Just How Hard Admission Can Be

[cangel]

>>Similarly, a student I made reference to in my first post was, I believe, waitlisted for income reasons vs. the accepted student from her class.<<

Income reasons are not quirky or irrational, but they are something that the student can do nothing about. The point is the student must represent themselves the best they possibly can in their applications, look deeply and honestly at themselves and at what criteria are of importance to them, and then try to pick schools of differing selectivities that compliment the individual's strengths.
I truly think kids that do a good job of all this soul searching actually are very successful in the application process. Many of the ones who don't are victims of "over-supply", either of students from their region, their high school, or of their "Hook" - that is something they can't control and appears "quirky".

I don't see much evidence of what Eiphany is describing of apparent socio-economic "AA", but perhaps this is a strategy highly selective schools are using in their backyards - it is easier to take a chance on a person from a low income family who is succeeding at a well known high school than the kid from unknown public school in the hills of Appalachia.
DD and I have wondered how in the world she ever got in?!

[unbelievablem]

epiphany - i can't quite understand why you feel the need to attack my reading comprehension. you yourself said you expected your comment might be misconstrued. yet for some reason you seem to have taken offense. no offense was intended - just an attempt to clarify. and since i started the thread, i don't think it was out of place for me to comment on what i thought this thread was about. you don't have to agree with my conclusion or anyone else's conclusions. but lets keep things about the issues from here on out.

[unbelievablem]

part of the problem i think we have in trying to figure out why things happen is that we are generally looking at individual situations - we hear the desciptions of a given applicant, we hear the stories of who got in where. what we simply aren't privy to is the overall view of everyone who applied and how any given applicant compared to all the others who were accepted or rejected.

it is natural to try to explain things based on what we know. the problem is that we simply don't know everything that is going on here. so from the outside - it can look like a lottery, or random, because we don't know why decisions ended up as they were. surely, the adcom didn't just throw the applications up in the air to see who to accept - they had their reasons. but are these reasons that we can ascertain or learn from in order to predict future decisions? personally, i don't think so. and I also think it can be dangerous to think one can.

[epiphany]

cangel,
Well, you personally may not see the "evidence" of a low-income advantage for top-tier, but plenty of people who have posted on CC have seen what I have seen. (Plenty of CC students, too.) It's also in much of the post-admission literature & other published info from many of the colleges/U's. Low-SES apart from ethnicity or race is a definite target "tip" that has been made public by college administrations.

I do agree that parental income is beyond the control of the applicant (thus an unknown); that is different from implying (as some have, here & on other threads) that there's a fine & profound mystery to college admissions not related to the actual applications & the flesh-&-blood people submitting the applications. I don't buy it, & I would never suggest to my children that there is not a logical connection between what they present to their colleges of choice (& what is presented on their behalf), and what the results are likely to be. (That would be "likely," not promised or definite.)

unbelievable,
as to bringing it around to the issues, there was no issue (as you stated it) until you manufactured it, i.m.o. I neither stated nor developed the "issue" that *you* raised. Since only you raised it, apparently only you needed clarity. If you don't like my tone, then it would be better not to ask people to defend arguments they never made. It's not a matter of my being "overly sensitive"; it's a matter of impatience with someone not reading the black & white on the page -- & the poster being asked to support, apologize, or qualify what she *didn't* say. I was not expressing some obscure thought. And I took some pains to ensure that a reader would not be led to such mistaken conclusions.

I appreciate what your own intentions may have been with regard to the thread, but discussions regarding the Unknowns of admissios too often devolve into pointless rationalizations for what seems illogical to someone not inside an admissions committee. Just taking our family's own circle of friends & acquaintances, not a single person's results (all the acceptances, all the waitlists & rejections) are bewildering to me. I think that's just because I know these people well. Perhaps admissions committees have learned to "know people well" through their applications, by making educated guesses based on assumptions which have been proven over time.

I also very much think that there are cases in which students are rejected NOT for any apparent reason, that could ever be predicted from their excellent applications. I think that many such cases are examples of "bad" or "off" or somewhat "arbitrary" quick judgments by committees, or inexperienced members thereof. This is called error. I don't think that those cases can be categorized as profound or intricate mysteries that deserve elaborate speculation.

I also do not think that (financial) Enrollment Management is a rationalization. I think it's real. I think it figures into many decisions at many colleges. I think it can affect a middle-class applicant severely. I think it explains many "unexplainable" rejections. But that is a specific reason, not a mystery, not a theological or academic construct, etc.

[unbelievablem]

I found similar links for a couple additional schools so I thought I would add those links to this thread:

Amherst - http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/...e=1&p=1429170&

Wellesley - http://www.wellesley.edu/Admission/a...tatistics.html

Needless to say, in looking for such links, I went to a lot of college sites where I just couldn't find such info - most only posted the stats for those admitted and enrolled. Which is really unfortunate, since as the links I could find demonstrate - data on those admitted only tells a small part of the story.

When students (and their parents) look for matches and reaches, I think it is natural that they look at the admitted/enrolled students to get an idea of their chances - what types of stats, etc. does the adcom seem to want at their school. But just as important, I think, is looking at the students who get rejected - because many of them will look awfully similar to those admitted - and unless you take that in to account, you can't make a fully informed decision as to your admission chances.

Whatever explanation for this each of us may choose to believe to try to make sense of it (lottery, random, adcom plan for balanced class, enrollment management, human error, etc.) and however many criteria we can identify that increase an applicants' chances (gpa, rank, sat's, ec's, community service, recs, personality, essay, atheleticism, legacy, urm, etc.) the fact remains that when it comes to admission at selective schools, the shear number of applicants versus the number of seats available dictates the fact that there will be wonderful qualified kids who won't get into some of the schools they apply to.

[cangel]

Epiphany, I think you are missing my point, but it is not particularly important any how .

[BurnThis]

I think what I've taken from this discussion is that, based on sheer numbers, we parents should be realistic about our children's chances at the elite schools. However, I don't believe that the decision by the admissions committees are arbitrary and I do believe that most of the "shocking" anecdotal stories have logical explanations. At my school, an extremely top rated, prestigious private prep school (love aliteration), we occasionally get the "shocking" rejection -- but behind closed doors most people can actually see the admissions committee's reasoning (usually it's someone great on paper who just isn't "there" in person). I look at my son. On paper, he should get in anywhere. But he can come across arrogant, uncompromising, and opinionated (I know, where could he get that from?). That will cost him if it comes out at the wrong interview or with the wrong teacher. If he doesn't get into some schools, I can see that being a valid reason. But others could just look at his numbers and be shocked.

[epiphany]

I liked your reply, Burn This. I think yours is a good example of looking behind submitted docs & apparent qualifications. (But hopefully, your S will rise to the occasion if interviewed, & possibly there won't be a negative result.)

Personally, I've decided not to even get into the "chance," "risk," "lottery," and "irrationality" realm with D#2. (i.e., in conversation). I will try to guide her toward a realistic list as much as possible, & I'm sure she'll throw in a "dream" school or two. As long as there's a solid safety or 2 in there, I think that's all the risk-protection we need to do. Heavens, the whole process is stressful enough for students -- even if the seniors had the whole year off -- which unfortunately they don't. I'm sure she won't want to hear about the various "inexplicable" results that may arise -- esp. before she's even had a chance to submit the app.

Our family worried far more than we needed to with D#1, & we won't make that mistake again. Doing the research, doing the self-reflection, submitting a genuine essay & "together" apps to a representative variety -- & then just letting go.....That's our Game Plan for the next round.....

[mstee]

epiphany--I like that approach. Just the other night I mentioned Middlebury as a school that my D might be interested in and immediately got the 'ol wet blanket response - "That's a VERY difficult school to get into" (as if I didn't know!). But I just said, well D is interested in languages and they are supposed to be one of the best in that area, so . . . why wouldn't we look at it? Of course we'll look at other schools that also match her interests further down the selectivity ladder as well.

[emeraldkity4]

thats the thing though
I was at a meeting last night for parents, mostly senior parents re: the college process and they were listing schools their child was applying to.
typical was " Amherst, Dartmouth, Haverford, Middlebury and Upenn)
oh and the university of washington.
Well this IS one of the best public high schools in the state & they DO send students to Ivys every year.
BUT- couldn't they find something inbetween Dartmouth and the public university next door?

I was able to stress to the mom sitting next to me- that it was great to have a range of schools- but find schools that are good fits before you start looking at the very most competive schools- otherwise, nothing is going to measure up-
You also dont have to have a huge reach- although I think Reed was a reach for her- obviously it couldn't have been that much of a reach since she was admitted- and then that makes me think " oh I should have pushed her to attend a school that was more prestigious- didn't have grade deflation-had a name that would stop my inlaws ( who always disparged our efforts to find her good schools) in their tracks!"
(Frankly- and I am kinda ashamed to admit it-I wish that they knew enough about schools to be impressed- but they are more impressed by money and toys- )

[unbelievablem]

mstee-
what you describe is why many people end up deciding not to discuss college choices -- it can make you crazy and its true at both ends of the spectrum - those who assure you your're kid will get in everywhere can be as annoying as the ones who express doubt.

undoubtedly, the people you spoke with meant well. they don't know all the effort you may be going through to make sure that there are safeties and matches as well as reaches on the list. (nor are they probably in a position to determine which category a school falls in for your daughter)

i know when i speak to friends who are now going through the process it is very difficult to know what to say and what not to say. many simply do not know the types of issues that are discussed here on CC. on the one hand there is the desire to make sure they know so they can prepare adequately, but on the other hand there is the desire not to come across as a nay-sayer in the face of their enthusiasm - especially when i know the kid is terrific and in a perfect world would have his or her choice of top schools.

[pmoney889]

what about students with a high gap but average SATS, how do they fair in the admissions process at these schools

[emeraldkity4]

it would depend on the other pieces in their application- but if a student has high GPA- but average SATs- the college may assume that there is grade inflation/ just not great at taking tests.
But that isn't as bad IMO, as having high SATs but low /avg GPA because then you may be seen as a slacker

[mstee]

unbelievablem--it does make you crazy! I went and checked the Middlebury site right away to see if my daughter was anything like what they would be looking for. Sadly, she is not, and probably will never be the captain of a sports team, which looks like something that is highly prized at Middlebury, though in other areas she looked viable. Oh well, better to know it now, LOL . . .

[blue147]

"There are only about 75 schools that are very selective (Take fewer than 50% of their applicants). For some reason everyone wants to go to the same schools. At the other extreme, there are some schools that will take almost anybody with a pulse. People who want to go to those aren't on college boards."

Well I dunno about that. I am applying to some state schools such as NIU and ISU and I am looking forward to attending either one if I don't get into my first choice school.