Who is telling us the truth?

<p>In mid Dec 2008, immediately after all the elite colleges announced their admission decision for the early applicants, a panel of college admission deans (Yale, Pomona, Lawrence, and UT-Austin) conversed with NYT about college admission. The dialogues, published on Dec 19 ( Q</a>. and A.: College Admissions - Questions/Answers Blog - NYTimes.com ), particularly the one that addressed the admission process and its fairness, are intriguing. </p>

<p>On process, Dean Brenzel of Yale said " It is not well understood that we are not aiming to pick out the best candidate in a particular school or from a particular area, as measured by some predetermined criteria. Rather, we are trying to assemble the most varied and most interesting class we can from an extremely diverse group of close to 25,000 outstanding applicants. We do not aim to compare a student primarily with other students from his or her school; we look instead for students who will bring something of particular value to the entering class. Second, few people seem to grasp the weight given to various aspects of the application, though this can vary considerably by institution. For us at Yale, for instance, standardized test scores generally do little to differentiate applicants, because virtually all our applicants score very well. Most important to us are the transcript and the school and teacher recommendations, which students can do little to influence once it comes time for an application. We also look closely to see where and how a student has developed talents or engaged the school or community outside the classroom. Essays and interviews round out an application, and we look here mostly to see whether they convey information that enlarges or enhances, while remaining consistent with what we hear from counselors and teachers. "</p>

<p>The other three panel-speakers seemed to agree with Dean Brenzel and, on fairness, illustrated that the admission process was like assembling an orchestra. ...</p>

<p>All sound logical, rational, and justifiable, until Kathleen Kingsbury of Time magazine published in her blog The Daily Beast on Jan 9, entitled The Dirty Secrets of College Admissions (Dirty</a> Secrets of College Admissions - The Daily Beast ), in which Ms. Kingsbury shared with readers what other admission officers had to say. What are revealed in Kingsbury's report is simply unbelievable. </p>

<p>On the arbitrary nature of admissions, one admission officer said, “...One year I had a student with a near-perfect SAT score and straight A’s. I’d originally put him in the submitted pile, but then we had to reduce the list. I reread his essays and frankly, they were just a little more boring than the other kids. So I cut him. Boring was the only justification that I needed and he was out..."</p>

<p>Joie Jager-Hyman, former admissions officer at Dartmouth College said, “....People tend to like people like themselves. I could almost predict the application files my colleagues would support: this admissions officer likes the athletes; this one prefers the quiet, creative loner type; one person cared a lot about SATs; or another would be more likely to excuse things like teenage arrests than other colleagues.”</p>

<p>With regard to fairness, an admissions officer of an Ivy League university said, “....Any admissions director who uses the line about needing an oboe player is lying. There’s no admissions person in the country with a clue what the student orchestra needs. More likely, Mommy and Daddy gave a $1 million donation. That oboe thing is just a PR ploy.”</p>

<p>And another officer said, "...One night, I got food poisoning at a restaurant in Buffalo. The next day, I rejected all the Buffalo applications." You would think that this officer was unique, psyche, lunatic, stupid, crazy, but listen to wahat another officer said and you realize that (s)he was not alone, "...I got sluggish in the afternoon after lunch, so maybe I wasn’t as scrupulous about a candidate as I would have been if I were fresh. Or even if my favorite sports team was in a slump, it affected who made the cut. If the [Pittsburgh] Steelers lost a game and I read your file the next morning, chances were you weren’t getting in. Where I could have been nice, I just didn’t go out of my way — I was a lot less charitable. Those are things that you, the applicant, have no control over. Which makes it all the more funny — the frenzy that parents and students work themselves into around getting in.” </p>

<p>Granted, because what were said is so unbelievable, one logically questions how credulous Ms. Kingsbury’s report is. But if one cannot believe a journalist who has covered business, health and education for Time Magazine since 2005, it is rather sad a situation for the journalism, isn't it? Who is more forthcoming, Dean Brenzel, Dean Poch, Dean Syverson, Dean Walker, or, Ms. Kingsbury’s interviewees?</p>

<p>interesting post.</p>

<p>ty for putting it up.</p>

<p>I just read the complete Q&A. Quite enlightening. Now if everyone would just pay attention to what they said, I think there would be a whole lot less stress and worry. They have given the road-map to the make-up of a great application.</p>

<p>"Bruce Walker of the University of Texas at Austin: The most misunderstood part of the process is that colleges have different missions and goals when selecting a class, and that an acceptance or denial will likely be for different reasons across multiple colleges."</p>

<p>Pretty much sums it up, I think.</p>

<p>I think there's some truth in both. Of course admissions departments have theories and procedures that all the admissions officers are supposed to follow; at the same time, these are human beings, and it's not surprising that they get bored, tired, have bad days, get caught up with trivia, etc. Anyone who's ever had to review a stack of resumes knows that the decision to keep one and toss another can be very arbitrary.</p>

<p>There's no excusing a lack of professionalism (which the examples of pettiness appear: e.g. food poisoning in Buffalo). I would imagine (and hope) that these people no longer work in admissions. That being said, the lack of utmost professionalism occurs in every field. I think the citation of those extreme examples sensationalizes the profession and the process, IMHO.</p>

<p>I learned long ago that anything "official" is probably fudged. My vote is with Ms. Kingsbury.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Granted, because what were said is so unbelievable, one logically questions how credulous Ms. Kingsbury’s report is. But if one cannot believe a journalist who has covered business, health and education for Time Magazine since 2005, it is rather sad a situation for the journalism, isn't it? Who is more forthcoming, Dean Brenzel, Dean Poch, Dean Syverson, Dean Walker, or, Ms. Kingsbury’s interviewees?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>There are probably good and bad admissions officers, just like there are good and bad auto mechanics. Personally, I don't think think it's productive to paint broad brush strokes and compare these two articles and ask who is telling the truth. I did appreciate the links though.</p>

<p>The group in the Q&A are extremely articulate, helpful with their answers and honestly seem to be doing the best with the challenges that each of their schools are presented with. It must be a very different job indeed for Pomona's director than it is for Yale's and both of those are very different from a UT. Have all their staff had individual bad days and could tell a tale or two? I'm sure the answer is yes. But after reading the Q&A, it sure does sound like the Deans are approaching an enormously challenging process in the most sane way possible, and sharing their combined knowledge and advice in an extremely authentic, helpful and generous manner.</p>

<p>Thanks for posting. Very interesting.</p>

<p>Frankly, this does not surprise me at all. When you are dealing with hundreds of times more applications than you can admit, the criteria for eliminating one over another become seemingly arbitrary. No one who is looking at that many apps will look carefully at every one. </p>

<p>I don't do college apps, but I have done large groups of apps for other things--scholarships,awards, promotion, etc. The first ones to go are the ones that didn't follow the rules (ie. length, missing items, extra info that was not asked for, whatever else the rules may be). Although it may seem outrageous that if you got food poisoning you would then reject all apps from that place, it probably is not far off the mark. For instance, if you read several boring, generic essays in a row and then one comes along that is different in some way (quirky, funny, whatever), you are more likely to see it more positively that if you had read two or three unusual essays just before that. When you have that many to deal with, you just are not going to take the time to read between the lines.</p>

<p>I have always suggested that students give essays to friends/teachers to have them do a cold reading to see what first impression it creates, and the first paragraph needs to grab the reader's attention.</p>

<p>I think most of this article is meant tongue in cheek. It is highly unethical for an admissions officer to reject every student from a town simply because he got food poisoning there. These people are trained to act professionally.</p>

<p>Ok, so some think that the anecdote about being declined admission because of food poisoning in Buffalo is a joke, but, in its own way, how much does that differ from what Yale said about the subjective casting of a "varied and interesting class?" It's merely two sides of the same coin, one just more ridiculous than the other. I may find you interesting, but my neighbor may completely disagree. Thus, is it any wonder that kids are applying to 432 schools? What else can a student do but that just in case, heaven forbid, they come from Pittsburgh after a Steelers' loss? Or if some ONE person at Yale considers them uninteresting? </p>

<p>I feel there is a lot of frustration in the process due to this kind of randomness. Why bother trying to excel when you should just shoot out a million apps and wait to see who finds you "interesting?"</p>

<p>Hi I am the OP and I am grateful for all the other posters’ very valuable insights. From what were said I gather some of you are educators, some are parents, and some, probably are like me, high school seniors who presently undergo the process and suffer the pain. </p>

<p>I haven’t done too much of the reading, browsing through the entire CC, but from the several other postings/threads that I have read, I feel for many concerned parties’ (educators, parents, and students) fears of the current admission process, the process that involves a very sincere high-minded ideology and the unfortunate human-side of realities. The closer we are to the core (its impact), the more fear we feel. </p>

<p>Most of the students in my generation are not totally na</p>

<p>Honestly, you can read this another way. You can really up your chances by understanding the system and taking away the key lessons contained within.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Why bother trying to excel when you should just shoot out a million apps and wait to see who finds you "interesting?"

[/quote]
</p>

<p>You bother to excel because you want your application to actually get considered. You have to get to that point for "interesting" to be relevant.</p>

<p>The actual examples of unprofessionalism are bad, but arbitrariness when you're dealing with far more excellent applicants than you could possibly admit? Admissions officers having personal preferences? That's not news, nor scandal.</p>

<p>
[quote]
"Bruce Walker of the University of Texas at Austin: The most misunderstood part of the process is that colleges have different missions and goals when selecting a class, and that an acceptance or denial will likely be for different reasons across multiple colleges."</p>

<p>Pretty much sums it up, I think.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Yep.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Thus, you can imagine the anguish that we students are bearing. When we read the NYT article (which gives us the hint of the not-so-perfect reality)...

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Your mistake was thinking that there could <em>ever</em> be a perfect reality for something like this. Or even a perfect ideal. Perfect is a meaningless concept in this context. The schools need to pick some subset from the applicant pool that fits with their missions and meets their needs. Any given set of applicants is going to contain tons of suitable subsets and there is no useful metric for the "best" one, so they just have to assemble one.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Most of the students in my generation are not totally na</p>