Although I am opposed to any kind of biased admission into public schools, Harvard is a private school. They can admit whomever they want. If you don’t like it, don’t apply.
Colleges that want this type of freedom have to forego federal aid. For a primer on this topic, see the following:
@eyemgh I agree with your assessments. It’s a crap shoot. The only thing kids can do is live their lives. Do well in school and on standardized tests. More importantly, be someone that others would like to have around. Have a story.
When my kids are writing essays I often ask my favorite question: Who cares? Why? It instantly susses out the boring and mundane aspects and gets them to focus on meaning.
What are you doing as a person in your life that make you someone a college would like to have? It isn’t being the Student body president, an athlete, a mathlete or anything specific. It is the unique attributes that make you you. I don’t think many kids have this at all. Yes personal qualities matter-grit, resilence, stretch, empathy, passion. And some kids can bring this out in essays. But many are flat ( and this is to be expected at such a young age). They don’t leap off the paper and tell you who they are. You really couldn’t tell if one were substituted for another. (Hence two kids applying from the same school with similar stats and different results).
For the few who do demonstrate outstanding qualities and who have the scores to match, the results can be different. They are not perfect, they are still rejected but they often find a spot. Their recommendations support their personality and they stand out. You know these kids. They are in your sons and daughters classes. They are the ones who others look to, and look at. They often win multiple awards in many categories. They are the ones who are not only good students but good people. These are the kids that top schools are looking for when they comb through their mile high piles of applicants.
"@gallentjill, the reason you have no idea what it is, is because no one knows, predictably what “it” is. "
This is by design. Holistic admissions was originally designed by Harvard as a way to obscure the fact that it was denying admission to Jewish students.
The essence of holistic admission is that it remains a way for selective private schools to admit or deny based on subjective measures, some of which are reasonable and noble and some decidedly less so.
And implying that you - and the kids who were denied - don’t understand it because you are too stupid, simply not X college material, haven’t done the appropriate research or simply haven’t stretched yourself (or whatever other BS hoo doo phrase is being used) to gain the requisite deep understanding of what is required by tuning into the ethersphere is part of how colleges keep perpetuating the mythos they’ve created around the process.
The selectives all admit kids for a variety of reasons. Some will be within an applicant’s control, but many more of the reasons will be outside of an applicant’s control. It is in the colleges’ best interests to keep the exact process secret and talk in vague terms because it is a tool to leave the masses with hope so they will continue to submit applications.
It is NOT a crapshoot. But the “nebulous platitudes” that have been mentioned aren’t the full story, either.
“you can’t blame some lackluster review on diversity or legacy.”
Now that is a lol. The data that is coming out of the recent Harvard lawsuit clearly implies otherwise. The same input apparently results in very different review results depending on the race of the applicant.
And that is part of the beauty of the “holistic” system. Selectives can - and do - use criteria beyond the applicant’s control to admit or deny. Diversity and legacy clearly play a large role and it’s disingenuous to claim otherwise.
The secret to getting into Brown is to make sure you are a famous child actor or the child of a celebrity. Sting Phil Michelson as exapmles.
^^^^ I know that is the meme about Brown but I can’t agree as my unhooked son was admitted. Brown has a large number of specific supplemental essays (I think my S had to do 8!) and I believe that is where the rubber met the road for him. He really did his research and it truly was the right “fit”, which was the objective of each of the essays.
@milee30, great post! No it is not a crap shoot FOR THE INSTITUTION. They clearly have their objectives. It is however a crap shoot for most applicants.
@Postmodern, first congrats to your son. Second, I don’t think the poster was saying that’s the only route into Brown, but a predictable route into Brown. Thousands research the essays every year and write great ones, only to be rejected, due to the whim of the reader. There is a component of subjectivity, and thus luck, and that’s OK. The question posed in the thread topic though, is it fair, probably not. Why? It’s subjective.
Define fair; and are you certain “fair” is an admirable or sensible goal?
Having just returned from a trip to Munich and an evening or two in the biergarten talking with some age 30ish german university graduates in between World Cup games/plays; each and everyone of them expressed shock and dismay at the cost of higher education in the US. Bottom line…who cares if it is fair if you can’t afford it in the first place or go so far into debt to obtain it you compromise the quality of your life indefinitely.
Don’t fool yourself for one second, it’s not about access to education or about lofty intellectual development, as with most things in the US…it’s all about the money.
College Admissions will never be fair. It could maybe be more level, but it will never be fair.
Privatebanker
I assume your comment was in jest but it does diminish the tremendous effort students put in to getting accepted at schools such as Brown. The system is flawed based on it’s subjective nature but it does work out for some.
Similar to postmodern my son was completely unhooked. He worked hard, had great grades, started charities and most importantly wrote passionately in his essays. The result was acceptances at Brown, Duke, Gtown, ND, Middlebury and BC. A few other waitlist at Ivies and only 1 reject (never visited).
The dynamics described in the thread suggest accurately that the path to this success was narrow, but his high hit rate suggests there does exist a method to the admissions process madness. I know it doesn’t work out for everyone and in some cases it’s not rational or fair.
However, while we shouldn’t personalize these things even tongue in cheek comments such as yours advance a narrative that everyone at a school like Brown got in because of a shortcut. For many the path remains hard work, perseverance and some luck.
For the record I am neither Sting or Phil Michelson. In fact I golf like Sting and sing like Phil.
Most importantly you do a disservice to the potential applicant that doesn’t apply to Brown because they view admissions as “rigged”. Yes it’s hard to get in but it happens, but it doesn’t happen unless you apply, and you don’t need to be famous, rich or hooked to either apply or get accepted just work hard be pationate and have some luck.
Perhaps the intent by the schools is that the achievements of those who are elite without special preferences (legacy etc.) will have a halo of eliteness that boosts whose who got in with special preferences. But is it becoming more widely seen as the reverse, where the large percentage of admits coming with special preferences dilutes the eliteness of those who got in without them?
I have some sour grapes about Brown, but the year my kid applied to colleges, six grads of the class went on to Brown. Zero celebrities, two legacies, zero URM. As far as I could tell, most were unhooked, all were excellent students.
I don’t think these types of generalizations are helpful on a message board frequented by applicants. It just feeds the victimization beast.
Lol, don’t you all tell your kids to put in the right efforts? For a good score or grade? To get into a play or onto a team?
Your own responses here show you distrust the effort it takes to get into a top college. So fine, tell your kids to lean back, that it’s “unfair,” and then reap what you sow.
It seems one poster is tying to understand, advance her D’s shot, and everyone else just throws up their hands, stops before they start. Oh, well.
For the most part, the “data” comining out about H is as formed and summarized by the plaintiff’s researcher. Fine, go with that. No one is making you go through any additional steps to atch better.
Brown is NOT the only college with kids of famous parents or faous themselves. Think about it. Even reconsider this insistence it’s at the whim of one reader.
Think.
Ask yourselves how you “know” what you insist you “know.” If you aren’t looking further, how can you?
Within every demographic a certain number of acceptance spots exist. There are however disparities in the number of spots per demographic and the number of applicants in each demographic.
Is that fair? Depends on your perspective.
What is fair is that within these specific groups it is largely a meritocracy of sorts. The richest of the rich, the most generous of alumni, famous of famous, best athlete of athletes or for those unhooked those that best connect with the admissions officer relative to what the institution is looking for. If you are the “best” or “ideal” of that subsect of applicants you will get an offer until that demographic pool is filled.
Suggesting otherwise removes the sense of accountability, empowerment and “fairness” students need to succeed in both college and life. If we tell kids college acceptances are rigged then why work hard because of course jobs are rigged, etc. For better or worse we have to accept that admissions to top colleges remains a competition of sorts and we shouldn’t allow our kids to be sore losers metaphorically. Don’t blame the refs, the sun in my eyes, or complain about the rules of the game. We need to teach our kids to own the results, dust themselves off and continue to compete in what is an ever more competitive world. 2 cents worth.
Ahhh but that is just it…it is ALL rigged; admissions, jobs, professional sports, the best you are going to do is to put your best effort in and hope for the right outcom because the only thing you can control is you.
No one is saying throw up your hand and give up, “oh woah as me life is not fair, therefore I shall not try”. To the contrary; you still have to place yourself on the best foot/put yourself at the front of the line. That means making the effort, because it might just work. But, just because you have made the effort and you may be the best darn candidate out there, there is no guarantee that you are going to get what you want or even deserve. Life is not fair. That is not an excuse not to try because every win, every step forward no matter how small counts. That is the lesson I have taught my kids, I like to think it’s a lesson they have learned well.
@lookingforward, I don’t see anyone throwing up their hands. I see people acknowledging that even if they do things right, he odds are long. I see people accepting that the ones who got in aren’t necessarily “better.” They simply resonated with the objectives of the institution (which are unknown) and jived with the reader that day.
You intimate that there is some “effort” that can assure that a student will “get into a top college.” What I do not see is you, or anyone else advancing modifiable, objective actions that will guarantee a student is admitted. I see, nebulous platitudes, like “stretchy” and “resilient.” If you have something more concrete than that, by all means, share. Otherwise, it would be nice if you stopped belittling and maligning those who did do everything in their power, excelled in every way imaginable, and for the law of averages, still did not get in.
As was previously alluded to, it almost has a religious tone. Those who got in, were faithful and said the right prayers. The prayers are secret though, the faithful unable to utter the words to the future devotees.
Ignoring the vague platitudes and politically correct pablum is precisely about thinking. Examining and discussing the reality of some of the not-so-nice factors that heavily influence admissions is important for any applicant.
It is doing kids a huge disservice to imply that all they have to do is dig, stretch, know what the colleges are looking for as if there is some magic, somewhat secret formula that they can discern if they just think in the right ways. The reality is that for top selective colleges there are very few openings and even fewer openings in certain demographics. I don’t care how much digging, stretching, reaching and correct thinking certain kids do - they have zero chance. And it’s cruel to act like they do, which also implies that it’s somehow a failing on the part of the applicant if s/he is rejected.
For a very few applicants, their basic demographics are such that they just have to do a decent job with their application to be considered at multiple colleges. For more applicants, they could go to a top college if they can correctly target WHICH top college they have the best chance at and spend the appropriate time on the app forming it in the exact, best way.
Using the Brown example, for a kid that has very little chance of appealing to Brown, spending the time crafting those 8 essays is a waste of time, no matter how that kid stretches, thinks or whatever other BS phrase we want to use. But that same kid might have a shot at a top college that is looking for a different thing or who has different demographic requirements and that’s where the time and effort will pay off.
We’re not helping kids by denying the demographic requirements, racial preferences or competition exists. We’re not helping kids by implying there is a mysterious way of thinking and reaching that they can just figure out if they try hard enough and which will gain them admission anywhere. That’s the stretch kids need to be making - figuring out not just what colleges are looking for but also a reasonable guess as to the demographic, racial and other requirements that are at play so they can calculate where their best chances lie and spend their time accordingly.
If time weren’t a finite resource, we could tell our 6’3" daughter that of course she could be a prima ballerina if she only puts in enough effort because if the odds are true and she never makes it, she would have limitless time to try something else without having lost anything by giving it a go. If time weren’t a finite resource, we could tell our son who struggles with Algebra much less Calculus and has no spatial awareness that of course he can go to MIT then CalTech to become the world expert in particle physics as long as he stretches and reaches in the right way because if he ends up not making those goals he’d have limitless time to figure it out and try something else without having lost anything.
But time isn’t limitless. Kids have to make choices about how best to use their time from researching to ECs to crafting appropriate essays. Talking realistically about what the chances are - including for their race, gender, location, socioeconomic status, etc - is a huge part of helping them to understand where best to direct their limited time to give them the best possible outcome.
Omg folks. I was joking. I am looking at brown from my office window. I can’t shake a stick at work and not hit a brown grad. My best friends. They do love their celebrities though. But congrats on the admission it’s a very nice school!
I’ve never said anything guarantees. Of course they shape the class from the final pool of qualified kids. But you want to be one of those finalists, no?
I distinctly don’t feel kids should apply blind, assuming (and having it affirmed by adults around them,) that it’s a crapshoot or rigged. That’s not only counterproductive, it’s not the level of thinking and action expected by a top college.
What do you think , say, Columbia or NYU wants that’s different than Grinnell, Midd, or others of different sizes, locations, focus, specialty, etc? It’s not about googling the percentage of legacy.
I’ve repeated multiple times that it’s not a crapshoot. It’s not a lottery. Rigged? Tough to reply to that since there are nuances that mean that the exact same application coming from a low income Asian kid from Stuy will result in a different admissions decision than had that same application come from a low income Black kid from Stuy or a legacy white kid from a NE boarding school. Some people might describe that as rigged. I personally would just describe it as the reality of admissions.
The advice to understand what qualities, reaching and type of thinking colleges are looking for is accurate. My point is that this isn’t enough. Kids also need to understand - and do some research and make some guesses as to reality vs PC marketing materials - of the reality of demographics. Reach, be stretchy, think properly, whatever… it’s only part of the puzzle.
Seniors have limited time. The best way we can help them determine where to direct that time and effort includes realistic discussion of demographics, not just vague references to things like reach or stretch, which also contains the alternate assertion - that a candidate who was rejected simply didn’t reach, stretch, think the right way. There are other factors at play and it’s appropriate and realistic to consider those other factors when determining where best to apply efforts.