foobar1 It is difficult to reason with many posters. You address the deficiencies of “holistic” and you get more rhetoric about “Darwinian” survival of the fittest. TopTier must realize that the foundation to win admission into the likes of Duke, Harvard et. al. is not at 17 when a high school student is ready to apply in their junior year, but years before when one is 13 or 14 years old. How else will the seeds to gain entry into our nations elite colleges bear fruit for these kids when application time comes and the ECs and achievements need to be submitted?
As we all know that most 13 and 14 year old’s aren’t planning for their colleges in 8th and 9th grade and neither should they. But guess who does the prep work for these youths? Their parents and based upon who gets into these elite schools, rich parents who have the resources to hire college planners who start managing the application process when these kids are just entering their teen years. At most elite colleges, about half of the entering students do not require any financial aid to pay the $60K/yr cost to attend. Just to put this in perspective, the average US household earns less than $50k/yr.
When poster stated that “holistic” is BS, xiggi stated “No, holistic is no BS. But what is BS is the faulty interpretation of what holistic means.” He states this without any clue to what “holistic means”. We are to believe that holistic is good because it looks at the whole of an applicant and not just GPA and SAT/ACT. It sounds fine and dandy but the trouble is there is no basis to evaluate the efficacy of holistic admission. It is non-transparent and opaque as others have already posted. But the proof is in the data of who gets into these elite institutions. And the data says that if you are an unhooked student, you better have 3.9 GPA and 2250 SAT to have any real chance to get in. If your Asian, your requirements are even higher.
Holistic gives admission officers an easy out against charges of discrimination or bias. It is not the benevolent method that many here wish and/or claim it is. The growth of holistic has resulted in students sending out 20 applications and taking the SAT/ACT many times. Who does this really benefit? It isn’t the students.
When I applied to elite colleges the standards were pretty straightforward. If you had top grades and test scores, you were most likely admitted. In the 80’s, there was no superscoring the SAT/ACT and as a result most students took the test once and if they did really terribly a second test was taken. You would be hard pressed to find anyone who took the test more than twice. Today it is commonplace for students to take the exams more than 3 times.
Holistic admission policy was created to discriminate and now its supporters claim that it is the best way to get top quality students and promote campus diversity as admission rates at these elite institutions plunge into single digits when 30 years ago these same institutions had admit rates in the 20-40 percent range and just 10 years ago the admit rates were 15-25 percent.
I don’t think some here can fathom what the competition is really like. See, when there are up to 20-30-40 thousand apps to an elite and a good half of them are hs top performers- and seats are limited- you do see a (sort of Darwinian) difference between those who actively seek out an understanding of what a particular college is about and what it’s looking for, then match themselves, versus those who assume (or don’t even think to look.) Same thing between the kids who (outside their academics) stretch, take on responsibilities and/or new experiences, versus those who sit back, or those who limit themselves to a couple of sweet things they call passions. And, afaiac, those who insist it’s all bs or a lottery or that a “what we look for” is a sham…are opting out, just hoping lightning will strike.
I don’t care if a kid is introverted or extroverted, this is about the individual and how he thinks, what he pursues (depth and breadth,) its validity, and how he sticks, plus more. Of course, they’re 17 and yes, they need to start early. But the motivated kids who want a highly or most selective do.
I personally don’t really care if he did X because it would look good on an app. In real life, there are many things we do because they look good for our careers or are good for our families. If it really is something that will look good (and not all assumptions are on target,) then go ahead and do it.
Xiggi, this thread is covering a lot of turf. For now, I’ll say that, imo, you can learn a lot about a kid from the Activities page. What he chose, how he committed, how he presents it. How he thinks. it doesn’t all have to be top flight, measured in awards or national recognition. Sometimes the small things are also quite good . Balance can be telling. And interesting.
Again, there is a big fallacy in this demand: the idea that there are some kind of numerical criteria that aren’t being revealed–and that if they were revealed, students would have a better idea if they were likely to be admitted or not. (Again, I’m talking about highly selective schools.) I very much doubt if this is true at all. You think there is a piece of paper that says violin players get 1 point (.5 if they are Asian), while oboe players get 2 points?
The real issue is not that the criteria aren’t transparent–the issue is that they are subjective. They include the judgment of human beings on who will fit in, who will contribute, who benefit the most, who has overcome the most obstacles, and more. It is obviously the case that this kind of subjective review can include all sorts of biases, but it is trying to accomplish something that a stats-based system simply cannot do.
In other words, even if Harvard makes its system entirely transparent, by releasing whatever scoresheets it may use, this will not satisfy the critics, because those scoresheets will allow for lots of subjective judgment.
As an analogy, what are the criteria for being chosen to be Miss America? No matter how “transparent” you make them, somebody is still going to have to judge who is the most “beautiful.”
@foobar (re #99): I am quite sure the competition for admission to the so-called elite National Research Universities and LACs is more intense now than it was decades ago. All the more reason for students, parents, GCs, school systems, and others to begin PLANNING and WORKING toward college admission VERY early.
Why is it so unreasonable for 13, 14, 15, 16, and 17 year olds to learn what standards likely apply for admission to universities they “target” and how to attain them, especially since it is absolutely clear that doing is an essential step in the achievement of a CRITICAL life catalyst: higher education? You have repeated indicated that “kids” can’t be expected to do so, but I simply – and vehemently – don’t agree. Furthermore, I believe it is noteworthy that the stereotypical 13, 14, and 15 year old “dumb jock” (and I really do not believe he is stupid) works VERY hard to prepare for a hoped-for career in the NBA or the NFL. Why should we expect any less of other young/mid-teens, whose dreams require considerable university education (possibly, even at most-selective institutions)?
In the current elite undergraduate (and postgraduate, for that matter) admissions environment, only the naive and/or the truly foolish would fail to prepare EARLY and DILIGENTLY. That returns me to Darwinism (et al); when 30,000+ students (certainly, two-thirds of whom have distinguished records and absolutely deserve admission to elite institution X), vie for 1,700 freshman seats, the competition factually is survival of the fittest (and by the criteria X applies . . . institutions, particularly private schools, have the RIGHT – and the duty – to utilize the metrics they believe are optimal).
Life is difficult, challenging, ruthless, and Darwin’s laws unfailingly apply in such situations. Why would anyone believe otherwise, when:
a. Many kids’ 50+ year adult futures will probably be largely higher educationally influenced;
b. When the competition for undergraduate admission – particularly at the top approximately 50 LACs and National Research Universities – unremittingly increases in intensity every year?
Thank you voiceofreason66!! Oxford, a world top 10 university posts clear minimum entrance
requirements to US applicants without the “holistic” pablum.
US qualifications
Successful candidates would typically have SAT Reasoning Test scores of at least 700 in Critical Reading, Mathematics and the Writing Paper, or ACT with a score of at least 32 out of 36. We would also expect Grade 5 in three or more Advanced Placement tests in appropriate subjects or SAT Subject Tests in three appropriate subjects at 700 or better.
UK universities probably get enough applicant differentiation just from academics, since UK high school is more rigorous, and the UK population is much smaller, so the most selective ones are not overflowing with near maximum academic stat applicants.
This isn’t about Oxford. But if you need that clarity, go ahead and apply there. You will find your stats don’t guarantee a slot. If, otoh, you want a top US college, then have the savvy to proceed wisely. No freaking excuses about not having time or not believing what the colleges say. The movers and shakers aren’t making excuses. They are empowered. No freaking assuming that, if your hs loves you, then that’s that.
If you want to get into a college that wants solid thinkers, kids who are active in the right ways, who know what it’s like to stretch, who don’t fall prey to common assumptions, etc, then be that. Show it in your app, via your record, academically and in activities. And write a relevant essay that allows them too see your readiness for that college. (Not about your cat or first grade or how you like to stare at the ceiling.)
If a Harvard gave out it’s “formula,” all you’d have is more limited thinkers applying because, after all, they seem to meet the minimums. Think.
They don’t need to do this, because those with ears to hear have already heard.
Besides, the people who are complaining about this lack of transparency typically have grades and scores above whatever the minimum would be. So how would it help them?
“Oxford, a world top 10 university posts clear minimum entrance
requirements to US applicants without the “holistic” pablum.”
So apply to Oxford. No one is forcing you to pay obeisance to the US’ elite university system. Plenty of people don’t apply to those schools, and go on to have perfectly fine lives.
There are also plenty of schools in the US that admit solely (or at least mostly) on stats. If this is really a better way of doing things, surely eventually they will outdraw the holistic schools.
“Besides, the people who are complaining about this lack of transparency typically have grades and scores above whatever the minimum would be. So how would it help them?”
BINGO.
The problem is, some people can’t handle uncertainty, and think that other institutions are obligated to remove their own sense of uncertainty. My kids (college seniors) are interviewing for jobs. Sure, there are some criteria (college degree, some evidence of familiarity with x, y and z) but at the end of the day - they will be subjectively evaluated on how well they portrayed themselves with respect to leadership skills, communication skills, ability to work with others on a team, creativity, professional maturity and poise, etc. And this won’t be done via “2 points for student council vice president and 3 points for student council president” types of rubrics. The companies they are interviewing with do not “owe” them a precise chance of their acceptance.
“Besides, the people who are complaining about this lack of transparency typically have grades and scores above whatever the minimum would be. So how would it help them?”
Let’s not kid ourselves. The people who complain about this lack of transparency aren’t going to like what the rubric is, because it’s not predictable, and they want a system where they can know upfront that the oboe gets you 2 points and the violin only 1, so they can dutifully, like little soldiers, pick up an oboe and abandon the violin.
Funny, but in general, people do tend to put down the colleges with the very clearest admissions standards. They don’t want to think they are as qualified as the kid over there who also had the minimum gpa. They want to feel special.
Well, all I can say that there WAS a ton of information available when I was 17. One had to look for it and that is how I ended up … right here. In my first days here, I was told by sharp minds (and tongues) that business degrees were light “sauce” and that there was more culture in a jar of Dannon than in all of Texas. Yep, TheDad, that was you! But the same person also wrote about the strengths of Liberal Arts Colleges or LAC … terms I had not read anything about!
The point is that finding the right information is not directly relevant to one’s age. Grandparents do it. Parents --as countless on CC-- do it regularly and with great success. And so do students when they care enough about their future. And it has only gotten a LOT better in the past decade with an explosion of tools, social media, and 24/7 information overload.
The problem, if there is one, is probably related to separate the real bad advice from the good and decent one. And, unfortunately, with every season, there appears a crop of posters who do shine through posts that convey bitterness and ignorance mixed with an open desire to challenge people who have been here a long time … helping others.
Bravo, @voiceofreason66! You have nailed it. Money is the critical factor. This is why elite colleges can turn their nose up at yet another valedictorian, but will clamor for the low income minority who has managed to do really well despite the odds. And rightly so. Which nicely brings me to @justonedad who believes that the Oxbridge system is perhaps too restrictive. Indeed, the system throughout the UK of admitting based solely on scores is in many ways much more egalitarian.
Benedict Smith-Smythe and Deepak Patel both grew up in London. Ben grew up in Mayfair, Deepak grew up in Hackney. Ben played cello and polo, Deepak played football (soccer) and marbles. But when they sat their A-Level exams, Deepak got A stars (like ++) on all his exams for math, and Jim just got A’s. Jim has trophies for his polo playing and cello playing, and Deepak has diddly squat. But Deepak will win the seat at Oxbridge and Jim will go somewhere like St. Andrews or Durham, still very good colleges. Now does it seem fairer? The point is, if the minimums are not met at Oxbridge, the will NOT want Ben, despite his money and achievements. The only time British schools might care about EC’s is if they are particularly relevant to what the kid is studying. You want to study medicine, so you volunteer in a hospital for years, not just doing meaningless jobs there, but perhaps as a research assistant or something.
Hmm. I wonder what would happen if, say, Harvard changed to a more Oxford-like approach, and admitted people by major based on more limited criteria–and if it made you stay in that major after you matriculated. I think some people might be quite disappointed in the results.
Does this mean that the valedictorian better be rich? That the critical factor is the … lack of money? How does the low income kid benefit (being clamored for) at elite schools if the critical factor is indeed money?
@xiggi, no, I was assuming that people would read my reference to a valedictorian as being a rich kid. Of course that isn’t true all the time, or maybe even most of the time. My point was more that colleges, any of them, will always want an excellent student from an underprivileged background. Whihc might mean that an equally qualified kid from a wealthy family won’t get a spot. Poor example, my bad.
No one can argue that rich kids have better opportunities, and generally better education. So I guess given that factor, maybe the holistic approach works best. There are pros and cons to every system, as I said before.
Thanks! I was just trying to understand the finer point of the post.
Fwiw, when looking at the preferences of selective schools, it might help to dissociate minority status from the SES, albeit it is commonly accepted that they are tied at the hip. The reason for separating both elements is that the selective schools have done a much better (although some might disagree about the “better” part) of accepting and enrolling minorities on a racial basis than they have done on pure SES criteria.