the full details. Thanks for sharing.
Thatâs not the primary focus of the CDS, but the CDS has a question asking colleges to specify âRelative importance of each of the following academic and nonacademic factors in first-time, first-year, degree-seeking (freshman) admission decisions,â and âholisticâ colleges donât seem to have a problem filling it out (Harvard is an exception).
Yes, the CDS is not accurate in all cases, and itâs obviously not a formula for admission. However, that doesnât mean âholisticâ decisions must be a nebulous unknown where itâs impossible to specify anything about which of the many considered criteria tends to be more or less influential⊠such as a college specifying that transcript tends to be more influential in decisions than demonstrated interest.
Colleges absolutely can get a sense of SES, without seeing FA documents. The section asking about parentsâ occupation is often a big clue, among others. And some colleges do use this information in decisions. For example, at the time of the lawsuit documents, Harvard assigned a SES âdisadvantagedâ flag to students who readers thought were from not high SES backgrounds (seems to correlate with less than ~median US income), and getting that flag was associated with an increased chance of admission. A separate Harvard OIR post-mortem analysis found that the SES âdisadvantagedâ assignments were far from perfect, but suggested they were mostly correct, particularly for truly lower income families.
However, this does not mean that income is a âmajor determinantâ of results. I doubt that the relatively small SES âdisadvantagedâ boost is enough to counteract the many other advantages that higher income students have. Some of these advantages are more direct, such as the relatively more powerful ALDC hooks + Z list. Some of these advantages are less direct, such as tending to attend more resourced and higher quality primary/secondary schools.
Well, I think folks like AOâs and interviewers have to acknowledge their own bias. There are philosophies folks many people have bought into. You can see it all across CC with the words. âFairness, deserved, privileged, deservingâare words that underscore bias. Folks cite examples of why one factor is important ( their kids) but not those of others.
Everyone is biased. Acknowledge that. Realize that your bias means you arenât seeing the entire landscape. Knowing that I lean toward self starters, or kids who play an elite sport or whatever else is the beginning. Try to take out the bias that has crept in ( legacy etc).
Stop trying to accommodate for things which are lacking or which kids have no control over ( like income). Stop putting kids into categories where the landed by birth plus or minus. Stop making excuses. Poor SAT score thatâs ok, donât send a score. What?
Personally, I donât know what the perfect system looks like. I think itâs getting worse in the categorization dept. Folks will play the system ( if they can figure it out and they do). People realize at some point that a meritocracy does not in fact exist. Thatâs why so many on CC are surprised at results. The rest understand that holistic can mean a whole lot of things ( see the Harvard report).
High income boosts are certainly widespread in academic, social( leadership programs), sports and all the rest. That doesnât take anything away from the kid who has no access due to low SES. They are not expecting tons of APâs, or violin lessons here. They are looking for initiative, promise and GPA and esp. SAT/ACT scores ( far above that schools normal score).
There are categories. A kid on the Z list is in. Not worth talking about unless you want to gave a whole conversation about the totally connected ( and the number is very small).
Kids who are low SES are also competing against each other. A kid from Exeter with top ECâs and grades isnât going to be compared to a kid from a public hs in rural ND. There are several ways low income kids get in: superior academics ( often a great public school like Boston Latin/Stuy etc us involved): sports and academics, or some combination of above plus demographics.
Colleges need a well rounded pool so they need kids in every bucket. The more buckets kids can fill the better their chances.
The idea that any kid in the non-connected group is going to walk into Harvard isnât true. There are very few spots for the non-legacy, non athlete, non z lister. Iâve been on the low SES list and my kids are on the high SES list, its very different for them but equally hard to gain acceptance to any of these schools.
Happy- you need a reality check. Upper income kids do NOT need a finger on the scale in elite college admissions. Look at the numbers. The VERY modest efforts to help low income kids (Questbridge and their ilk) barely move the needle when you look at the overall numbers. I remember the debates among the alumni at Brown when President Simmons (previous president) made a commitment to âNeed blindâ (Brown had been need aware for at least some of the process) and âMeets full needâ. Such a controversy- until the actual numbers showed that overall, the changes wouldnât have that much of an impact from a budget perspective. Why? So few kids were getting in who needed full funding, thatâs why! Argue all you want about how unfair it is to give poor kids a leg up and then look at the actual numbers of how many 5% are at the top 30 colleges. And dig deeper on the 1% while you are at it. Harvard is in no danger of being overrun by the âmiddle middle classâ anytime soon, and in even less danger of being overrun by the bottom 10% in income!
I work in corporate recruiting for a living. Iâve participated in more bias training programs re: hiring, training, retention, professional development/promotion than you can count. Yes, bias is everywhere. But the worst kind of bias is to pretend that âsomehow, over time, it will all even outâ. No, it doesnât. I remember when the company I worked for started sending preloaded visa debit cards to students before their interviews. It was a very conscious decision that assuming that every senior could easily pay for the taxi to the airport, or whatever incidentals were incurred before arriving for an interview (we prepaid for airline tickets and hotels) meant that we were unconsciously telling students âIf you donât have Mommy and Daddyâs credit card you donât belong hereâ.
Yes, some colleges have funds for this (the heads of the colleges at Yale, for example, have discretionary funds to âeven the playing fieldâ in all sorts of ways and are particularly sensitive to their students needs while job-hunting) but a kid at U Mass or U Conn doesnât always have the same type of institutional support.
You say stop accommodating for lack of income? You cannot imagine what the student body at the elite universities would look like if there werenât at least a modest effort being made on outreach. If a college only wants to make sure there are enough squash players, skiers and dressage competitors to fill their teams, trust me- they can do that without losing a beat.
And yes- there are kids from non-affluent homes participating in each of these sports. But you get my point.
@blossom I didnât say stop accommodating for income. Those are your words not mine.
What I said is recognize that bias works both ways. Making assumptions doesnât show the entire picture.
And yes, I think the words you used in a previous post discussing high income kids illustrate your point:â spoiled, entitled, Daddy ( which btw is sexist since credit cards can also be in the name of the mother or both parents). Thatâs biased right there. In multiple directions.
Got it. You know everything about a candidate based on your assessment. You want to categorize and decide who is fit to be accepted.
Happytimes, how do you know about all this supposed bias and its effect? Donât tell me itâs human nature. Or you read it on CC.
I think youâre too certain. And youâve circled back to this several times.