<p>After watching this process for a number of years, it finally dawned on me (although I’m sure all you guys already know this) that colleges and universities are very selfish in their picks among applicants. They will pick those applicants where the university itself has the most to gain. This can come in several categories, and the weighting of each will depend on the school itself:</p>
<li><p>Fame:
Is the school admitting someone who will become famous in some field and thus bring fame to the school itself? Many schools tout their “famous graduates” on their websites. That’s why you see well-known kids (Olympic medalists or sons and daughters of famous actors/actresses/politicians) having no problems getting into Princeton or Yale or Stanford. But this goes a little beyond the obvious as well: If there is that *something<a href=“beyond%20the%20stats”>/i</a> that can be seen in an applicant which tells the school that there’s a good chance that this person has talent to become famous in some field, that will help insure admissions.</p></li>
<li><p>Athletic Prestige:
Is the school admitting someone who will advance the rankings of the school in some athletic way? This can not only bring prestige to a school, but, in the case of playoff and bowls, can bring in a not-insignificant amount of money.</p></li>
<li><p>Rankings Prestige:
Is the school admitting someone who will bring up the ranking of the school in USNWR? Beyond the obvious top schools, there are many second tier ones for which moving up in the rankings (and thus prestige) can pay off in the future. In this case, stats <em>do</em> become important. Just look at what this strategy has done for WUSTL. This is probably a great niche to help fill if you do have the stats, and can bring significant merit money as well.</p></li>
<li><p>Cash:
Is the school admitting someone who will add to the income or endowment of the school, either now (non-scholarship, full-tuition $$) or in the future (likely contributors). ED & Legacy connections can help predict this. If the applicant is from a long line of contributors, it’s likely that admitting the candidate will provide payback over time.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>At the top schools, #3 is not needed, so aim to fulfill 1, 2, and 4. At lesser-tier schools, #3 can bring admissions and rewards (merit $$$). And if you can supply any two or more of the above, Katie bar the door at acceptance time.</p>
<p>Not knowing the above can lead to a lot of disappointments. For example, you can have the greatest stats in the world, but if you apply at places which don't have the need for improving stats, you might as well be one of the unwashed masses.</p>
<p>Conversely, knowing the above can really lead to success. For example, for those schools looking to advance up the rankings ladder, having the stats will ensure that you will be welcomed with open arms and cash galore.</p>
<p>digimedia, I have a friend who is an adcom. What schools are also looking for is somebody with intellectual curiosity. She says she would rather take somebody with a 3.5 and a 1300 (I'm making up the numbers to make her point) than somebody with much higher numbers if she thinks the person with lower numbers is more intellectually curious.
That's what she is looking for in the apps.</p>
<p>I think you've got it essentially correct, though cash is king. There is "fame" and "athletic presting", however, that relates to "rankings prestige", and that comes from enrolling the sons and daughters of famous or "important' people. They, in turn, make the club more desirable for others attempting to join. (Good ol' Veblen Theory of the Leisure Class again.)</p>
<p>"She says she would rather take somebody with a 3.5 and a 1300 (I'm making up the numbers to make her point) than somebody with much higher numbers if she thinks the person with lower numbers is more intellectually curious."</p>
<p>It's interesting how the intellectually curious are more likely to appear among the offspring of the wealthy. ;)</p>
<p>I think you missed an important one. Colleges are also looking for students who will go somewhere in life and be successful in their field, later donating money and/or bringing prestige to the school.</p>
<p>I would like to agree with dstartk's statement, and I do think some schools are trying to go in this direction -- to attract innovators, kids who are intellectually curious, who bring something unique to the student body, etc.</p>
<p>After reading lots of the ED results here on CC, though, it still seems like the high SAT score is still the one that often makes the cut. Of course this is generalizing, but in a lot of the threads it still looks that way. Either that, or many of these high-SAT kids are achievers in many additional areas shown on their applications.</p>
<p>Also, since many top schools are now need-blind, how do they know who the potential development candidates (or whatever they're called) are? Unless you're a Rockefeller or the child of Bill Gates or Steven Spielberg, how would they know?</p>
<p>"Also, since many top schools are now need-blind, how do they know who the potential development candidates (or whatever they're called) are? Unless you're a Rockefeller or the child of Bill Gates or Steven Spielberg, how would they know?"</p>
<p>There's not a single school in the country that is "need-blind". The only question is how they use the information they have. (Schools that want to increase their numbers of low-income enrollees, for example, MUST know the economic status of the applicants in order to do so.) (Actually, what I said is not totally accurate - there are many community colleges that are need-blind.)</p>
<p>Schools that ask for the first 6 pages of each of your trust funds can be sure by the weight of your app envelope that you're a potential development candidate.</p>
<p>"Also, since many top schools are now need-blind, how do they know who the potential development candidates (or whatever they're called) are? Unless you're a Rockefeller or the child of Bill Gates or Steven Spielberg, how would they know?"</p>
<p>Read a book called the Price of Admission. As Weenie so aptly put it, "Oh my gosh - believe me! They know!"</p>
<p>As for intellectual curiousity - I do believe that some colleges really are looking for signs of it, but I also think that is one of the most difficult "characteristics" to convey in an application...especially if you're a kid with a 3.5 GPA competing against kids with straight A's. :)</p>
<p>I meant need blind at admisisons--
When you apply they don't know your income, if your Dad is loaded, who will be requesting aid and who will not, etc...
Will look into The Price of Admissions, though--</p>
<p>dstark -- looking at the SAT stats, I think that adcoms at the top 50 unis and LACs talk the talk, but they don't walk the walk.</p>
<p>I'd love to know how Michelle Wie ranks on the intellectual curiosity scale at Stanford for the Class of 2011 or how Rudy Giuliani's golfer son demonstrated his to get into Duke. And let's not even talk about the kids at those or similar schools that have families that have (or can) pump up the endowment or drop a new building onto the campus.</p>
<p>Hey, it's reality. We just as well learn it at 17 or 18 than wait until we're really old. You know, like 30!!</p>
<p>"I meant need blind at admisisons--
When you apply they don't know your income, if your Dad is loaded, who will be requesting aid and who will not, etc..."</p>
<p>They do. They know everything. Down to the zipcode. If they choose, because you put an address on the application, they can even zero in on the precise value of your house, and the amount of property tax you pay. The only question is how they use it.</p>
<p>If you meant to say that fame, fortune, athletic ability, or stat-raising academic prowess are hooks -- I would agree. If you mean to say that colleges are looking out for their own interest in terms of shaping whatever type of class and students they want to have, first and foremost, above the student's interest or worthiness.... then I'd say, "well, duh!" </p>
<p>But if your post is meant to say that the rest of the applicants are shut out because of the selfish concerns of the ad com in building the prestige of their institution...... then I'm wondering how you resolve the mystery of my financially challenged and test-flubbing daughter's admission to all those reach colleges last year. (Or maybe the colleges are prescient, and can just tell that she's going to become rich and famous down the line?) </p>
<p>I'd have to go with DStark's observation about intellectual curiosity. And to Carolyn: the way that students with lesser stats can show that is often through some sort of out-of-the-box, going beyond the offerings of their school, accomplishment or experience. Conveying the information in an application is simply easier if it can be backed up with something tangible.</p>
<p>My experience is only with small LACs (as a student adcom myself and then as a parent)--but I think in these settings there is also an effort to look for kids who will contribute to the community and "come into their own" in the liberal arts setting. This does not mean that gpa, stats, etc are not considered--but that there is some effort to look between the lines (of the glowing letters) and the boxes (of score reports) for an element of creativity, character, possibility that is a good fit with something "felt" about that particular campus community. It is not quantifiable and it shifts as a campus evolves but it is the factor that often makes people puzzled about why one kid was admitted and another was not when more obvious factors look "the same". And, not surprisingly, the alum magazines do go on about those who became "stars"--in part because some of them seemed anything but that as freshmen....The saddest thing for me about the college admissions mania is that perpetuates the idea that your fate in life is determined beginning in grade 8 or 9--when in fact the brain is still developing up until age 21--and vast amount of potential and maturation are still unfolding (I'd like to think I'm still in process at 57 actually...)</p>