<p>No, I’m not kidding. Do you really think that blossom’s post #1441 is not about admissions and “fit,” lookingforward? It seems to me that blossom’s post #1554 is clearly about admissions, and the point of #1554 was to explain and elaborate on the comments in #1441 about data that universities collect, as far as I can tell.</p>
<p>I think that blossom’s posts provide some insights into admissions that haven’t shown up in other threads that I have read on CC.</p>
<p>I am interested in whether people on this forum think that luck plays any role in admissions.</p>
<p>In my opinion, luck plays a huge role in life. Most of the posters on CC enjoy a great deal of good luck, because they have been born in the U.S., or live here now. College admissions outcomes are minor in comparison. </p>
<p>But if you take two similarly situated students at the point of college application, do you think that luck plays any role in the admissions outcomes?</p>
<p>Different views about luck help to account for different views about college admissions, overall. There is, of course, the famous quotation from Obi-Wan Kenobi, “In my experience, there’s no such thing as luck.” (Okay, “famous” only to nerds.) On the other hand, leaving the realm of nerd-fiction, Napoleon apparently really believed in the role of luck. </p>
<p>QM, as you know, I’m a literature person, and even I think you are nitpicking over language.</p>
<p>How’s this: if you prefer, we’re talking about two things: fit, and institutional priorities. Fit is “how well will you mesh with campus culture,” Institutional priorities are “which of our needs do you fill.”</p>
<p>As I said before, I don’t think fit plays that much of a role in admissions decisions, unless there’s such an obvious mismatch that you have to wonder why the student would even want to attend your school in the first place. Institutional priorities guide the approximate number of spots allocated for members of each desired group. To the extent that this is a zero sum game, obviously that affects every individual applicant. To the extent that you think some of these priorities are misplaced, you’re going to perceive the process as less fair, but it isn’t terribly mysterious, so I’m at a loss to understand the source of your confusion.</p>
<p>And honestly, did you ever doubt that there was a degree of randomness in admissions decisions? Of course there is. There is a degree of randomness to nearly everything in life, let alone something based on necessarily somewhat subjective evaluations of a student’s potential in various areas. I fail to see why this is a problem, or at least a problem unique to college admissions. </p>
<p>A big part of the problem here, I think, is that you’re obsessed with the idea that there are loads of kids out there who are “entitled” to get into certain schools, and that it is a tragedy if they don’t. I, on the other hand, think that there is only a very small number of kids who really “deserve” admission more than any number of other students, that those students usually do get admitted, and that they aren’t suffering some incalculable loss if they wind up at their second or third choice. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I get the feeling that there is robot operating on low level AI in some professor’s office picking up key words and spitting out garbled non-sense to make it sound like intelligent conversation, pretending to be QM’s alter ego.</p>
<p>We are definitely being played.</p>
<p>“Actually, I have never said that admissions decisions are random–clearly they are not. I do believe that there is a “random element,” in them, though.”</p>
<p>I do hope this is not a new revelation. Yes, OF COURSE. Because it’s life, and humans making human decisions.</p>
<p>It was a random event that I got placed in dorm X my freshman year and consequently met my future H who was an RA. It’s a random event that I wound up with Interviewer A when I interviewed for my first job, and we immediately hit it off, rather than Interviewer B for the same company, who leaves me cold. You are so smart, QM, but the obvious seems to escape you, which is why I asked the question I did earlier. </p>
<p>The essay on the dollhouse might charm Adcom A but leave Adcom B cold. Adcom C has a soft spot for Eagle Scouts and Adcom D doesn’t. This doesn’t mean that the process is random; it means there are random things within it. </p>
<p>In other news, one plus one equals two. </p>
<p>QM- one last time.</p>
<p>Fit- how does data inform decisions around fit. College A has a reputation for being a strong music school. College B also has that reputation. Student X applies to both; same application, similar level of selectivity at A and B. Student is admitted to B but not A.</p>
<p>Is it luck? Maybe. Does it have something to do with the fact that the student is a strong musician, not conservatory quality, not interested in being a music performance major? And that College A has an affiliated conservatory program, and a music performance major, and most of the “non academic” music opportunities (Chamber music ensemble, symphony, jazz/jam bands) are populated by its music majors. Whereas at College B, it does not have a music performance major, no conservatory, and therefore, a student’s prowess and skill in music is highly advantageous- College B knows who populates its “non academic” musical groups (including who volunteers to play in the pit for the Gilbert and Sullivan Society, the annual faculty satire musicale, etc.). Both colleges have a fine reputation as being great places for a musical kid to go… but a musical kid who wants to go to Med school will be a better “fit” at B vs. A, despite both places looking like robust music schools from the outside looking in.</p>
<p>And data? College B has years worth of data which shows that their music students (either music majors-- not music performance since they don’t have that discipline, or just the “volunteers”) get into Med school at a higher rate than their history majors, or their bio majors, or whatnot.</p>
<p>So it’s not a linear relationship that “oooh look at Suzy, she plays viola and took AP bio, she will likely get a higher MCAT score than Johnny who plays lacrosse and also took AP bio” and therefore, Suzy is in but Johnny is out. But in the aggregate- from a fit perspective- colleges know what they are good at (taking quality but not conservatory level musicians, giving them plenty of access to terrific opportunities to play, practice, and then go on to do something else professionally) and what they are NOT good at (giving the weekend musician opportunities to perform with the award winning symphony if those slots are reserved for their conservatory students).</p>
<p>So paradoxically, a student who is a good but not world class musician may (not will, but may) find that music is a stronger component of what they bring to the table at a college without the world class reputation for music.</p>
<p>Got it?</p>
<p>And this is not hunches, whim, random.</p>
<p>Luck? Of course there is luck, in the same way that you and I can board the same airplane and you will sit next to someone with the flu and discover two days later that you’re ill, and I can get off the plane healthy as a horse. So that’s luck- where you sit. But that does not mean that in the world of epidemiology we both don’t understand how people get the flu. It’s not “luck” which determines the transmission of disease, even though one can be unlucky and end up with the flu. Right??? We agree on this, at least, correct?</p>
<p>I am unlikely to contract Ebola. I am very lucky in that regard. My chances of not contracting Ebola would go down substantially if I lived in a country with an active Ebola pandemic. But that’s not the same as saying that Ebola transmission depends on luck. It depends on exposure to Ebola, one’s immune system, etc.</p>
<p>Got it?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Seriously, QM, you KNOW the answer to this. Not just from this interminable discussion, but from every other one you have been part of. </p>
<p>Your “poor sad genius” who applied to MIT was lucky in the sense that he was born to a family that enabled him to study at a high level and even be able to put forth a credible MIT app, versus having to babysit younger siblings in a rough neighborhood or get up at 4 am to milk the cows. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Who’s to say that hypothetical genius didn’t didn’t babysit younger siblings in a rough neighborhood, get up at 4 am to milk the cows, or in an urban setting…worked long hours waiting tables or doing other service/retail jobs to provide financial support while also managing to study at such a high level. </p>
<p>While rare overall, so many folks who were such geniuses who did the first and last were classmates at my public magnet that it wasn’t considered very unusual at my public magnet and several others I knew of. </p>
<p>Oh good lord, <strong>generally speaking.</strong> Can’t anyone read conceptually anymore. </p>
<p>And enough about your public magnet already, cobrat. You are in your mid thirties - it’s time to recognize that no one cares about your high school. There are 29,999 others in the country. Yawn. </p>
<p>" There is not much that an applicant can do about the track record of the people who resemble her/him . . . although, if the applicant thinks very far out of the box, it might be influenceable–e.g. an applicant could encourage older grads who are like her/him to be sure to contribute to the university, early on."</p>
<p>This is why I’m convinced you don’t get it, QM. A university is not going to say, wow, redheads from Tulsa who play the tuba and major in biology seem to donate at high rates. Oh, looky, here’s another redhead from Tulsa - why, she plays the tuba and is interested in biology. Let’s snap her up. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Just pointing that out as many folks in the US with anti-nerd/intellectual attitudes love to use generalizations like yours to stereotype hypothetical geniuses like QMCs as “folks who live in the lab/study all the time” while students who do all the things you cite are “better” for being genuine “salt of the earth” “real 'murikans”. </p>
<p>Just… no, cobrat. Try again. I don’t think Pizzagirl is the one stereotyping here.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well…she is using the very same points many folks in the US with an anti-nerd/intellectual bent have commonly used in mass media, pop culture, and real life to favorably compare themselves/their kids against those who are QMC’s geniuses or those who are very nerdy/intellectual. </p>
<p>Even Alexis de Tocqueville made some reference to this phenomenon in his “Democracy In America” when he discusses the American strong preference for practical/applied sciences which could be applied towards commercial ends rather than theoretical sciences which tended to be disdained per his account. </p>
<p>Ironic considering theoretical sciences/knowledge are the foundation upon which applied sciences/knowledge are ultimately based on. </p>
<p>This thread is not going in a good direction, so I am closing it. Please try harder to be civil!</p>