@twoinanddone This subjective evaluation really hurts parent’s feeling. One thing is to hear that “we do not accept your kid because other kids are objectively better”. The other is to hear that “we reject your child because he/she is nothing special, just a boring overachiever, a dime for a dozen”. Besides, you see that other kids, with lower objective achievements, get admission at Harvard. Yes, it happens, and it is not possible to close your eyes and fool yourself. Besides, you meet Harvard graduates at work and you can’t figure out, what is so special about them? Why are these people were selected as “interesting and special and having potential” but a child of your friends was rejected as “nothing special”. Why? On top of it, it is obvious that the whole process is unfair and evaluates parents more than children. Thus, a parent starts feeling responsible for failing its child during admission process. Next, parents starts to spend money on tutors, advisors, fake charities, and exotic ECs. The most fired-up parents initiate legislative / civil rights efforts for or against affirmative action and file lawsuits.
It is an unsustainable situation that has to change, either through legislation (10% rule automatic acceptance, affirmative action, college autonomy), litigation (Supreme Court, quotas, affirmative action), or financial support (tax exempt status, donations, alumni support). Colleges are playing with fire by telling parents that “your child is academically bright, and could succeed in our college, but we reject him/her, because we accept special kids and your kid is not special”.
It is true that the opaqueness and the consideration of unearned characteristics generate considerable resentment at apparent unfairness. A significant part of the problem is that, in the US, the ceiling of easily measurable high school academic credentials is low enough that large (relative to the number of admission places in the most desired colleges) numbers of high school students are very close to the maximum possible, so these academic credentials are less useful in distinguishing between applicants, especially when the error margin created by the variability of high school course quality and grade inflation is significant, and existing SAT and ACT are weaker predictors of college performance than high school grades.
You have a lot to learn and might be happier, feel less agitated, if you try. Holistic. Is NOT just about objective. The top colleges can ask for more than just good grades and scores.
They do not say “nothing special.” Period. Where do you get these notions? You’re projecting that. You’re the one saying It’s either an admit or a kid is "just a boring overachiever. " That’s a rough attitude to expose one’s child to.
Try to learn what really matters, more than stats, stats, stats. Learn what shows ideas, drives and follow-through. THAT would help your child.
Maybe realize you’re the one who thinks only a top admit makes a kid special.
Obviously, it should be easy to see that when looking at all of the applications as an admissions office insider.
However, outsiders have no real way of observing how the subjectively graded aspects of one applicant compare to the entire applicant pool. That is why most outsiders focus mainly on easily measured and observed characteristics like GPA, rank, and test scores, even though other subjectively graded aspects (including obviously earned ones like extracurriculars, essay, etc.) become highly important when many applicants have stats pressed up against the maximum possible. Unearned characteristics like legacy and URM, regardless of how significant they are, are obvious targets of resentment of unfairness. Given how “hot” race/ethnicity gets in politics, URM in college admissions gets inflamed in the minds of many.
You are going to hear that your child isn’t the best in a lot of situations. My kids were in theater and sports, and they didn’t get the part or the spot many times.Did I think they were the best? Of course, that’s my job as a parent. Is the director or coach saying ‘your kid is nothing’? No, but they are saying someone else is better, and that someone else is picked. A 10% rule? 10% of what? Harvard couldn’t possible take the top 10% of applicants because they have too many applicants. They can’t take anyone in the top 10% (gee, they can’t take all the 1%ers) of their HS class, or top 10% of the SAT/ACT takers. There isn’t room.
Ucb, right. But I’d like to see more applicants try to glean what else matters, not just rush headlong based on stats and other assumptions. Or dreams. Or the idea prestige is all that matters to their futures. Or parental pressure.
High school status can be very hierarchical, best this, top that, leader titles, etc. But now this is the leap to college. And when those top colleges would need 10k more seats to fit in all the high stats kids, they do look for more.
Not just legacy or a public name. Even those can miss the point, which we’ve slso hashed out, ad infintum.
I think that the super low threshold is made by design, to create a scenario, when colleges have freedom to choose week students with hooks. I don’t think that it just happened, IMHO.
Some parents are for affirmative action. Some parents are against it. The veil of secrecy, created by opaque admission criteria, means that some parents think that their kids are rejected because they are ORM and other parents think that their kids are rejected because urban schools have less opportunities. In other worlds, URM and ORM parents believe that the system is stack against them. My point is that admission process is perceived as unfair by people from different backgrounds.
The problem is that my child may be denied admission based on my sins (race, education, non-legacy, non-VIP, etc.). I have to explain to my child that other kids got the spot because their parents were selected by Harvard.
<a 10%="" rule?="" of="" what?=""> In Texas top 10% (less in the current years) are guaranteed admission. It is not the best approach, but at least the rules are clear and the process is fair. <a 10%="" rule?="" of="" what?="">
Ok, if the child is rejected, does it mean that he/she has no “ideas, drives and follow-through”? Don’t you understand that his statement is far more hurtful than the simple observation that other children know math (art, dance) better than my child? Holistic approach claims to evaluate the soul of the person (leadership, drive, talent, potential). When rejected, it rejects the whole personality.
@dogandcat You’re misinterpreting the idea that “there is no magic ticket” and turning it into “Ivy don’t care.”
Kids with higher grades and unique and pretigious accomplishments have a better chance at Ivy admission than those who do not have these things. But no one can look at a pile of resumes and say for certain which ones Yale will pick in any given year.
And yes, there is a supply and demand mismatch. Too many kids are trying to apply to the same dozen schools. But the fact that these schools let in kids with high achievements and kids with hooks and kids is a feature, not a bug. It would be a more corrupt system to only let in the privileged millionaire kids. In fact, those slots are also limited to leave room for the math geniuses.
You want me to trust that college admission is a fair process. Why should I? Would you trust a financial advisor who says, “don’t worry, don’t question my decisions, don’t ask for an explanation. By the way, I am working for the bank, not for you. But no worries, I am experienced and I will make the best decision”. Would you trust?
Why should I trust that college admission is a fair process when, historically, it was never fair. It was stack against Jews, Blacks and women were not allowed, and it was always in favor of rich and mighty. With a reputation like this, why should I trust college admission NOW?
Yes, I want to make sure that my child is not wronged by some bias or prejudice. That my child’s application is evaluated fairly. I want some objective sunshine.
I would like to challenge the assumption that attending an Ivy League school is even something you would want to do. These places are like zoos for people. Curated collections of people. I propose that it is much better to be a wild, free person at a non-Ivy college, than to be a resident of a zoo.
“Why should I trust that college admission is a fair process when, historically, it was never fair. It was stack against Jews, Blacks and women were not allowed, and it was always in favor of rich and mighty. With a reputation like this, why should I trust college admission NOW?”
The corollary of your assertion is that the students and graduates of the selective colleges (especially Ivies) are NOT better than those from other colleges. I would agree. You win when you stop wanting your daughter to go to these colleges. Let her go to a college that values her for her accomplishments and potential, not for her family lineage. She will be happier and she will go just as far. Maybe farther.
@rocket88 . You are right. Actually, my D decides herself, where she is applying (I reserve a veto power). I don’t even want to know the list, ahead of the time. However, if rejected, she may forgive and forget, but I will remember
In the 2010 census, fewer than 5% of the US population identified as Asian, yet 22% of Harvard’s entering class was Asian last year. That’s quite a big difference. There is no doubt an advantage to being an URM, but that doesn’t mean that Harvard’s demographics match the demographics of the US population.
Diversity is not limited to just race. Harvard does increase diversity by favoring various other underrpresented groups, as well as persons with underrpresented backgrounds and experiences. However, again this doesn’t mean the percentages match the representation in the US population.
I grew up in a small town that was 95+% White, the vast majority of which had relatively similar backgrounds and experiences. This led to ridiculous beliefs about non-White races and in general how the world was outside of our small town bubble. For example, we’d need to have discussions in honors HS classes about how to treat persons in a mixed race relationship. At the time, I didn’t think of myself or the school as particularly racist. However, after having a completely different experience at Stanford, I came to see how differently persons in my high school who were a minority or international were treated… things like having a more difficult time joining social groups or generally fitting in. In contrast at Stanford, I didn’t feel like minorities or international students were treated differently or had more trouble fitting in. I had roommates who were Russian, Nigerian, Black, Asian, and gay (not all the same person) and got a similar impression from them; although one of them clearly preferred to hang out with people of his race. After a short time at the school, I didn’t give a 2nd thought to what race a person was or what country they were from. I expect the same is true for the vast majority of other students.
I’d consider this type of diversity a valuable addition to a learning environment for a variety of reasons, but I can understand some would prefer a more merit focused approach and would see no problem with student bodies that are ~1% Black, like Caltech’s undergrad population. If you don’t like Harvard’s (or other college) policies, then a simple solution is to not apply there. There are plenty of other excellent colleges, likely many that are a better fit and will better support achieving future goals.
