<p>@californiaaa said: “College application is different. Again and again we see the stories of average kids that are accepted and kids with better grades are turned away. Colleges admit kids “holistically”, they evaluate kids, not their achievements. It is very disappointing when some adcom considers a kid with perfect grades to be “plain and uninteresting”.”</p>
<p>I’m not sure where you hear that “average” kids are being accepted… Accepted where? One of the schools you’re pushing for your daughter? I’m afraid that, no matter how you look at it, those are NOT average kids, and they DO have achievements. Now there may be others with better grades, but that is the point. Grades aren’t everything. If all a kid has to show is perfect grades and a desire to attend, that just is not enough, and yes, could be “plain and uninteresting.” (Do you know how many kids have “perfect grades”? I hear there are plenty!)</p>
<p>As to the “Why Stanford” question, I am not sure they actually ask that. But I know of interviewers who do indeed ask that question for some of the other “reach” schools, and it is the interviewer who interprets the response. If they have a student sitting in front of them, just as a human being, they need to know that the student brings more to the table than good grades.</p>
<p>I don’t have the facts to back this up, especially since the interviewer does not have that much sway in the overall scheme of things, but I am guessing that those subjective evaluations enter in, and the candidate has to be strong on those as well, or they will be left weeping at the door, with their parents wondering what happened.</p>
<p>I’m pretty sure that won’t be the case for your daughter, @californiaaa , but it might be for some.</p>
<p>Californiaa, I’m leaving on an international flight now, but humor me. What schools constitute first-tier and which constitute second-tier? And what distinguishes those tiers? What is so inferior about those second-tier schools, and on whose authority? What do you think kids who go to your “second-tier” miss out on?</p>
<p>"if the student body at the Ivies is full of all those undeserving kids, why do you want your own kid there? "</p>
<p>My first choice is Berkeley. Exactly for this reason.
Second choice is Stanford, because I personally had good experience there, and I know that faculty is great.
UCLA would be nice as well.
MIT and Caltech would be great, but I am not sure that my D. is good enough for them. </p>
<p>Harvard, Yale, Princeton etc. - fine. Nice name recognition. STEM students are good. Faculty is good.
Columbia, Duke, etc. - never ever.
However, if she is getting a nice financial package, I am ready to accept even Columbia </p>
<p>C.alifoniaaa, you need to have your d apply only to numbers based schools. Screw HYPSM, who needs those holistic bastards! Problem solved, your special snowflake will get admitted on the test scores and gpa alone. You won’t have to play the game with all the other parents ever again. There, feel better?</p>
<p>“Start with what Stanford says it looks for.” Really???</p>
<p>On the front page Stanford proudly says that most of their student body is not white. In the affirmative action section it says that it doesn’t discriminate against any student. In the letter of support of affirmative action, Stanford says that it looks at kids background first, and background is more important than academic achievements. What am I supposed to believe?</p>
<p>When my D applied to Stanford online high school, she was put on the wait list. Fine. No hard feelings. I sent an E-mail saying that my D would join a different program. Within !one hour! I got an E-mail that she is accepted and they are really looking forward to see her. Sorry, but it reminds me a used car dealership. </p>
<p>As it has been done many times here, I am afraid that you are missing the point entirely! And there is no anti-Asian bias – supposed or implied-- directed at the KIDS. It is nothing else than an observation culled from looking at my own environment and reading plenty of anecdotes, and especially the ones that flood after the non-acceptances become all too real. </p>
<p>If you happen to have experiences that contradict my own, so be it. For the record, I can observe the friends of my cousins who applied recently. I know the ones who engage in same activities they do. I can tell who spends time at the local hospitals to “shadow a doctor” and who spends his summer time in a lab. I also know who is sweating in August in preparation of the football or soccer seasons. And the racial divide is … as I wrote quite tangible and visible. </p>
<p>This is not about right or wrong, but when you have 20 percent of your graduating class pretty much doing the same things their cousins did 20 years ago, you wonder how the schools will differentiate among the Spepford kids. This is something that affects kids from plenty of prestigious high schools, be in Texas where my cousins live or right here in the Bay area. </p>
<p>Nothing in this observation intimates that the Asians are not among the hardest and most disciplined workers in high school. Or among the smartest in terms of results. They ARE, as anyone witnessing a graduation ceremony can see. But, the WE versus ME is something that remains striking as the focus on individual awards, and especially the academic kind is unabated, and the participation in sports rarely when TEAMS are involved. </p>
<p>And, fwiw, I fully agree that they seem like nice, grounded kids, despite hard work and full schedules. .Actually they are! But they also do SUFFER from plenty of misguided advice from clueless (if not cruel and megalomaniac) parents who are letting their own vicarious aspirations … ruin the happiness and self-esteem of their kids. And, was this thread not about parental craziness? </p>
<p>I understand your wife. If my child comes to me and tell me that she is accepted into her dream school, and she is really, really wish to be there, and it is acceptable financially … of course, I would agree. </p>
<p>Prestigious colleges, of course, are what most would call “name-brand,” but prestige is only one underlying reason for the immense pressure for kids to view Ivies as the holy grail (grails?) of education. Because Ivies have so few spots for so many applicants, every part of each application is scrutinized. Although there may be a random component in the decisions to accept certain applicants, many admitted students have something special that the college is looking for. Thus, those who are accepted not only gain prestige by attending a name-brand school, but receive recognition for their own accomplishments/what makes them unique. In the past, admissions to Ivies was also relatively challenging, but it revolved around GPA and SAT scores, which now only serve as benchmarks in admissions decisions.</p>
<p>Xiggi, I was referring to many posters’ complaints of anti Asian bias. I myself don’t see it. I thought I was agreeing with (at least some of) what you said. I don’t see Stepford. Each app brings its own character and personality, despite any other sameness. I have no issue with anyone who studies, eg, violin, regardless whether it’s common among As-Am kids. The proof is in their apps, the full presentation. I thought We v Me referred to some kids having a broader outlook (We) versus those who only look at their own greatness (me.) Not us versus them mentality. Guess I could go back and re-read.</p>
<p>A while ago, some on CC started using “Why Us?” to represent a variety of ways a college can expect to see how thoughtful you have been about matching yourself. There are many ways in many supps that they look for it. Just be aware of that. One of mine had a question about how she saw herself fitting in and contributing. The kids who answer dryly, without much sense of opps and values at that school, would be missing the point. </p>
<p>californiaaa: come on! Look for what Stanford wants. I will not link it for you. Not the front page or the AA section. Are you serious or trolling us? And getting off waitlist- you really think it’s because she accepted her rejection? You have much to learn. Or are kidding us. No further response. Guess all you want and see what happens in a few years.</p>
<p>Stanford’s decision to start an “interviewer program” is both recent, and mostly designed to extend the reach of the school to areas it has not well covered in the past --read the South and Southeast. The interviews, despite claims to the contrary are hardly part of an evaluation conducted by someone in the know or someone who will have an active voice in the selection. </p>
<p>The question “Why Stanford” or “Why XYZ school” should actually be an integral part of the interview. And this because this is a question to be posed by the candidate to the … interviewer as the role of the interviewer is to be a cheerleader trying to convince an applicant to ultimately choose his or her alma mater. </p>
<p>Of course, the above comes from someone who has always maintained that the interviews are best avoided, unless mandatory, and that their relevance is a few degrees above worthless and futile. And, at best, it is a massively process that requires no preparation at all. </p>
<p>@californiaa, if holistic admission is so bad for top students and stats-based so good, how do you explain the relatively weak performance of berkeley in the putnam competition? Berkeley is hardly dominating the holistic schools.</p>
<p>Well, ime, the interview is an “eyes on” experience with this applicant. Not a pitch. You;ve already got tens of thousands of applicants. In many cases, the interviewer tells adcoms the kid has a spark they may have been uncertain about, just in reading. In other cases, the interview uncovers more packaging than purpose. </p>
<p>@xiggi I must say that I have NO information about Stanford. I am learning most of what I know by reading these posts. However, as someone more familiar with the process at Princeton, I would advise anyone interested in that particular university not to treat the interviews as “worthless” or “futile”. I do agree, however, that they do not require preparation – just the ability to state your case. The “Why Princeton” question can go both ways – but the candidate had better have a pretty good idea of why he/she wants to attend.</p>
<p>@alh
I don’t worry much about my D. She is URM. We are trying to build her resume (I will, probably, hire a professional to help her). She doesn’t have “unlimited opportunities to develop her interests”, because she is in a magnet HS with high workload. By the time she finishes her homework, she doesn’t have neither time nor energy to develop her interests. On the other hand, she has excellent GPA and, God helps us, she will get fine ACT score. </p>
<p>I came from a background, where hard work and talent are valued and rewarded. I don’t want my D. to be in a college, where kids are selected on their background, instead of their achievements. " Grades aren’t everything. If all a kid has to show is perfect grades and a desire to attend, that just is not enough, and yes, could be “plain and uninteresting.” - this statement is against my core principles, sorry.</p>
<p>If you are applying for job, you outline your job experience, skills, education, etc. You don’t write an application letter about your unique background, diversity, religion, sexual orientation, etc. Why is it different in college admission?</p>
<p>It doesn’t look fair. I can play by the rules of the game, but it doesn’t look fair to me. I can game the system, if everyone else is doing the same. But it is not fair!</p>
<p>“If they have a student sitting in front of them, just as a human being, they need to know that the student brings more to the table than good grades.”</p>
<p>If a potential employer, during a job interview, would tell me that I need to bring something else to the table, in addition to the things that are outlined in the job description, I would leave immediately. </p>
<p>Fundamentally, I can’t accept the fact that some adcom is evaluating my child. Only God can evaluate a human being holistically. Adcom can evaluate grades, achievements, recommendation letters, but not a human being. </p>
<p>You are not going to be able to successfully game the system. You are making that painfully clear with these posts. If you are serious about hiring a college counselor, please do so asap. The best tend to start working with students very early. I think a professional is an excellent idea. Junior year will be too late, imho. </p>
<p>I know (firsthand) Stanford, Harvard, and Dartmouth faculty. They are nice people. Intelligent. Passionate. Excellent teachers. </p>
<p>If not for faculty, I’ll never ever consider these schools for my children.</p>
<p>When my D was applying to OHS (Stanford online school), the application process was extremely painful. Yes, it is holistic Trust me, she almost abandoned the application. Why is she supposed to answer a question about her parent’s education level? It is her application, why do they evaluate students based on their parent’s pedigree?
She sent a half-filled application at the last day. She was waitlisted, than admitted.</p>
<p>On the other hand, curriculum and instructors are excellent. Great teachers. Kids in her class are pretty average, nothing special. Horrible application process. </p>
<p>@mathmom @californiaa, if holistic admission is so bad for top students and stats-based so good, how do you explain the relatively weak performance of berkeley in the putnam competition? Berkeley is hardly dominating the holistic schools.</p>
<p>It is easy. Stanford-Harvard, etc. would go after really great students. On the other hand, they would accept plenty of holistic students as well. Berkeley student body is more coherent and less intellectually diverse. </p>
<p>BTW, MIT and Caltech are also merit-based. Berkeley is not the best merit-based STEM college. </p>
</p>