Aiming for all Ivies

[silverturtle]

<p>

Re: Ivies and other very-most-selective schools: I seriously think we have to re-examine the cast a wide net concept, as it pertains to them. There are top performers (academic and otherwise, wise enough to craft a great application) who can rightly apply to many or all Ivies. Among the national competition, they have the goods and cannot count on predictable results when final decisions are made.</p>

<p>But the more modest performers, slower out of the starting gate, who can’t show the levels of energy, vision, drive, commitment and results that top colleges cherry pick? Why? Their energy and hope will likely pay a better dividend if invested wisely.

</p>

<p>Absolutely. I meant to refer to those in the former group. If an applicant simply is not competitive for a highly selective college, applying to them all in the hopes of a fluke acceptance is not worthwhile; effort is better applied to strengthening his or her applications to more realistic fits. Thanks to the Common Application, however, the lighter marginal effort of applying to more than one highly selective school makes the wide net casting more feasible with less chance of compromising on quality.</p>

<p>

Yes, “the high student intelligence and motivation at these schools can be a major attraction.” But, the kid has to show he has a rightful place in a competitive college, prove it in all parts of the CA, show it’s been a pattern over time. It has to ring with those adcoms, not just be another horse in the race.

</p>

<p>Sure, the student bodies’ quality would not be where it is without high and mostly inflexible academic standards, which – because of the bevy of applicants – can enjoy high burdens of proof. My statement was meant merely to provide an explanation for an applicant’s interest in many Ivy League schools; in many ways, they are not as disparate as those touting the need to find the “right fit” may imply.</p>

<p>

most applicants with competitive stats for top colleges do write strong essays… Not necessarily. You’d be surprised. Even top hs kids have very little experience crafting such an imortant application or writing, other than for hs classes. Many fall back on what worked in hs classes.

</p>

<p>Defaulting to formulaic organizational habits (often characteristic of high school writing) is indeed commonplace and unnecessary among applicants, but rarely do I find that it significantly harms the strength of an essay’s efficacy.</p>

<p>I am generally favorably impressed with the quality of applicants’ essays that I read. Granted, some of this may be self-selection among those who solicit my feedback, but top college applicants are themselves rather self-selected. Among the hundreds of admissions essays I’ve reviewed, a sizable majority have been ordinary – nothing to positively render an application salient on their own; some are excessively hackneyed or pervaded by ungrammaticality; and a small number are extraordinary. </p>

<p>I’ve been able to casually track the results of many applicants whose essays I have read: To just read the essay is, for me, less predictively helpful for admissions chances (it’s tough to meaningfully distinguish among the ordinary majority) than to know the objective stats. Neither of these means is particularly precise, though. In combination, they reveal clearly that unpredictability is high, even after the veil on the subjective submissions is partially lifted.</p>

<p>It sometimes seems that for the strong applicant – the one who has solid SAT/ACT scores, impressive EC’s, and a glowing set of recommendations and academic marks – the greatest power he or she has in increasing chances of getting into a top college is not to bump the SAT score by another 100 or 200 points, secure more leadership positions, or perfect the essay: It is, soberly, to apply to more schools.</p>