“understand that the more you defend confusion and demand more data, you create the impression you really don’t get it,”
So under your view providing less information and data will lead to better understand and less confusion. If that is what you believe then being in a dark cave would make all of us so much wiser and smarter.
“It is entirely possible to review an app with no intent to discriminate.”
Of course it is “possible” but it is also possible that there is not so good intent or even unconsciously bias. If “holistic” schools provided more data, then may be not only do students have better information, the adcoms might also be more conscious of their actions.
Tobacco and other companies had your view that too much data would confuse so they thought it better to destroy as much of the data as possible, so the public would be much better off being in the dark.
Too much information is not the problem with holistic admissions, it is the lack of transparency that is the problem. If a college wants to have an holistic system, fine, just be transparent about it.
In your words “you create the impression you really don’t get it, in the first place. And that, short of being spoon fed, you caaaan’t. Not a winner’s attitude”
There is no logical way to quantify essays, EC’s and recommendations. Also a 4.0 at one school means one thing and 4.0 at another school means something else.
bengalmom ^^^^Sure there is, Duke University does it and I suspect all the other holistic schools have a method, it just isn’t disclosed.
There is a reason why the SAT and ACT is used in addition to GPA by almost all top schools. It helps with evaluating and comparing the GPA of students from differing high schools.
“So under your view providing less information and data will lead to better understand and less confusion.”
I don’t advocate they provide less info, so this stand goes out the window. I advocate hs kids take a hard look to what IS there, pore over it, look for the sorts of current students the college touts, re-read it, check a little google etc. and then match themselves realistically. (Stats are only one slice.) That will lead to “better understand[ing] and less confusion.” Instead of hand-wringing.
“Of course it is “possible” but it is also possible that there is not so good intent or even unconsciously bias”
And sorry, but it’s also possible you’re yanking our chains, insisting that, if the colleges won’t provide what you need to see, then they are all deceitful and in all sorts of ways.
The best of the applicants get it- and got it early.
You protest a lot VoR. We’re not empathizing.
Why keep saying it’s just too hard, when these colleges are able to fill their classes with more than enough competent kids, kids they actively choose, year after year? Your hypothetical suffering, confused 3.5 kid needs to wake up and smell the coffee.
lookingforward Your sophistry is amazing. You state “I don’t advocate they provide less info, so this stand goes out the window. I advocate hs kids take a hard look to what IS there, pore over it”.
What you are saying is that you think what information that holistic colleges do provide CURRENTLY is sufficient and transparent enough so because of this you are not advocating that the CURRENT level of information be reduced.
However, what I and others on this thread have been advocating is that holistic colleges provide MORE information and data than is CURRENTLY provided because holistic colleges have been rather opaque and nontransparent about how it decides who gets admitted and what a student’s true chances are.
You seem to believe more information from holistic colleges would not be helpful to students and parents, but how many kids and parents on CC alone have posted CHANCE QUESTIONS about these holistic schools.There is a dedicated Chance Section here on CC that hundreds of thousands of parents and students use to seek advice about the chances of getting into these holistic colleges and this doesn’t include all the people who ask about chance on individual College Sections.
As to the rest of your post, it’s intended to distract, confuse and divert. For many they will cling to your last statements because there are the likes of Pizzagirl who says that 5% is really no different from 15% admit rates when other posters will chime in that that is a 300% increase in admission rates. Pizzagirl, you and the like will say that is still so low that it really doesn’t make that much of a difference.
When the difference is that if a student knew he/she had 5% chance of admission versus a 15% chance is that he/she would submit 20+ applications versus 7-9 applications to these schools. At about $100 dollars per application, these families would save $1000 or more in application fees alone. That doesn’t take into consideration all the time and effort to complete these applications. There are many other things which I won’t go into.
So I think it is you who needs to “wake up and smell the coffee”.
“There is a reason why the SAT and ACT is used in addition to GPA by almost all top schools. It helps with evaluating and comparing the GPA of students from differing high schools.”
Yes. And those 2 things are the starting point - can the kid do the work. And then come all the intangibles - EC, essay, etc.
Which is why it’s pretty much pointless if you are a 3.8/2300 to know that your acceptance rate into Fancy Ivy is 6% or 8%. Because your “win” is finding and telling the best story about yourself, not grinding with multiple retests to get that 2400.
The group of 3.8/2300s who got in last year really have nothing to do with you, the individual 3.8/2300 applying this year. What’s your story, your unique qualities? What makes you display that you get the ethos of the school? What do you demonstrate that suggests you will be an addition to the campus community? Til you have that, what difference does it make that some OTHER 3.8/2300s got in? You aren’t them. That’s the part of American culture and apps you don’t understand.
“Sure there is, Duke University does it and I suspect all the other holistic schools have a method, it just isn’t disclosed.”
Oh good lord! Yes, Duke might have a rubric where they give x points for an excellent essay, y for good, z for average. But that’s all in the eye of the beholder. It’s subjective. Maybe the essay about fossil collecting charmed the pants of adcom A but would have left adcom B cold. So what?? That’s LIFE.
“You seem to believe more information from holistic colleges would not be helpful to students and parents, but how many kids and parents on CC alone have posted CHANCE QUESTIONS about these holistic schools.There is a dedicated Chance Section here on CC that hundreds of thousands of parents and students use to seek advice about the chances of getting into these holistic colleges and this doesn’t include all the people who ask about chance on individual College Sections.”
Do you think one single piece of the “information” that is found on chance-me threads is helpful or accurate?
It’s all nonsense. These are high school students arbitrarily giving advice on something they don’t know about. Aside from the obvious (yes, your 4.0/2400 will get you into directional state u where anybody above a 3.0 is guaranteed admission; no, your 2.5/1400 isn’t getting you into Harvard), those are all nonsense threads! Please tell me you don’t take them seriously. Please.
"When the difference is that if a student knew he/she had 5% chance of admission versus a 15% chance is that he/she would submit 20+ applications versus 7-9 applications to these schools. "
Why isn’t this student coming up with a balanced portfolio of schools - some with low admission rates, some with moderate, and at least one or two that’s a fairly sure bet? Why is this student solely gunning for the super-low admit schools? Ego? Parental cultural pressure that if you don’t get into an Ivy the world is over?
“However, what I and others on this thread have been advocating is that holistic colleges provide MORE information and data than is CURRENTLY provided because holistic colleges have been rather opaque and nontransparent about how it decides who gets admitted and what a student’s true chances are.”
They’re very upfront. They sit in a room and the premier reader on the file gives his impression of the kid overall. Then they discuss it. Sometimes discussions are short and the answer is evident. Sometimes they are long and the committee has to hash out different points of view. Sometimes other factors such as filling the oboe chair or geographic representation come into play.
What’s so hard to understand? It’s the exact same process I use when I hire people, except that I’ve met them all personally. We sit and we discuss. Will Sally bring more to the position than John? It’s informed by their experience but it’s also informed by our impressions of how they presented themselves. Sometimes I like a candidate and another team member doesn’t, so we hash it out, and vice versa.
“holistic colleges have been rather opaque and nontransparent about how it decides who gets admitted and what a student’s true chances are.”
Do you want a rubric that says - you get 5 points for student council treasurer, 10 for president? 8 for newspaper editor and 4 for lead in the school play? 3 for the violin, 5 for the tuba, 10 for the accordion? Add 5 if you make your state orchestra?
I think the piece that you’re missing is that - let’s say the 3.8/2300 has a 6% chance. It’s not as though they group all of them together and say - ok, we have to admit 6 out of every 100 of this pile, let’s go.
It’s rather like asking - of the guys who were interested in dating me, of those who I actually accepted a date offer, what was the “date rate” of those who were blonde, brown, red headed, tall, short, etc. it doesn’t mean that therefore I’m “obligated” to sort that way in the future. I could show a preference for tall and dark and maybe some short redhead comes up and blows me away :-). Who knows???
Seems like most of these threads, no matter the starting focus, eventually get around to the discussion of how to psyche out or divine the “ultimate” admissions strategy.
Pizzagirl I am so perplexed by your posts I don’t know where to start so I won’t.
I just have three questions for you. Have you ever fired anyone? If so, what is the first thing that the employee asks? Isn’t it “WHY?” How do you think a fired employee would take “We fired you because on a holistic basis you are not right for our company?” How would you like this response if you were the person being fired?
I’m somewhat sympathetic to the idea that a kid who has no hope of being admitted to Harvard shouldn’t waste his time and money applying there, and Harvard shouldn’t really encourage him to do so. But it’s not so easy to define who that kid is. It’s even harder to define the kid who has a 1% chance of getting in, vs. the kid with a 5% or 14% chance. Releasing a score matrix won’t answer that question, really, except maybe at the very low end. That is, if the matrix shows that kids with a 4.0 and 2400 are admitted 14% of the time, that doesn’t mean that YOU have a 14% chance of admission if you have those stats. I think it’s just that kids with those high scores are somewhat more likely to have the total package than kids with lesser scores.
Maybe Harvard could say that it’s their experience that, absent some highly unusual circumstances, students with stats below x level are unlikely to be successful at Harvard and are typically not admitted. But is that really necessary?
A better analogy would be what happens when you fail to hire a person. The explanation that you give is essentially, no explanation. Maybe you’ll say, “Another candidate better fit the company’s needs.”
Hunt says " if the matrix shows that kids with a 4.0 and 2400 are admitted 14% of the time, that doesn’t mean that YOU have a 14% chance of admission if you have those stats."
Then what does it mean? If you take the above position then what does an overall 5% admit rate mean for a school mean? By your statement nothing for each individual applicant.
Yes, you are right that an individual under holistic doesn’t have that exact chance rate given your example, but the kids that do have those stats can put themselves in the group of those kids and know that the 14% would apply to them as a whole versus the overall rate of admission.
“How do you think a fired employee would take “We fired you because on a holistic basis you are not right for our company?”” Chiming in, even though I’m obviously not PG. People getting fired hear often, “You’re just not a right FIT for the company.” “You don’t seem to FIT IN here.” “It’s not working out.” (How’s that for vagueness?) "“Top management thinks you belong somewhere else.” “Despite your overall good performance, we can see that you’re not ideal for the company.”
I can provide several more. That’ll do for a start. And by the way, some of that language is provided for one or more of at least four reasons:
(1) to avoid legal traps and subsequent battles
(2) to avoid confrontation with the dissatisfied employee on his way out
(3) to soften the blow for the employee, if he or she has one or more personality issues which could be problematic to expose or discuss
(4) to protect other members of the company who may have brought to the attention of management some significant matter (personal or professional) regarding that employee
One of many examples as these relate to admissions: Teacher rec is rather lukewarm relative to Elite college standards, in that it indicates the student works really hard because the student must work really hard in order to do the work. (Is not a “natural” intellectual, but must apply himself methodically to understand the concepts and complete the assignments. Student shows innate or learned virtue but not ease with abstraction, in other words. Teacher may have agreed to write the rec because there are other factors the student has which recommends him or her as a student, just not as 'above the crowd.") The committee is not about to announce that to the student along with the student’s rejection.
I"d edit my post to remove the “s” from “recommends,” but for some reason my CC layout/format is really messed up today. Don’t know if it’s the site or my computer.
“Hunt says " if the matrix shows that kids with a 4.0 and 2400 are admitted 14% of the time, that doesn’t mean that YOU have a 14% chance of admission if you have those stats.”
Then what does it mean? "
It means that last year, XX kids with a 4.0/2400 applied and 14% of them got in. That means nothing for YOU sitting here this year with your 4.0/2400, because so many pieces of the puzzle are missing. Maybe the 14% who got admitted were all doing brilliant, interesting fascinating things in addition to being 4.0/2400, and you’re sitting there like a bump on a log and your biggest extracurricular is going to the fridge to get a snack in between study sessions.
Here’s a hypothetical. Suppose - numbers made up - that 200 kids apply to Fancy U with a 4.0/2400. 14% - so 28 of them - get in.
OK. Your matrix is published and that’s what it shows.
So now it’s the next year. Everyone “saw” that 14% success rate – so now lots of kids are spending time they would have otherwise devoted to extracurriculars, etc. to cramming for the SAT (and ensuring their GPAs are perfect).
A certain number of kids are actually able to “cram out” a 2400 that they might not have without that cramming. So now here comes this year’s applicant pool. Now it’s 400 kids who apply with a 4.0/2400.
Do you think it’s a foregone conclusion that they will accept 14% of this new cohort - so now, 56 kids?
Should they?
What if their 3.9 / 2350 cohort of kids applying were doing far more fascinating and interesting things?
Should they force themselves to admit 14% of the 4.0/2400 pool and only (say) 8% of the 3.9/2350 pool?|
Why or why not?