<p>Thanks, Nrdsb4 and Bearsgarden. My kids are a bit tired of hearing those speeches, but thus far they seem to have absorbed them. ::crossing fingers::</p>
<p>^^ Yep, the altruistic “good work is its own reward” is an old adage.
Today, we are upset if someone behind us in the queue gets coffee (or movie ticket) ahead of us - tendency to linearly order the applicants is our problem. Picking a handful of apples from a basket of very good apples is the adcom’s challenge. Sometimes I thought more transparency would help, but more transparency will probably get more problems. :)</p>
<p>Some admissions stats from Princeton. For its Class of 2017, Princeton rejected 90% of applicants with a perfect 4.0 unweighted GPA on a 4.0 (maximum) scale, and it rejected 84% of applicants with SAT scores in the 2300-2400 range. In short, high-stats applicants are a dime a dozen to these schools, and no one should be surprised if any particular high-stats applicant is rejected.</p>
<p>I’ve found that things become “old adages” precisely because their value survives the wear of generations.
I suppose there are those who don’t find value in education for its own sake, who simply value it as a tool in the race to Win All The Things. I won’t go so far as to say that that’s an invalid way of looking at things, but it tends to reinforce entitlement. Because after all, I did everything right, in the right order, at the right time, so goshdarnit, I deserve a cookie. All the cookies. And then when you don’t win all the cookies, because life doesn’t generally work that way…what? Storm the heavens (or the message boards) and call the fates out? I find that to be of limited efficacy, myself.</p>
<p>Top colleges frequently reject top students for no apparent reason. Then they train their mindless minions to repeat their cliche, smoke screen responses to anyone who dares ask a legitimate question. It is very difficult to get a substantive response. Instead you hear, “They don’t want a student body of only perfect students”, “We look for passion”, “It is just random”, “Everyone has the same chance.” The list goes on forever. the minions also like to add ad hominem attacks against the person when possible to rationalize whey the questions are not worth answering.</p>
<p>There is some truth to many of the cliches, but others are completely BS. Additionally, they are also used to coverup other agendas that no one wants to talk about. A few are: admitting legacy students, admitting friends and family of key administrators, admissions office incompetence and bias, focusing on the most recent admissions office fad criteria instead of what research and evidence indicates. </p>
<p>The problem with the entire system is a lack of transparency and measurement. What are the school’s objectives and how well did they meet them? Is the objective to admit the best students within a diverse framework? If so, what does "best’ mean? Does it mean most likely to achieve high grades, to successfully graduate, to gain employment or admission to graduate school?</p>
<p>Having established that, what information from the application, or that can be added to a supplement can be the most helpful in identifying the students that best fit our objectives? Are the most important traits of students being captured by the application at all? How do admissions offices know that the information is true? </p>
<p>In addition to adding clarity and transparency to the process, there should also be accountability. Within each diversity category, how successful was the admissions office at identifying the best students. How did the weakest students accepted do at achieving the established objectives? Where did the best students who were rejected attend? How did they do? When students with better quantitative achievements are rejected in favor of a student with a better essay, does it appear that, in retrospect, the correct decision was reached? What is the process for the administration to review the admissions committee’s results and performance? How does that decision quality get reflected in the compensation of the admission’s committee members?</p>
<p>Until there is less cliche smoke and mirrors, and more transparency, substance and accountability, and oversight added to the process, college admissions will continue to be a source of frustration to many. Unfortunately, many people who are involved directly have a strong vested interest in maintaining the smoke and mirrors approach, so it is unlikely that anything will change soon. It is much easier to argue against something, and point out the difficulties in doing it than it is to contribute to improving the process. I have no doubt that is exactly what admissions offices and their minions will continue to do.</p>
<p>When everyone is perfect. Perfect becomes the new normal…and these universities don’t want normal :)</p>
<p>
This, at least, is tracked at every elite institution.
The general result is that the weakest students need more support and the main qualities of those who do well is strength of persistence/grit/determination and ability to recognize need for help/ask for help/locate help when needed. Overall, students whom Op would probably judge undeserving (esp wrt test scores) do as well as others with higher test scores, just as there always have been high scorers who flame out once in college.
(Remember: the best correlation one finds for high scores is not with college achievement, but with high income. In other terms, 2160 vs. 2360 most likely indicates candidate 1 is less well off than candidate 2.)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>“Many” will be frustrated no matter what. These are private schools who obviously have other priorities than keeping rejected students from being “frustrated.”</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If these schools are generally satisfied with the way their admissions policies are implemented and with the results of them, why would they need to “improve” upon them?</p>
<p>The only way the Ivy League schools would make any significant changes to their admissions policies would be if all the “top students” boycotted them all in favor of institutions which use a “better” or “more fair” process. Of course, defining “fair” is the problem.</p>
<p>“Legacy seems to have a huge factor on who gets in”</p>
<p>This is not true; legacy, according to the schools themselves and in my own experience, represents at most a tip–one seemingly perfect candidate gets the nod rather than another seemingly perfect candidate. It’s not a hook, as quite a few disappointed and even angry alums I know could tell you. </p>
<p>When I first joined CC, I said: dig deep into what the colleges say they look for, the sorts of students they tout. I still say it. (I just don’t provide examples. Or, rarely. One either has the stuff to dig or doesn’t.) And we still get responses about how it all should be so transparent and crap about smoke and mirrors.</p>
<p>If you can’t absorb all this, perhaps you will have to rely on luck. And complain in a public forum. You want Harvard level? Then BE Harvard level. And that is simply not the same as being tops in some high school. You have to show more. </p>
<p>Still all that gets you is - maybe - to final rounds, where other considerations come into account for the final decisions- geo diversity, what you specifically can add to the flavor there, your particular leadership style and interests, academic and non. </p>
<p>If all they wanted was stats and rigor…they wouldn’t ask for a full app. So forget the conspiracy theories or slamming adcoms. Rise to the challenge.</p>
<p>But also: know WHY you want a tippy top. (Beyond its perceived status or how you just think it will facilitate a cozy future.</p>
<p>Admissions officers are very transparent about what they want, they just don’t quantify what they want. That’s because the qualities they’re looking for are generally not quantifiable.</p>
<p>You want Harvard to say they’ll take every kid with a 4.0 and 2350+ SAT? Fine, but how are you going to feel about attending a school where you can’t register for a physics class with fewer that 200 students and the school no longer offers majors in German, psychology or European history? Would you be happy at a school filled with rich kids from New York and Massachusetts?</p>
<p>I’m a bit sick of hearing that the only way to get into Ivy League schools is to be a recruited athlete, URM, legacy, or child of a potentate. I know plenty of kids who attend or have been admitted to Ivy League schools. While a few of them are athletes most are not. They’re also not rich, a member of a minority group, or a legacy. What they are are smart, hard working kids with interesting brains. They’re not grade grubber. They’re kids who look at the world in novel ways, whom I imagine in a classroom asking questions that change the entire direction of a class discussion. They don’t ask if the activities they do “will get them into an Ivy”, and they certainly don’t spend a lot of time asking people to chance them on internet forums.</p>
<p>I had a conversation recently with the mother of a student who was admitted to a HYP school for this fall. She’s a NMSF and top student but she doesn’t have any of the other qualities on the dread “those people get all the breaks” list. She’s an interesting kid, and one whom I rarely saw as an elementary/middle schooler without a book in her hand. She’s been struggling with whether to accept her HYP offer or one from an equally wonderful but slightly less prestigious school. She’s looking for the best fit, not the school that will most impress her friends and relatives.</p>
<p>(Rant over. I return you to your regularly scheduled discussion.)</p>
<p>[edited for typo]</p>
<p>Oh come on lookingforward. I’m fine with all the talk until people start bashing the kids. Honestly, can we stop for one second and admit that the kid who gets the top stats and grades is a person who should be proud of his achievements? He’s not dime a dozen or average or uninteresting, or whatever else has been said here along the way. And admit it or not, he IS Harvard level. It’s not like everyone being admitted to Harvard is superhuman. The admits fulfill institutional needs. The person who comes in with celebrity parents or with more money than god is no better than the one who has achieved top academic status in his high school.</p>
<p>The better approach, at least for me, is to understand the daunting odds and how it affects you individually, continue to believe in yourself, and celebrate the fact that there are other institutions who, thanks to the small number of slots available at the elite institutions, will provide a stimulating, enriching educational environment for even the brightest student. </p>
<p>He can be proud. Everyone can be, including strangers on a forum. Including me. But, he can’t expect to be one of the low % admitted to a tippy top if he doesn’t have the rest of the qualities these colleges thrive on- and look for. “Ivy level” is simply not about what your own hs thinks of you, what it demanded and you achieved.</p>
<p>I am not one who said high stats kids are a dime a dozen or boring. I’m also not one who claims it’s all “passion” or being some kind of odd outlier. Nope. My comment was in response to much2learn. And my same old/same old advice to dig into what the colleges DO say and show, then process that. Not t to keep repeating, “But I have the stats and rigor. Now they need to tell me what specifically to do, what they look for, how I should manage.” </p>
<p>As parents, of course we want to give our kids life advice. I’m big on “life lessons.” But the topic here is why some high stats kid didn’t get into the Ivies he applied to.</p>
<p>Btw, the number of purely discretionary admits (eg, celebrity kids or some billionaire child) is very small. </p>
<p>"“Many” will be frustrated no matter what. These are private schools who obviously have other priorities than keeping rejected students from being “frustrated.”"</p>
<p>The implication of this statement is that it is not the publics business because they are private and your only choice is to go elsewhere. We call them private schools, but are they really private schools? Cut off all government funding that the school gets for research and student loans that students get to attend, and then I will agree that they are private and that it is not a public issue. Furthermore, when they are dealing with EEOC applicants they still need to follow the law. So for example, when schools reject applicants from UR groups, who have better stats and qualifications than applicants that they accept, they should be accountable to someone to explain why, even if they are private, if they accept public money.</p>
<p>“If all they wanted was stats and rigor…they wouldn’t ask for a full app. So forget the conspiracy theories or slamming adcoms. Rise to the challenge.”</p>
<p>Ad com minion on the loose. Basically an ad hominem combined with canard. This statement implies that the there is no issue with the Ad Coms, the only issue is that inferior students and parents are frustrated that they were not admitted, and therefore, there is no need to establish clear criteria and hold Ad Com’s accountable. </p>
<p>No one said that it should be only stats and rigor. Only that there should be a clear process with criteria, results assessment and accountability. Nothing scares people into deflecting with Ad Homs and canards like the prospect of having their hollow cliches replaced with substantive assessments of their performance. It is a lot easier to call names than it is to do a good job.</p>
<p>Another canard in this statements the false choice it presents. Implying that it since there is this frustrated, inferior student/parent issue, that means that there is nothing wrong with the admissions process, and therefore there is no oversight needed. Clearly students and parents need to rise to the challenge. There is no question about it. However, that does not mean that there should not be clear criteria and accountability. If the process is so great, then why would more transparency and accountability be so bad?</p>
<p>Why not provide applicants and alumni and other stakeholders with comfort that there are criteria, a process, feedback, and accountability? The fact that this prospect makes people nervous is telling. What is really going on behind the scenes? </p>
<p>Admissions Committees who know that their decisions will be tracked, will do a better job. Currently many colleges they track things like the performance of the weakest students accepted, however that does not say much about the performance of the committee. What they need to track, within diversity categories, is whether, the best students they reject outperform the weakest students they accept. That would tell a lot about whether the committee did a good job of discerning among candidates.</p>
<p>If they did well at discerning, then they should be compensated accordingly, and if they did not, that should also be reflected. A few college have outstanding admissions teams, and I suspect that many of those would welcome this challenge and look forward to a larger raise/bonus. However, I also suspect that many more, would rather make excuses for why this should not happen or attack anyone who thinks it should. The risk of everyone finding out that the emperor has no clothes is too great.</p>
<p>Doesn’t matter if it’s a miniscule number. The point is that there are all sorts of drivers to this process that have nothing to do with merit and very often they aren’t even within the control of the applicant. Acceptance is not a matter of worth or “better” or anything of the sort. It’s a matter of institutional needs and preferences. </p>
<p>Dig into what the colleges DO say and show, and process that? What they say is purposely vague. I think the colleges have a very clear role in the confusion, upset and disappointment that swirls around these kids. I feel for them and I think Much2learn’s got it right.</p>
<p>My same old/same old is to try and counsel kids-- before the disappointment-- to look further afield and understand the capricious nature of admissions. And never to think that the denial is a judgment about your own worth.</p>
<p>So tired of the rants from those who feel entitled to decide what the ives SHOULD be, SHOULD require, etc. You know what? Don’t apply. Boycott. Take a stand. You are striving to be at a place with which you disagree regarding policy. You have created in your mind what these institutions represent instead of listening to them when they explain their philosophies.</p>
<p>We sat in on info sessions at Yale, UPenn and Brown. Each and every school made the process of holistic admissions paramount in their presentation. At Yale in particular, the presenter said “it would be a disservice to the academic process to fill a class with other students the same as you.” At Brown, they asked who doesn’t have IB/AP classes at their school. After hands went up, the response? “We don’t care.” Each institution is striving for UNIQUE applicants, not a homogeneous class.</p>
<p>There you have it. We LISTENED to everything we learned. My D kept her 2150 SAT and 31 ACT (no tutoring), and is so far accepted at Northwestern, Bowdoin and Middlebury. Yes, she is a URM, something we had no idea was “in demand” until we started this process. Who knew it would be so wonderful to be different? </p>
<p>Yes, much2, it was said on this thread that it “should be” stats and rigor. And, if some of us suggest that there is more than that, that it is possible to glean what a college likes and then respond to that (rather than just assume,) well, kids are still free to make the choices they wish. </p>
<p>Calling them (or tossing me into it) minions is certainly ad hominem. I’ve seen my share of angry posters over the years. My feeling is, if someone can point you to an aha moment, at least consider it. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The idea of “criteria, a process, feedback, and accountability” doesn’t make me nervous, but the current process whereby colleges with ever-changing needs select kids to meet those needs doesn’t make me nervous either. It is what it is…some colleges choose the applicants they want with some criteria only they understand, others auto-admit for stats, others use a baseline of stats and to fill who-knows-what institutional needs. This is why one applies to a range of colleges, some of each type ideally.</p>
<p>Much2learn-
In an ideal world, specifically what would you like Harvard’s (or any other private college’s) criteria to be and how would you measure them differently than is already being done? IOW, how would you improve the system?</p>
<p>[edited to include other colleges]</p>
<p>It’s not a rant. It’s not sour grapes. Your kid was lucky. Deserving but lucky. So were mine. Neither girl “deserved” admission any more than most any other kid who applied. And frankly, neither one of my girls altered her path to get into a college based on what the college said they wanted (not that any college provided any guidance beyond get top grades and take hard courses) so I’m not sure what you listened to and how that affected your child’s path. But come on. Because the schools said they employ holistic admissions, you think they’ve created a transparent process? All they’ve done is stirred up a lot of uncertainty. Ask one of them whether you should take AP classes at school and get a B or take regular classes and get an A. You know what every single one of them says (jokingly but not really)? Take the AP class and get an A. Ha ha. The process is mysterious and the decisions are capricious–the adcoms themselves will admit this! I guess I don’t get why it’s not possible to acknowledge it, shrug, and move on. </p>