Regardless, people on CC still assume minority or low SES means a kid can accomplish less. But many are looking ahead, highly motivated and taking on the right sorts of responsibilities. Beware the assumptions the fancy hs for the rich kids necessarily turns out more exciting candidates.
“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.”
It’s kind of hard to say “there is no basis to evaluate the efficacy of holistic admission” in the same breath that you are saying “and the kids who get in better have 3.9 and 2250 to have any chance of getting in.” If you wanted to make the case that holistic admission was letting in the “dumb” kids, that was a pretty poor argument.
Pizzagirl As usual you seem to miss the point of my post. The point was that even under holistic admissions, the students that are admitted are essentially top GPA and SAT/ACT kids. But because the institution labels itself “holistic” it creates the impression to lesser qualified UNHOOKED students that they have as good a shot at admissions just like those top students. Thus students who have a lotteries shot at admissions, apply and do so with their $100 application fee.
Holistic is now being used to game the system for more applications to the tune of a 5% admit rate. In addition, holistic is used to discriminate against certain groups without fear of consequence because “holistic” is not transparent and opaque.
How does Washington and Lee admit White applicants at a rate of 33% and Asians at less than 10% when the school is over 85% White and only 3-4% Asian? Answer: W&L has an holistic admission policy.
How does Harvard admit URM with an 1900 SAT and 3.5 GPA but deny a White or Asian student with 4.0 GPA and 2400 SAT? Answer: Harvard has an holistic admission policy.
Does anyone know what the “it” factors were that put the lower stat student over the higher stat kids? Nope, there is no information, just conjecture and speculation of things extra-ordinary about those lower qualified students. Those who like the idea of holistic ASSUME that the reasons for the low stat students admission is because of some outstanding nature of their application such as knock it out of the park Essay, the can’t miss Recommendation, the cured cancer EC.
While those who are skeptical because there is no data, no information are left to wonder what these lower stat kids did to overcome their low stats admission over higher stat kids if anything or the decision was out of pure blatant discrimination/bias at the expense of worthier applicants.
Worse is that these holistic school report these low SAT/ACT scores of HOOKED admits on the CDS without stating that these students on the bottom 25% are Hooked, Special Cases and/or URM, providing further fodder that low stat kids really do have a shot. All to garner more applications than the previous year.
Wonder what happens if the number of applications drop at such elite schools? People start saying negative things about one’s school. Look what happened to UPenn’s Wharton school in the below link.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702304795804579099522033254380
Imagine what people and media would say if Harvard et al. admission rates rose next year?
Solution to avoid this problem? Ans: Keep getting more applications by broadening the “holistic” admission concept to more schools because more students applying to other elite colleges will help competing elite schools because as the admit rates plummet kids will be forced to apply to ever more schools to balance the “odds of getting into at least one of the top schools.”
Example: If every top school has admit rate of 5% then students think that they need to apply to at least 25 schools to get into just one. If the admit rate goes to 3% then students will apply to 35 schools believing that will get them into at least one.
Back when admit rates to these same schools were about 35%, we all applied to about 4-5 schools so that we got into one.
Another way to game the system as a part of the “holistic” admission concept is the trend to go Test Optional,
Or the student can opt out of that rat race and not apply to any of those “lottery” schools.
because the institution labels itself “holistic” it creates the impression to lesser qualified UNHOOKED students that they have as good a shot at admissions just like those top students.
If these kids assume, that’s a mistake from the get-go, by the person applying. Why not put the burden on them to think and analyze? (After all, they “want” to get into some colleges where thinking and judgment matter very much, where a lack of that skill set can knock out even a 2400 with umpteen APs.)
You want hand-holding, from schools that want kids whose hands they don’t have to hold. Doesn’t make the sense you think it does.
I kept this bookmarked because it makes sense, to me and others. An old share by TopTier, http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/parents-forum/1632160-christoph-guttentags-letter-demystifying-admission-process-at-duke-p1.html
“With over 32,000 students vying for just 1,700 spots in the class, even absurdly fine grained distinctions along a numeric metric wouldn’t get the selection job done…We have to look at other factors, and we want to consider all the other ways a student might contribute to the richness of Duke’s community.”
And, “Duke is very transparent about relevant characteristics we seek—things like engagement, impact, creativity, talent, and drive—and where in the application we look to find them.”
Of course, the kids have to understand that creativity, eg, doesn’t mean founding the pie club or “must take an art class,” ha. Kids need to think.
ps. I know for some, it’s hard to swallow, but many of the kids you assume are admit aberrations, based on stats, are, in fact, motivated, having impact, stretching, alert, and more. The complacent kids need to look over their shoulders.
“How does Harvard admit URM with an 1900 SAT and 3.5 GPA but deny a White or Asian student with 4.0 GPA and 2400 SAT? Answer: Harvard has an holistic admission policy.”
Wrong. That’s not what holistic means at all. That’s what Hooked vs. Unhooked standards mean.
(1) In the case you mention, H would be saying that it values the less-usual racial component of the application more than it values the more-usual racial component of other applications. Racial underrepresentation is one of the 4 set-aside preferences, especially in the Early Round.
(2) However, be careful of assuming that all or even most URM’s in 2015 have such stats. Most of those considered have much better stats than that.
(3) There are ACADEMIC and accomplishment aspects of the application that only the committee sees and cannot be quantified or assumed by anyone so arrogant to assume them. (I’m not addressing the poster I quoted, or putting that poster in the category of “arrogant.” ! I’m saying that in 10 years on CC, I’ve seen post after post, mostly from students but too often from adults, claiming that so-and-so Student X from such-and-such school “couldn’t” or “doesn’t” have any particular factor than what that claimant “knows” is true of the student. In each case, it’s a false claim, based on partial knowledge.
(4) When discussing the Unhooked students (everybody else except the 4 special categories), most colleges, including but by no means limited to the Elites, practice holistic admissions regarding the entire academic merit (measured both qualitatively & quantitatively) and personal qualities+interests contributing to the campus as an academic community.
By the way, the University of California practices holistic admissions. It’s called COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW. The applicant is measured on a variety of factors by no means limited to test scores and grades.
I haven’t yet read all the thread. (I will.) But just from skimming Page One and reading the article, my first impressions are,
(1) agree with GMTPlus (I think it was) that criticized the video aspect. However, I don’t think that brings in only racial biases (+ and -); I think that visuals distract and introduce biases and other emotional/subjective factors which compromise the objective factors that DO exist, and thus I am not at all in favor of it.
(2) I am always glad for a variety of admissions methodologies. I think that helps the aspects of opportunity and preference and provides students with alternatives.
(3) I think that some of this may be an appreciation of what homeschooled students (many of whom have opportunities to achieve at high levels, often lopsidedly so) have brought and can bring to college life.
I would not say “most”. You may cite the 9 UCs, but there are 23 CSUs and 112 community colleges whose admission processes are not holistic in any way. The one CSU that considers subjective criteria adds that in a point system, rather than making a holistic evaluation.
" The point was that even under holistic admissions, the students that are admitted are essentially top GPA and SAT/ACT kids. But because the institution labels itself “holistic” it creates the impression to lesser qualified UNHOOKED students that they have as good a shot at admissions just like those top students. Thus students who have a lotteries shot at admissions, apply and do so with their $100 application fee."
That’s their problem. Look - I get you come from a culture where you’re practically forced at gunpoint to apply to HYPSM/the Ivies, but here’s a concept. If you don’t like the admissions practices at elites, don’t apply there. No harm will come to you. There are lots of very good schools out there. Sure, you may not be able to impress the gullible folks back home who gobble up certain brand names, but that’s not Harvard’s problem.
“Imagine what people and media would say if Harvard et al. admission rates rose next year?”
99% of Americans would neither notice or care what Harvard’s admission rate was, is, or will be. And the only media who care are the WSJ and the NYT. Ok, maybe the Boston Globe.
You’re overestimating the importance of these schools because you don’t get our culture, where these schools are excellent but not the be-all-end-all of existence. If you don’t like how Harvard does things, if you think they are admitting all these unqualified URMs/legacies/athletes/glad-handlers over “your” serious student, then why do you want your serious student to go there anyway?
“How does Harvard admit URM with an 1900 SAT and 3.5 GPA but deny a White or Asian student with 4.0 GPA and 2400 SAT? Answer: Harvard has an holistic admission policy.”
Don’t be silly enough to think it’s a 1:1 choice - as if slot #764 was held for an Asian 4.0/2400 but got handed to a black 3.5/1900. Here’s a concept to wrap your head around: Harvard et al admit some Asians with 3.5/1900 “at the expense of” Asians with 4.0/2400. They admit some whites with 3.5/1900 “at the expense of” other whites with 4.0/2400. Just because you can’t think of anything meritorious beyond scores doesn’t mean that Harvard has to be.
GMT I agree. But it is difficult to do for many students and parents. When I suggested that the quality of Honor’s College kids of a public flagship rivaled the students of Ivies and other elite colleges, I was immediately put in my place by fallenchemist.
He wanted everyone to know that Honor college students were good but were no where near the quality of students at Ivies and other elite schools because if these students were that good, they would be in Ivies or other elite schools. Rather circular but that is how fallenchemist wanted to distinguish Ivies and elite schools to Honor Colleges at public flagships.
My point like yours is that top students can eschew applying to Ivies and “elite” schools and go to other alternatives to be with other top students that do not have 5% admit rates. Will these students get the same experience? No, but these students will be with other top students and get a quality education with probably great merit scholarships at these otherwise viewed as lesser tier schools by rating entities and others.
Anyway, I call such hypocrisy because if all these brilliant 4.0/2400s are being rejected by the Ivies et al, they are winding up somewhere. Wouldn’t those become very good schools, too, with all that talent? Or is it just too humiliating to picture your kid slumming it at Tufts or JHU vs Harvard or Stanford? How would you ever tell the relatives?
Pizzagirl said, “The problem is, some people can’t handle uncertainty,”
Sure, but it’s more than that. They want control. It’s not just about whether they (or their children) receive subjectively valued “prizes.” (The latter concern is obviously uppermost.) They also want to make sure that they’re part of an exclusive club that others don’t get to join. Otherwise known as a monopoly. 
And that monopoly was the old system of admissions decades ago, which narrowly favored certain “classes” and locations of students to the exclusion of many fabulous minds elsewhere on the planet and from various family origins.
Yes, ucb. I should have excluded publics and cc’s from the generalization.
“My point like yours is that top students can eschew applying to Ivies and “elite” schools and go to other alternatives to be with other top students that do not have 5% admit rates. Will these students get the same experience? No, but these students will be with other top students and get a quality education with probably great merit scholarships at these otherwise viewed as lesser tier schools by rating entities and others.”
Well, then, what’s the problem? It’s only a problem if one ascribes magical fairy dust to the Ivies and is shortsighted enough not to realize that there are plenty of smart kids and plenty of great opportunities a lot of places.
It’s only “difficult” to eschew the Ivies if one is dependent on the opinions if others for decision-making.
Btw, what do you care if fallenchemist disagrees with you? Aren’t you confident enough in your own opinion?
"GMT I agree. But it is difficult to do for many students and parents. "
I seriously don’t understand this statement, voiceofreason. If you don’t like elite schools’ admissions policies / criteria, and/or the uncertainty of low admissions rates is too risky for your blood, how is it “difficult” not to apply there? Plenty of very smart students never give one minute’s thought to the Ivies.
Pizzagirl I wrote about “Holistic” because that was the topic of this thread. Many people have a view of holistic in a positive way, but holistic admission is rooted and used for discriminatory purposes. I just wanted people to know that holistic might still be used for not so good reasons even today.
Do I think that using a balanced holistic approach for admissions can be a good thing? Of course I do but only if the colleges that use this approach are transparent and open. Most on this thread who support holistic admissions seem to think that there is no general rubric to weighing the different factors but I think the opposite is true. I believe there is a general rubric because the group of admitted unhooked students are pretty homogeneous.
Do I care that fallenchemist disagrees with me? No, that is the right of every person to have their own beliefs.
I, like you, believe that the best fit should carry the day when deciding which schools one should apply to and which schools one should attend. If prestige is what one seeks, then more power to him/her. If value is what one seeks, then great. There are many ways to make a good decision and that there are many schools out side of the lottery schools that are good decisions as a first choice school.
I just dislike the fact that the lottery schools admission rates are so low and falling ever lower. As foobar commented that there should be some level of minimum requirements published by these schools to dissuade those with little to no chance of attending these lottery schools that they really do not have an equal chance at acceptance simply because the school claims that it has an holistic admission policy.
What harm would it do if schools like Stanford and Harvard published the acceptance rates of its students broken down by GPA and/or SAT/ACT scores? If schools did this, then students would get a truer view of their real odds of acceptance. I believe this will make a real difference whether many students decide to apply. For example if the data showed that if you had a 3.5 GPA and 2000 SAT that your odds were 1 in 300 compared to the overall 1 in 20 then you might just pass on applying and look elsewhere, but if no such data exists, then these same kids play the lottery for a 1 in 20 shot just like everyone else. The holistic label helps foster this misconception of the latter.
Whether it’s 1 in 20 or 1 in 300 -it’s a crapshoot either way and you have to prepare for disappointment.
Is your concern truly for the underqualified - or is your goal to take them out of the candidate pool so your kid has a better shot?
There is no way that holistic can be “transparent and open” because, just as students are seeking fit, colleges are seeking fit too.
Turn it around the other way. I visited a dozen or so colleges with my twins. Some of them we had “good feels” about and went to the top of the list. Others were equally as good academically, but just didn’t feel right. How could I articulate the difference? I really can’t. It’s ineffable. There was no rubric of x points for location and y points for how nice the student center is and z points for number of restaurants within walking distance.
If I can say, “I can’t describe it, but I just liked Tufts better than Brandeis,” why can’t a college say, “I liked Johnny better than Susie”?
I pick my friends holistically. When I hire people, I pick them holistically. I picked my house holistically. I don’t see what’s so hard about colleges picking students holistically.