<p>Echosensei,
I.m.o., the "outdated" part of Hernandez' book relates mostly to the numerical standards & sort of structured methodology she refers to. Not that there isn't a structure to the adcoms; I know that they have their procedures, etc. I just mean that if you look at the results simply on CC (those that post stats, etc.), including last yr's, too, the process for the Ivies does not appear to be quite as formulaic as it was 8+ yrs. ago. That's of course because it can't be any longer, given the number of statistical equals applying to top colleges, exceeding the student bodies of each of them. The sheer volume of applicants & applications has "forced" a move toward more qualitative comparisons over quantitative, as well as a move toward broad aspects of diversity much beyond ethnicity.</p>
<p>However, I never took A for Admissions quite so literally, anyway. What her book is valuable for is the Big Picture about Ivy admission as a reach, and the overriding importance of rank at least in a qualitative sense if not quantitative. It seems to continue to be true that how the applicant compares within his or her school & regional community, for the factors that are being considered, is extremely important to an adcom. That Big Picture information was quite helpful to my D & to me in helping her devise a strategy.</p>
<p>Please do not read Rachel Toor's book if you have not already read it. I say this because it is a distortion. (That is beyond its distastefulness, well publicized on CC.) Ivyqueen, it did warn/alert readers to the BWRK syndrome, but the huge (& critical!) factor that Toor did not address were the HARK's (Highly Accomplished). I personally know one BWRK who applied only to reaches (no Ivies) & got accepted nowhere this yr; she was badly advised & had bad strategy; this group needs a very well-thought-out strategy now & a list weighted toward safeties. </p>
<p>But Toor neglected the HARK's, leap-frogging over them to the GARK's (globally-accomplished -- my term). Her claim, wholly unsubstantiated, is that only internationally famous people get accepted to Ivies, outside of legacies, big donors, & recruited athletes. (There's the Anorexic Pool that does give one an admission edge, but that's a different story.)<br>
This is called FICTION. (I think Xiggi's onto something.) Now, my D may be called "famous" within her school certainly, & to some extent in her larger local community, but I assure you that outside of those environments, no one's heard of her. Similarly for all those I personally know of who have been accepted to Ivies -- many of those receiving multiple acceptances to a list of Ivies. (My own was accepted to all 3 of her chosen Ivy schools; I know of some accepted to 5 or 6 -- none of them famous, either.)</p>
<p>Sometimes I think that Toor's book was a plant by the (non-existent) college adcom members' union, to discourage employment applications for these positions. Don't worry, Adcom Union, your jobs are safe from me, anyway. If college admissions is really the sausage factory that Toor describes, I would rather -- to quote author Dave Barry -- "have someone pour hot tar into my nostrils" than to ever, ever sit on a college admissions committee. If what Toor describes really is <em>non</em>-fiction, I cannot understand why its members don't walk out of the meetings in moral outrage.</p>
<hr>
<p>We found the Fiske Guide almost essential: incomplete standing alone, but "essential" for us as an eliminator. Since my D knew what she did <em>not</em> want in campus culture, student life/preferences, those aspects, which are well addressed in this book, helped in the list formation. We didn't take all the student quotes as Gospel, but when there was outside corroboration, we took the "student life" descriptions seriously. The Fiske is also good for discussing the strengths of particular academic programs/majors within a school.</p>