<p>(I think it’s time to get back to first person.)</p>
<p>Ok, sure to lf’s suggestion in #1340. I think (oh, rats! I automatically started typing that. That’s just how I frame my comments, sorry) . . . I think it might be useful to comment on the types of people that different colleges are looking for, in connection with the original topic, “5 Little Known Tips for Getting In.” Students would probably have much better odds of acceptance if they fit one of the general sets of personal characteristics that the admissions staffers are looking for. This no doubt varies from college to college. </p>
<p>I am sure that various sets of personal characteristics are valued at any of the colleges, but I suspect that there are some underlying commonalities. For example, I think that it is very helpful for a Stanford applicant to be entrepreneurial, and extremely important to demonstrate a “growth mind set.”</p>
<p>On many different CC threads, I used to read, “It’s all about fit!” Often this was posted in the context of celebrating an admission to a reach. </p>
<p>My initial reaction was that “It’s all about fit!” was a code for “We don’t want your kind around here.” In the past, when there were set numerical quotas for some groups of people, I think that might have actually been true. </p>
<p>Now, I believe there are some “kinds” who have lower admissions odds than they would in an admissions process that I would consider truly fair. However, my current understanding is that admissions personnel have a vision of a college community that leads to lower odds for some types of people than for others, without actual bias against certain “kinds.” And perhaps in terms of group dynamics, the admissions staffers are even right about the vision. </p>
<p>My second reaction to “It’s all about fit!” was “Shouldn’t the student be the best judge of fit?” If so, then “fit” would not be an admissions criterion–admission would be based on other qualities. The student has 17 or so years of experience with the full range of the student’s qualities. The admissions staff have a packet–say 30 pages–and that’s it. Granted, the admissions staff know the college better (except for that obscure physics prof holed up in his/her office), but the student surely knows something about the college, too. </p>
<p>So to pedal back on the concessions in #1342, while I think that the admissions staffers may be right in terms of their vision of group dynamics, I am not sure that they are right in other regards. I am also very unclear on the point where preferences for certain types of people shade into actual bias against other types.</p>
<p>But the discussion of “fit” that I think would be most helpful to someone looking here for actual tips on admissions to reach schools is: Are there types or characteristics that are favored by some of the reach schools? </p>
<p>In my opinion, there are some. I suspect that this partially explains the mixed outcomes that many students have when they apply to “top” schools. Is anyone willing to post what they thing different schools are looking for? I have already mentioned my thought about what Stanford wants–it could be off-base, but I don’t think it is totally off-base.</p>
<p>Regarding fit and the type of student personality described in #1338: it seems to me the smaller liberal arts colleges which emphasize a nurturing environment and encourage cooperation among classmates are an excellent social fit. The problem is if an accelerated student will outgrown the academics too quickly. </p>
<p>adding: that doesn’t mean they are “too smart for school” just possibly quickly ready for graduate level work, which won’t be available on site. If they want challenging academics as well as a good social fit - problem. imho</p>
<p>Ah, but Stanford doesn’t say ‘entrepreneurial,’ as in start a business or a blog. It is (or was) embedded in a different context. Many kids get as far as that one word and misread. Or more likely, hear it on some thread and assume.</p>
<p>Now, don’t go back to the touchy feely of “not our kind.” Truth is, in my experience, every app is opened with hope the kid will and her app will be great. You have to go back decades to find real evidence of quotas. I don’t see why it’s so hard (maybe it’s CC’s fault for reinforcing the wrong details,) to understand that they want academically qualified kids who bring a variety if interests, energies and visions. That they lean against kids who already know it all, declare so, and miss the point of that U.</p>
<p>I’ve said to QM before, for anyone who wasn’t there, that reading what the schools do say about themselves, seeing the sorts of kids they tout, is a huge tip to what they like. I still see kids on CC, who don’t do this, who go by the superficial rep- or what they think the rep is. What do you do with these kids? One argued with me anout H’s “What We Look For:” “What does it mean, what does it mean, I don’t believe them.” Think that kid is H material?</p>
<p>adding onto #1346</p>
<p>I’m wrong. Although I don’t care for a competitive environment, most of the top universities are large enough that those who feel like I do can find a congenial group. With any luck, some of that group will be in the major classes. One of my kids pointed out to me, repeatedly, that on large campuses you can find whatever type friends you desire. probably true. : )</p>
<p>QMC, you are slicing the bologna way too thin.</p>
<p>The adcom’s do not pretend to be Jungian psychiatrists, trying to plumb the depths of a kid’s psyche all the while trying to make sure there is a balanced class of Freshman, some of whom will play on the volleyball team, some of whom will become champion debaters, and some of whom will want to be (and are qualified to be) Concertmaster of the college symphony.</p>
<p>If a kid’s application is so complex-- and does not present the kid’s strengths in a straightforward manner, you cannot expect the Adcom’s to figure it out.</p>
<p>So no- the student is not the best judge of fit. The student is the best judge of who they are and what they are good at. And if that student applies to a broad range of colleges- which have demonstrated that in the past they accept kids just like that- this student will have some choices come April.</p>
<p>The bias (your term, not mine) is just the reality of space and the physical plant. A college which is accepting 10% of its applicants has the luxury of rejecting 90% of them. That’s not bias against the 90%, that’s arithmetic.</p>
<p>Those 30 pages need to highlight “here I am” with clarity. This is not selecting a spouse, where you get weeks and months to figure someone out. This is a competitive process where you have to be declarative up front.</p>
<p>I don’t know why someone who is as smart as you is having trouble with this concept, and why you perpetually default to words like “actual bias”. This is reality- all colleges have a bias against someone who cannot do the work/cannot be successful academically. Which is why kids with 500 verbal SAT’s don’t often get into Princeton. All colleges have a bias against students whose HS records indicate (or suggest) the kid is fundamentally uninterested in academics and getting an education (which is why even low ranked directional State U’s do not have 100% admissions rates). </p>
<p>After that, the selection process is more nuanced (but not “biased against”, rather, some people’s applications make a more compelling case for admissions than others). To take your favorite- MIT- I have a colleague who is incensed that her D was rejected a few years back. (My son had already graduated but somehow she felt in competition with my kid, god knows why). Her D was extremely interested in all the geeky things my S was not (robotics, computer games, LOTS of programming). She is still aggravated that a tech school like MIT would amit a kid like mine who had zero EC’s to indicate any interest in computing, etc. Plus- a girl. Surely MIT accepts 100% of the girls who apply, right?</p>
<p>Missing the fact entirely (and I ignored her since it’s none of her business) that what my S lacked in computers (still zero interest) he made up for in his mathematical chops. Just math, all math, pure math (plus intense interest in a bunch of humanities subjects, and teachers who wrote recommendations saying things like “I am shocked that Blossom’s spawn is applying to MIT given that he is the strongest literature student I have had in x years”.)</p>
<p>So does that mean that the secret sauce to MIT is to be a strong Literature student? Of course not. Does it mean that in order to get into MIT you must ignore computers and must avoid all clubs and activities involving programming? of course not.</p>
<p>But it does mean that the “competition” among students who demonstrate a strong interest in CS allows MIT to pick the strongest among them (not this girl, who by the way, was in the 25 percentile in all of her standardized tests, including math and science). And it means that a kid who is very, very strong in something like math who has a demonstrable intellectual interest in something that is not CS, robotics, programming, etc. is going to be viewed with a somewhat different set of eyes.</p>
<p>Not a bias. Not a preference. Just a different set of assumptions.</p>
<p>The very best college applications are simple and coherent statements of what makes a kid tick. The very best admissions strategy is to pick a wide range of colleges (with similar characteristics, but varying levels of selectivity), all of which you can afford without becoming homeless.</p>
<p>And then figure it out when the cards are on the table. Don’t try to be obtuse. Don’t try to make Sarah Lawrence figure out that you love creative writing without ever showing that in your EC’s/interests. Don’t try to make American figure out that you are passionate about government and have been volunteering at your local town hall since you were 10, or that you’ve worked on three political campaigns already. Don’t pack your application with a random bunch of stuff and hope that the Adcom’s have XRay vision and can piece together the cohesive narrative from all the $%^& you’ve stuffed in there.</p>
<p>That’s how to get the job done. This isn’t bias, this is arithmetic.</p>
<p>Read Blossom again and again, instead of going off on tangents.
The info gets put in front of others time and time again- instead of seeing the wall, too many see one little piece of moss growing on it. And then want to extrapolate what the wall must look like, because there’s that little piece of green. And get oh-so-confused by questions built upon questions. This stuff is high stakes and all the proverbial head scratching in the world won’t get you into H, if you can’t think like H, in the first place. </p>
<p>To “simple and coherent,” I’d add “relevant.” Specifically relevant to a college admit review. </p>
<p>blossom, I think you are over-generalizing my uncertainty about bias.</p>
<p>In my opinion, the % of admitted students with autism of the high-functioning variety should not be artificially kept below the % of students in the same group (added: and in the applicant pool, of course!) who are academically qualified to attend the university. If these percentages differ, as I suspect they do, I am not entirely sure what that means. Virtually everything I have read suggests that there are “preferences” that operate against students who have autism of the high-functioning variety. I am genuinely unsure where that shifts over into “bias against.”</p>
<p>I am even more unsure whether there is any bias with respect to the admission of Asian-American students at “top” schools. I am not trying to stir up a tempest here, just elaborating on my earlier thoughts. I think that the issues of variety in class composition and (in my opinion) relatively low bars to be considered “academically qualified” may tend to disfavor very well-qualified Asian-Americans. I am not Asian-American, nor is anyone in my extended family, so my interest in fairness is impersonal, here. I am pretty sure that there are “preferences” that tend to operate against the (n + 1)st Asian-American USAMO competitor who plays the piano extremely well and has reached all-state level in tennis. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Maybe because the stuff you are arguing against has little resemblance to what qmech actually said. </p>
<p>Autism?? Is that what this is about or the piece of moss on the wall? They are not artificially kept low-- see how you try to make oh so simple questions and statements out of your own personal assumptions? Or, dare I say, misinfo? How do we answer? You “sound” authoritative, but it’s based on what? What the heck is "Virtually everything I have read suggests that there are “preferences,” laid in the context of autism or Asian Am kids? (You are trying to stir up tempests, just claiming not to or not to understand [fill in the blank] issue that is off to begin with. That’s why this goes on and on, in circles.) </p>
<p>Same for Asian Americans. You read something, lots of hs kids hear something- and my very first dictate was do not discriminate based on facts [such as Asian American, disabled, SES, certain other advantages or disadvantages, etc.] But no, you have some better resource? Maybe some old Duke study or a poster who claimed to have heard something? Oh come on! You don’t “need” to be confused.</p>
<p>“My second reaction to “It’s all about fit!” was “Shouldn’t the student be the best judge of fit?” If so, then “fit” would not be an admissions criterion–admission would be based on other qualities. The student has 17 or so years of experience with the full range of the student’s qualities. The admissions staff have a packet–say 30 pages–and that’s it. Granted, the admissions staff know the college better (except for that obscure physics prof holed up in his/her office), but the student surely knows something about the college, too.”</p>
<p>The student utilizes his best perception of fit by determining the colleges to which he wants to apply - does he like large or small, urban or rural, competitive or collegial, big-sports vs no-sports, Greek life vs not, blah de blah blah blah. </p>
<p>But if you seriously think the student should be the best judge of fit in terms of who gets admitted - well, Harvard has 30,000 applicants, all of whom are perfectly convinced that they are absolutely terrific fits for Harvard. How does that help them decide? Acceptances are not rewards for “who loves me most.” There are plenty of kids that love Harvard to pieces, and who would be perfectly academically qualified to attend, that Harvard simply doesn’t have an interest in it. (Insert any elite school for Harvard. I’m being conceptual here.)</p>
<p>Your argument is rather like me telling George Clooney I’m the perfect girlfriend for him. Well, I may think I am, but he gets to decide that, not me :-)</p>
<p>“Now, I believe there are some “kinds” who have lower admissions odds than they would in an admissions process that I would consider truly fair. However, my current understanding is that admissions personnel have a vision of a college community that leads to lower odds for some types of people than for others, without actual bias against certain “kinds.” And perhaps in terms of group dynamics, the admissions staffers are even right about the vision.”</p>
<p>Yes. For example, those “kinds” include students who won’t or can’t demonstrate that they can be part of a vibrant college community, that all they do is sit and study and that if admitted, all they will continue to do is sit and study, and do nothing beyond that other than eat and sleep. Yes, that “kind” is absolutely “discriminated against” in college admissions. Maybe less so at MIT and Caltech versus the Ivies et al, but yes, that’s a real bias. I don’t think it’s unfair at all, because here’s a concept – the college, not you, gets to decide what their vision of their campus should be. If they want a campus full of rah-rah leaders, or sporty athletic types, or creative types, or entrepreneurial types, or a healthy mix of all of the above, they get to decide that for themselves. </p>
<p>“Granted, the admissions staff know the college better (except for that obscure physics prof holed up in his/her office), but the student surely knows something about the college, too.”</p>
<p>How many of the 30,000 applicants to Harvard REALLY know anything about Harvard other than “OMG, the name is so prestigious, everyone will recognize it and think well of me, and I bet I could make a zillion dollars coming from there”? </p>
<p>“In my opinion, there are some. I suspect that this partially explains the mixed outcomes that many students have when they apply to “top” schools. Is anyone willing to post what they thing different schools are looking for? I have already mentioned my thought about what Stanford wants–it could be off-base, but I don’t think it is totally off-base.”</p>
<p>It’s seems like excruciatingly obvious common sense that when one is applying to top schools with (say) sub-20% acceptance rates, one is not going to get into all of them and may not get into any of them. That doesn’t make the outcomes “mixed.” It just means that <em>your</em> favorite valedictorian / 2400 / student leader / whatever was competing against a whole bunch of people who looked like him, and there are so many beds. </p>
<p>Please stop seeing rejection as a sign that the person “did something wrong.” There just isn’t enough room.</p>
<p>Your complaint that there are “mixed outcomes” sounds rather like saying - I went and tried all 50 state lotteries, and I didn’t win any of them. It’s just math. </p>
<p>Frankly, the rare kids who can really determine their “fit” are a pleasure. Most kids on CC think they are a fit for superficial reasons. “You have study abroad.” Duh. “You’re the best.” Huh? Even Harvard isn’t the best in everything. They’re 17. Have they truly been getting to know themselves better than anyone else for 17 years? For some, some of the best of them, it’s been the past 18 months. </p>
<p>And if they cannot seek what the college likes, can’t fathom what it means to make a self “match,” who cares how well they know themselves? “I love to lay in bed.” Super. </p>
<p>Well said blossom!</p>