Yes, SJSU lists the point values at Impaction | Admissions
1 Like
I think the difference would be that holistic has an aura of an AO reading an app and applying (perhaps somewhat subjective) professional judgment that is difficult to predict from an applicantâs perspective. In contrast, Landscape and the college algorithms it feeds into are relatively objective, numerical measures that do not involve that human guesswork, such that a numerical predictor of admissions is existing and sitting right there on the college side but hidden from the applicant.
My understanding is that thereâs a lot more algorithm use across the board at even highly selective schools than many may imagine.
1 Like
I donât believe either of your statements is true.
Back in the day (when I was an alumna interviewer) Brown published detailed admissions data. I havenât looked recently so I donât know if itâs still true. But they posted very clear numbers- how many were Val, how many were Sal, what the admissions rate for 1600 single sitter applicants (not 100% but much higher than it was for 1540), and so on and so forth. Class rank when noted, etc.
And yet every year in my file of âto be interviewedâ were kids who told me while we met âI have a B average but since Brown practices Holistic Admissions Iâm confident I can get inâ. And kids (mind you- this is before ANYONE was TO) âI really blew it on my PSATâs and SATâs, but Brown really loves arty kids so Iâm sure that my art loving personality will make up for my 580 Math and 600 Verbal scores. â Etc. On and on and on.
Kids without a chance. Iâm talking upper middle class kids from a well regarded Midwestern prep school, middle class kids from well resourced public and parochial high schools, kids who were solid tennis players and kids who were President of the senior class.
Every year the university put out more data on who gets in. And every year the list of âHail Mary Passâ applicants seemed to be getting longer. So I do not believe that âif the data were knownâ. Many people cannot grasp that a 8% admissions rate is a 92% rejection rate. Many people (and we see them on CC) choose not to believe that if a college specifies that they want to see Bio, Chem and Physics on the transcript, that doesnât apply to THEIR kid because the physics teacher is a really hard grader and the kid doesnât want to ruin their GPA with a hard class. Kids who arenât taking foreign language because âhe really struggled with Spanish Freshman year and we agreed it wasnât worth itâ.
The data is there- the college wants those science classes and really wants a foreign language. Folks just donât want to READ the data.
7 Likes
The way I read what you are saying here is that âholisticâ makes everyone think they have a chance even though the studentâs academic stats are not sufficient. Landscape and the remainder of algorithms, using factors such as yield likelihood and SES demographics, and the weights for these factors, are not known to the applicant the same way academic factors are known to the applicant. (Setting aside all sorts of potential pitfalls in parsing chances based on academics aloneâŠ)
So you are uncomfortable with a data tool that essentially replaces the hunches and feelings that Adcomâs used to use to suss out the same outcome, i.e. âwill this kid come hereâ or âis the essay about collecting cans with his grandpa a story about their relationship or a signal that heâs low income?â
Adcomâs have used their hunches for decades. The purpose of the tools is just to take the hunches out of the equation and replace them with something more systematic- and allegedly (hopefully) without the racial biases and the other stuff.
And how does knowing whatâs inside the algorithm help a particular kid- beyond what is already known? That a âneed awareâ college will have a finger on the scale for a kid who appears to be affluent. That a college in a rural area which has stated a need to create more diversity on campus is likely to welcome the high stats Asian kid who feels discriminated against at Stanford or JHU. Does the algorithm tell you more than what the college discusses in any of their endless speeches, podcasts, strategic plan, etc?
Iâm just saying that there is data known to one side but not the other, thatâs all. Oops, plane taking offâŠ
Tell me again how the âHidden Gemâ untutored and unconsulting advantaged kid from a crappy school district get identified without this? Theyâre not all First Generation.
For the low-income kids I have been tutoring for the past 3 years, I have recommended that their Common App essay mention their economic background. Not directly, but as part of the overall story.
One example is a studentâs essay about family relationships, describing how she and her grandmother bonded by walking the neighborhood each Saturday and collecting aluminum cans.
There are other ways as well. But yes, the students do need to know that this should be revealed to the admissions committee.
4 Likes
Was just listening to The College Bound Kid podcast episode from Sept 10, episode 569. The segment on Secondary School Reports had a panel discussion including college admissions officers/readers and I believe a high school counselor. It was obviously recorded before the landscape cancellation news. They had a bit of discussion about how useful landscape was and why in terms of providing context for individual applications. Though obviously a moot point now, worth a listen for folks interested in gaining understanding of how admissions folks actually use these tools.
4 Likes