3 Holistic College Admissions Trends to Watch

Applying to College
21

@Lindagaf, yes, elite universities expressly DO want quiet kids who listen. She just needs to show her impact on her community in a quantifiable, objective way. If she is coding as a hobby and is very prolific or very detailed/deep, a portfolio of her hobby projects (especially one that has been judged by an outside authority, e.g. city-wide hack-a-thon, so that the AdComs don’t have to sift through it, but can trust an award or other outcome), and a list of books she has read and the impact they have on her thinking are explicitly acceptable (thinking “maker portfolio” for MIT and “List of books you have read” for Harvard). I do not think universities want ‘leaders’ per se; the elite, more ‘liberal’ ones want independent thinkers and people who make a difference and an impact on their community- the larger that community (and the better-verified the impact), the better.

If she is quiet, stays to herself, and does not impact the world around her, then she may not be as attractive to admissions officers.

I just don’t get how these new approaches will better tease out these traits than current methods.

22

@ItsJustSchool‌, truthfully, my daughter’s real interests have had no impact on her community. However, her NHS projects and volunteer service have. I am being honest, I have to force her to do those things, and I bet MANY other parents do the same. It is great that there are genuinely kids out there who love doing all the community stuff and impacting the world, but I am going to bet that elite colleges have many more studetns who do it because they know they have to. That being said, I don’t feel guilty one iota about forcing her. If she had her way, she would only ever do what she wanted to do and never give of her time.
To get back on topic, in general I agree that a holistic approach is better than the numbers games of other countries. My husband is foreign, he wants our D to consider college overseas. No way she will do it though, becasue you are immediately forced to major in something you might hate a year on. And if you don’t have the right US qualifications, you can’t get into the better uni’s anyway. No system is perfect.

23

@shawnspencer, I certainly see the benefits of using holistics admissions, but I see the drawbacks as well.

Likewise, I can see both the benefits and drawbacks of using purely objective criteria for admissions.

@Lindagaf, I agree. Like any system, a holistic admissions system fits some types better than others, and like any system, it may pervert behavior.
It does help that the US has a wide variety of different types of colleges (and pathways through admissions) and even more ways to success in life, however.

24

Bard’s essay application is an option for applicants; it also has a traditional application route with The Common Application, high school record, and recommendations. The traditional route offers options of RD, EA, and ED, while the essay application is effectively EA. Since the essay application opens in June and is due November 1, with decisions in December (along with EA and ED traditional applications), it presumably helps spread the workload of admissions reading over a longer period of time.

http://www.bard.edu/admission/applying/options/

25

I think it’s you who doesn’t understand, as the author provides the correct definition and yours has nothing to do with the holistic principle.

Furthermore, assuming ‘holistic admissions’ means ‘leadership in ECs’ is also wrong. Many elite universities prize qualities developed in solitude and individual achievements. The point of holistic admissions at, say, Columbia or WUSTL is to accept a class of people with diverse yet complementary talents. This usually means there’s a spot for the voracious reader who wrote the best essays, but never played a sport or presided over a club, and for the arty geek who drew a comprehensive map of Coruscant that was featured on the official Star Wars website.

Sure, most spots are reserved for people who can play well with others and fit the conventional mould of a suburban overachiever (even if they don’t fall into the appropriate income bracket), but elite universities do accept unconventional students with original hobbies that have nothing to do with school–they just need to be really good at those things.

26

I think what bomerr is trying to say is that for any given attribute, the standards vary according to who the person is. E.g., an admissions officer will regard playing the violin to be remarkable for a NatAmerican applicant but be dismissive of it for an asian applicant.

27

The war on introverts continues: now extended to education.

Sorry quiet smart kids, or lower-class kids who don’t have cool life experiences to write about. Expect your spots to be sold to those who sound like they’re more fun to hang out with, or those whose app was more entertaining to read.

28

There’ nothing preventing “lower-class kids” from writing something “more entertaining to read”. Tragic stories sell well in the entertainment business and in the college app business.

29

@BassGuitar‌ , I do feel like that for my daughter. You are right, despite what itsjustschool said above. I have spent countless hours researching this, and though my D has the stats, she will have a difficult time getting in to the more elite schools because she doesn’t do a cappella, or theater, or have a medical internship. She is hoping that her great writing skills will be her entry ticket. Thank goodness, the girl can write, or she would really have no chance. And I will have to keep forcing her to do stuff she doesn’t really want to do, so that she looks “holistic” on her app. At least she understands why, and as a result, actually has put more effort into it as time goes on.

30

@Lindagaf: I’m of mixed minds on that. If another university system doesn’t give a poop about EC’s, should you push her to do them? Do the Scottish universities care? My understanding is that the English universities really don’t (they want scholars in a field).

And @JustOneDad‌, the cynical view is that test-opt-out allows colleges to accept kids with poor test scores without impacting their 75/25 percentile test scores, which affect rankings (just ignoring test scores does not do that).

31

I totally agree with @SouthernHope‌ based on our experiences so far this year, and I do not consider us cynical. “Holistic” review kicks in after the numbers are met and the applicant pool is whittled down. There is absolutely no possibility that a low-performing kid with amazing essays gets a green light over a kid with with a mid-50% range GPA and test scores unless that academically low-performing kid is also an athlete or “special” in ways that are important to the college. “Holistic” review can definitely cause a kid with “respectable” credentials to edge out a superstar, but not at the first cut.

32

@PurpleTitan‌, referring to my other thread, her interest in the Scottish system is not high. She is far more interested in colleges such as Tufts and Vassar. She assumes she is applying to schools here, so yes, I have to push her to do things that she can cite as ECs. Believe me, her British dad thinks the US system is silly.

I know for fact that tons of parents push their kids to do things, even the kids that get into HYP and the like. It’s a game, and you have to play along, or you definitly lose. One friend forces her two daughters to play tennis. Why? It was the only team that was so bad they could definitely get on it, and my friend thinks it will help them because colleges love women who play sports. Another friend forces her daughter to play field hockey for the same reason. All these girls have decent grades, but not stellar. Yet the sports will give them a slight edge over a kid with similar stats who perhaps doesn’t play sports.

Do we have to buy into this game? Of course not, and then our kids end up at the lesser colleges that have lesser students. Sad,but true. I stand by my original statement of the well rounded student being the American ideal. What college doesn’t want a bright kid with great EC’s? None. Look at that kid in Long Island who got accepted into all 8 Ivies. No doubt he is intelligent. But I remember reading the article at the time, and thinking, there is no way he can possibly do all that, and do it well, without something suffering. Interestingly, his grades and tests, I seem to recall, were good, but not stellar. I reckon that kid sacrificed sleep to do everything he did. He list of achievements wasn’t believable, yet he did it all. I admire him, but for kids like my daughter, he makes life a little harder. Her stats are very good, her ECs are mediocre, but the none she would have, if I didn’t make her do stuff, would definitely ruin her chances.

33

Just want to point out that just because it’s cynical doesn’t mean it isn’t true.

34

I don’t think this is a new trend, either. I think candidates were viewed holistically even back when I applied in the Dark Ages. The test optional trend is new, but not holistic review. And as has been noted, it is a mixed bag. I don’t want colleges, at least not ALL colleges, to pick students based on test scores, but I do want to have an idea of what criteria they use. I don’t want it to be so mushy it can’t be analyzed, and I certainly don’t want it to be used to keep out racial and religious groups.

35

@JustOneDad, yep, indeed. I believe that that is a major impetus.

@Lizardly: it may make sense for a school to employ both methods:
Fill a certain percentage (say half) purely by quantifiable academic numbers. Then use holistic factors to round out the class. That way, people would not feel compelled to do non-academic stuff they don’t actually like in order to play the game if they are “good enough” academically.

36

It would not be surprising if some schools did that already. Some schools have automatic admission criteria based on stats to fill a portion of their classes. Some of them could be using a holistic review including subjective evaluation of non-academic stuff on the remaining applicants.

37

@ucbalumnus: Yes, some schools do this already. Even Harvard has some slots based solely on academics (though evidently they fill only about 10% of their class that way).

38

@PurpleTitan‌ (re #34): I’m not entirely sure I entirely agree. One can feel that an undergraduate’s ONLY requirement is to study/learn. However, I believe that college students are additionally – and crucially – peer teachers. They learn from – but they also teach – classmates (and, occasionally, faculty/staff) in both the academic/intellectual and the “maturing into full/adult life” rheims. We all have innumerable experiences with this, ranging from “how does sum of the years’ digits depreciation work?” (academic), to “should Congressional term-limits be mandatory?” (intellectual/bull session), and even to “I’ve never rented a car, what do I do when I arrive at the airport?” (real-world).

Let’s presume that we have an absolutely brilliant young academic, but one who is SO introverted and socially awkward that s/he can never deal successfully with – no less teach (as outlined above) – classmates. Is this sufficient reason for admissions denial, due to a pervasive inability to fulfill the “teaching” element of the undergraduate’s implied obligation? Cleary, it is – and it should be – at some outstanding institutions, such as the Federal military academies, because commissioned officers MUST be able to communicate and to deal effectively with all sorts of individuals (I acknowledge, however, that the academies are atypical).

Similarly, the most charming, charismatic, personable, and vivacious young leader will necessarily be denied, if s/he simply is unable to meet required undergraduate academic/intellectual demands – regardless of “peer teaching/leadership” potential.

This returns me to my disagreement with your “50/50 percent” approach, which would REQUIRE the 2400 SAT I, 4.0 u/w GPA, uber intellectual – but horribly shy and reticent – candidate to be admitted. Doesn’t s/he have minimum responsibilities for classmates’ education (in the broadest sense), for participation in university-life (beyond silence in the library and the lecture hall), and for interface with faculty?

For these reasons, I strongly advocate a MANDATORY MIX – where every applicant must demonstrate minimum levels of BOTH general aptitudes. Many, of course, will have a true forte in only one arena, but ALL must be acceptable in both realms.

39

Great idea TopTier but based on the published statistics from Brown, Amherst and other top tier schools they reject a a significant percentage of the 2400 SAT 1, 4.0 uber intellectuals every year…

40

@GMTplus7‌

Trust me, there is nothing entertaining about being poor. If only you could walk a week in a low income kids shoes. Your post is so upsetting. :frowning: