<p>GFG, they are office workers who read thousands of essays in a period of a few weeks, and who pore over applications all day. Not like the English teacher at school who reads 60 admissions essays per year- these are people reading 60 essays between breakfast and coffee break.</p>
<p>Your kids may know who is the real deal. I get that. But someone can be the real deal and come off like a total turd in an application. I don’t think anyone in admissions pretends that they can peer into the heart and soul of a HS kid. All they know is what they read. And if what they read is full of big words and cliches and “we lost the big game but I gained new respect for my team-mates” type of essays, you can forgive them for option for a kid with some verve and originality over the kid whose essay was clearly “adapted” from a book of “how to get into Princeton” essays.</p>
<p>The problem is that race tends to cited in complaints about unfair admission in discussions like these far more often than factors with arguably just as much as/less merit…such as admitting folks who tend to have many privileges from SES to social capital like the legacies or children of politicians/celebrities. </p>
<p>Elite schools have thousands of qualified candidates. From that pool, they choose the mix of people that they want in their community. Sometimes football prowess will be the factor that gives a student the edge. Other times, it might be the fact that the kid started a nonprofit that saved kittens from pitbulls (or pitbulls from kittens, for that matter). Other times it might be a kid’s mother is willing to give the institution a couple of million dollars (that can be spent on FA for less affluent prospects, BTW). And, sometimes, ethnicity might be considered. </p>
<p>Bottom line, I’m not seeing a bunch of ne’er-do-wells getting in these schools. I see intelligent, well-spoken, likable students who will be able to thrive in the environment being admitted…and sometimes there are “irrelevant” hooks that made them more appealing to the administration than the kid who is equally intelligent, well-spoken, and likable but lacks the “hook.” Oh well, Vandy’s gain, and, to be honest, winners all around. I don’t see a problem there. </p>
<p>Sure, of course, but to swear that every turd who got in must have had a fantastic and original essay and that’s why he was admitted over a higher-stats candidate, when there’s another obvious reason it likely happened, is also silly.</p>
<p>“Thinking admissions officers are so much smarter and more logical than the general public is also laughable.”</p>
<p>But I didn’t say that, TheGFG. No one did. </p>
<p>The argument being made is not that adcoms are brighter / smarter than the general public. The argument being made is that adcoms are making their decisions as employees, fitting into whatever the strategic goals and vision of the university are. If their employer is happy, then they’re making just the right decisions they need to be making. There is no reason to assume their employers aren’t happy with the choices the adcoms make. If the employers were unhappy, they’d provide a different direction. If they felt they were getting “too many undeserving URMs” or whatever - then they’d direct the adcom to use different criteria.</p>
<p>Look, the HR manager for a large company is evaluated by his or her employer, not by the friends / family / neighbors of the applicants for their jobs and how “fair” they felt the decisions were. </p>
<p>“Kids absolutely know which of their peers are the real deal academically. It doesn’t take nosiness since the learning is today’s classrooms is very interactive and collaborative.”</p>
<p>So what? There are more than enough “real deal academic” kids than can fit in any of these elite schools. It’s as simple as that. </p>
<p>It is beyond frustrating on CC that people don’t understand what a 10%, 15% acceptance rate means, and it’s even more arrogant when it comes from parents / kids where several kids every year routinely get into Ivies and similar schools, because it says that they really have zero clue that there really are only a relative handful of high schools in the country that can even say that, and that they’re already on third base.</p>
<p>Cobrat: Yes. I specifically made that point in my last post. I also listed race, athletics, and legacy in the post you cited. I’m not sure what in my post you could possibly be responding to. </p>
<p>Here’s the funny thing about hooks: When a kid gets into a selective school due to a hook, whether it’s athletics, legacy, development or skin color, life isn’t fair and the “more deserving” kid is upset. But how many kids start threads on CC asking: Is this a hook? How can I get a hook? A hook isn’t fair only when it’s the other guy who has one.</p>
<p>More seriously – to follow up on PG comment – what constitutes a “hook,” which is really just institutional priorities, does come directly from the top. The president’s office, in conjunction with the board of trustees, sets institutional goals and communicates those to admissions officers. It’s not by accident that legacies make up 10-15 percent of the admitted class – that percent comes from up high. If the school got a huge donation to build a new building specializing in genetics, you bet admissions starts looking for applicants interested in genetics. If admissions officers want to keep their jobs they follow the priorities set by TPTB. </p>
<p>So when people complain about these admissions policies, they are actually complaining about the core philosophy and strategic goals of these dream colleges they love so much. </p>
<p>Someone upthread said that 90% of essays don’t do much. I think that’s very true. There are amazing good ones and really really bad ones that probably influence admissions, but the vast majority probably don’t hurt or help the application. </p>
<p>“If an African-American, legacy or athlete winds up being the outlier on the Naviance data for your school, what makes more sense: saying “that hook probably helped a lot” or “I guess he wrote a fantastic essay”?”</p>
<p>If a white kid winds up being the outlier, what do you say?</p>
<p>Or is the bigger question - why do you feel the need in the first place to try to “explain” anyone else’s admission results?</p>
<p>I guess it has to do with the kind of person you want to be in this life. There’s the other thread about the black kid who got into all 8 Ivies; it got closed down, I guess. In any case, it was disheartening to read some of the vitriol, and it got me to thinking … how do I want to live my life? Do I want to BE the kind of person who hears about someone else’s success and feels compelled to pick it apart and judge for myself whether it was justified? Or do I want to be the kind of person who can smile and say “good for him!” and then move on with my day? </p>
<p>And anyway, this is all so much b.s. because if someone TRULY believed the adcom decisions were capricious, not well thought out, “gave in” to unqualified URM’s / legacies / athletics / whoever at the expense of the truly-deserving great students, then the ONLY logical response is - “I sure don’t want to go there!” or if denied, “Glad I dodged THAT bullet!” Not “oh, please, let MEEEEE in instead so I can study with all the unqualified URM’s!”</p>
<p>Does the girl from Long Island who didn’t get admitted to Cornell REALLY want to go to Cornell if 2/3s or 5/6 of the class are other kids from Long Island, Westchester, and the Southern portion of Rockland County? Does the OP’s D want to go to Harvard to be surrounded by an entire class plucked from Suburban Boston (with a slight nod to our West Coast brethren by accepting some smart kids from La Jolla, Atherton and Santa Barbara).</p>
<p>Yes. They do. Just as the line for Californians wanting to get into Berkeley and LA is very, very long. CA has done a much better job in NY in terms of their more select state U system. In fact, our SUNYs are virtually all NYers. Look at the numbers. Only Bing has been really pushing to diversify, and that’s in getting some OOS students. </p>
<p>Since D is a hookless SWF, I just hoping that the my little turd (er…snowflake) can write that essay that will make a difference. That is one way to stand out, but it is admittedly, not the only way. </p>
<p>I’m skeptical that adcoms get all that much of a picture of applicants. The typical application consists of grades, ECs (pretty much just a list) and an essay, that is pretty short but supposed to stand out and somehow convey the totality of who the applicant is, all in a couple of hundred words written by a 17 year old. Even with supplemental essays (which are often about paragraph length, as I recall), it’s pretty hard to cram in all that specialness. And then, how many 17 year olds are really all that special? The ones from disadvantaged backgrounds of one kind or another, or those who have done exceptional things, sure, more power to them. They should go to the top colleges. However parts of this thread are verging on the idea that ordinary middle class kids who’ve had ordinary middle class lives are unworthy.</p>
<p>apprenticeprof: I was bringing up how AA or race tends to be singled out much more for opprobrium than the other factors…even when the other two factors are arguably the same or worse depending on the person one’s having a discussion/debate with.</p>
<p>It’s really funny how preference for athletic and legacy/developmental status in admission doesn’t generate nearly the same amount of heated discussion here or in most parts of the popular media. </p>
<p>^well said, and something I have posted on numerous threads on this topic that recently have been shut down. When others see my D on the Penn campus in the fall, will they assume it’s only because she’s an URM? Well that’s a loss for them I guess. Her stats fall right in the “average” for all of the top schools she was accepted to (10 of them, btw.) The difference? No sense of entitlement. No idea she was even applying to the top tier no less ives until junior year when we received some wonderful guidance.<br>
These schools have purposely CHOSEN the way they make up each class. Obviously, the students are successful and the selection criteria works, or it would change. If this methodology is not to your liking, apply elsewhere.</p>
<p>Pizzagirl: I don’t understand why you persist in acting as if everyone who watches admissions trends is somehow showing a failure of character - on a college admissions site, no less. I agree that some of the statements on the closed thread were ugly. I said so on that thread. It doesn’t mean I don’t also think, with good reason, that the chances of an unhooked student with those stats being admitted to every single Ivy would have been very, very low. </p>
<p>If an unhooked student is an outlying data point, then yes, I’ll assume there is something else I’m not aware of at work. I don’t see what is wrong or sinister about picking on the obvious explanation when there is one available. When i walk outside and feel drops of water on my head, I say “I guess it is starting to rain.” I don’t say “I guess some coolant from the air conditioning unit in a nearby building is leaking.” On the other hand, if it a bright and sunny day, I might indeed look for another explanation.</p>
<p>The argument “well, if you don’t like it, just go somewhere else. be happy you didn’t get in” is unnecessarily dismissive. If someone complains about US policy, do you tell them to move? It is possible to value a lot of things about a school, and still think that some of its priorities are misplaced. </p>
<p>Bears repeating: *But someone can be the real deal and come off like a total turd in an application. I don’t think anyone in admissions pretends that they can peer into the heart and soul of a HS kid. All they know is what they read. * </p>
<p>Write them something that works for you and your hs friends-- and you may be surprised it doesn’t work for those adcoms at a single digit school. Where do you come up with this sort of par???</p>
<p>“Kids absolutely know which of their peers are the real deal academically.” So what? Kids aren’t working in college admissions. In fact, most of those you ascribe this authority to…haven’t been to college yet. </p>
<p>Stop thinking what works in any one high school is all a tippy top is looking for. It is not just a look-back. It’s also a look forward: who has the potential to add the most to “our” particular environment, in AND out of the classrooms? Face the fact that, with 10:1 or 20:1 apps, they can cherry pick. And face that many lower SES kids are as empowered as those nice middle or upper class kids- and proving it.</p>
<p>The desired geographic and racial breakdown and the effect of legacy status and donations certainly comes from the top. The importance of other hooks does not. The major factor on which most adcoms are judged by their bosses is whether they drive down selectivity. Also, the SAT range has to be high I’m sure. Other than that, the degree to which decisions come from “the top” is highly driven by whether or not there is a clear avenue of feedback to the president or other top administrators.</p>
<p>If they don’t take the math olympiad winner, then Harvard’s Putnam team may start losing and it will be a problem. If they reject top chemistry people, there is no such feedback. Same goes for most other fields. Professors may notice it, but they don’t live and die by their undergrad’s academic proficiencies like they do for grad students.</p>
<p>Of course, this itself may be an institutional priority, as in, let’s be good at the things which are obvious to the outside world and neglect other things. Win Putnam, make the NCAA basketball tournament, and let some other things fall through the cracks.</p>
<p>I’m not even sure how the president would make a policy which would help the adcoms distinguish between whether someone that is a BS artist or has an impressive list of EC involvement. </p>
<p>Such hand wringing over things you have no control over. Students, do your best each day, enjoy life, you are living some of your best years. Don’t waste it by living for someone else whether it’s your parents or admission counselors. Live YOUR life. </p>
<p>Parents, get over yourselves. You want to select students for a university based on your own philosophy, feel free to start one. You want to complain about minorities, why don’t you first experience life in their shoes? It IS quite possible your little Johnny or Jennifer didn’t have enough life experiences to draw upon for that essay because they aren’t living for themselves or they are trying to mold themselves into a perfect shape for an Ivy League education. Boring. </p>
<p>One other thing… if any of these kids have the entitlement beliefs inherited from their parents, I’m sure that has something major to do why they might not get in. </p>
That is one way to stand out, but it is admittedly, not the only way. </p>