This fast-moving thread would be much easier to read and keep up with if people would learn how to use the quote function.
Agree, but it would also be nice if cc finally caught up to other forums and made it easy with just a button to click.
My point is that people tend to focus on the denials rather than on the acceptances. The assumption is that if a student was smart enough to get into Harvard, then the Princeton rejection must have been “rigged” especially if some other “less qualified” student from the same school was accepted.
I’m not talking about the kids whose parents bribed a coach. I’m talking about the people who can’t believe that someone who could get into Caltech might be rejected from MIT or that the kid who got into Yale might be rejected from Dartmouth.
I was also making a point that all of these bright and talented kids are getting acceptances to excellent schools which leads me to believe that the system is not, in fact, broken. It just isn’t possible for Harvard to accept 20,000 students.
I agree with the posters who pointed out what a small percentage of kids this impacts. Under the table bribes are just wrong. Test cheating can be easily fixed by limiting how many times kids take these tests, where they take them and how they are administered…testing is big business and the incentive to tighten it up or limit the revenue stream is not appealing. The colleges can influence this aspect.
@PragmaticMom says:
“For the above two reasons, the search for a more fair and transparent system should be debated on its merits, not dismissed as sour grapes.”
Ok…but what does have to do with anything I said. I never spoke for or against a transparent system. My post was on a lottery system. Not sure why you posted this in response to anything I said.
You cannot take a holistic process and start to rank factors hierarchically. Any factor can out an applicant. And at the end, yes, geo diversity, an institutional need, is a prominent killer. All those kids from the Bay Area won’t get in.
The rich kids, of any background, ethnicity, race, class, etc, do not have an advantage. Not ime. Not at a Need Blind. You really think the quality of their thinking, choices, and actions is superior? Not. The make the same mistakes many others do, are subject to the same limited thinking.
I sometimes wonder if these assumptions about wealth are motivated by a great love of wealth, bowing down to the idea it confers superiority. Not. They don’t do any better on their full presentations.
You have to get away from this idea the presence of rich kids means wealth is a value or a guarantee. They can be just as stuck in the little high school world as anyone. But more of them apply than lower SES. More matriculate.
It would help some folks to gain some perspective. This is not all rigged. The first - and most critical- element is the quality of the app/supp and LoRs, themselves. And that’s more than stats. The full package is a long document with varied questions to get a read on a kid and his/her thinking. I use the example of a kid who you thnk has it all, but can’t reasonably answer a Why Us.
Or you can use the debate example. A kid can be best ever in his own hs, revered. But at the next level of competition, that falls aside to what he/she actually presents, that day, how it works- or doesn’t. No one is falling over to give Johnny the win, just because he’s champ in his own hs.
This is not like transferring to a better high school. It’s the college leap. And the kids/families who are better informed are better able to present. Any class, any race/ethnicity, and SES. You don’t “deserve” more than you earn, as it shows- or not.
There is a big difference between “rigged” and simply “frustrating.” It is understandably frustrating to an excellent student from a NY suburb that her odds of gaining acceptance to an elite East Coast school is lower then they would be if she came from Kentucky. It feels unfair because it is a metric which is totally outside of the student’s control. However, that doesn’t mean it’s unfair in the sense that it needs to be changed. Its frustrating that last year the school accepted two great oboe players and this year they don’t need one. There are elements of luck in this process. Do you happen to live in the right area? Do you happen to have a skill this particular college needs? But, in the end, the great kids all find great colleges. This isn’t China where only a few have the opportunity to go and gaining an acceptance is nearly a life or death issue.
The real problem, the real unfairness is not about who gets into Harvard. Its about the fact that bright, college ready kids who don’t happen to have the very top stats often can’t afford college at all. I don’t worry about the 1600/4.0 Kid. I worry about the 1310 3.6 kid whose parents don’t have the money to afford their overpriced state tuition. That is the rigged system that needs to be fixed.
As for these scamming kids, if they did not put forth their own best, I still say, “Let 'em go,” bump them out of the class. Word on one site is that OJ didn’t even complete her app, left it to others. And that she not only had the scam outfit helping her, but a private pro counselor, as well.
But I do say the process of recruiting and the huge benefit to that should be reevaluated. To me, that’s where a U missteps. I get all the protests re: how important athletics are (not that I fully agree.) But now we have an overt example of how that is abused.
This is not about whether you agree with holistic for non-recruits. You could better inform yourselves as to what matters and have that perspective. Not just bemoan that stats don’t trump. Or that some highly valued colleges don’t build more to accommodate more. You’re with it or you aren’t. And if an applicant can’t get it, can’t figure it out, what makes him “deserve” a top college?
@lookingforward “You cannot take a holistic process and start to rank factors hierarchically.” Not from the outside. That is the true genius of “holistic admissions.” Creates an inscrutable black box that lets the school corrupt the system to their heart’s content while making it nearly impossible to catch them at it. Certainly solved the TMJ (Too Many Jews) problem for Harvard when they invented the concept of “holistic” admissions…
"Did you actually read the article? "
@ShanFerg3
did you??
@cinnimon1212 was referring to the COMMENT by Lynne from Boston, that is visible on the right, and in fact covers up part of the NYT’s article, when one first clicks on the link she provided. Go back and read THAT comment.
Lynne said the following:
"So how does a college choose from these many qualified students? Here’s where the other factors are considered: student’s town or home state, potential major, first generation, underrepresented minorities, extracurricular activities, leadership positions, work experience, essays, legacy, athletic talent, and more. Take two students with similar academic credentials, one applying to a high-demand major (business/computer science), another applying to a major that needs more students for the department to survive (German anyone?). The first student may be denied, the second student accepted. As an admissions dean, I was asked one year to search for French horn players–the chair of the music department said his current players were graduating, and if not replaced would limit the repertoire of the orchestra. For that year alone, horn players had an advantage in admissions. "
one of our former long time posters, mini, who was a socialist before Bernie, and mini always used to say that if he was pricing Harvard, he’d charge $100k+ to the scions of the rich and famous so he could offer more services to those low income folks, such as those on Pell grants.
No. I didn’t see that article. I read the article that pop up when I pressed that link. Looks interesting though. I do find it curious out of ALL the factors Lynne listed, @cinnimom1212 chose to only list geography, URM…
@menloparkmom
“Lynne said the following:
"So how does a college choose from these many qualified students? Here’s where the other factors are considered: student’s town or home state, potential major, first generation, underrepresented minorities, extracurricular activities, leadership positions, work experience, essays, legacy, athletic talent, and more. Take two students with similar academic credentials, one applying to a high-demand major (business/computer science), another applying to a major that needs more students for the department to survive (German anyone?). The first student may be denied, the second student accepted. As an admissions dean, I was asked one year to search for French horn players–the chair of the music department said his current players were graduating, and if not replaced would limit the repertoire of the orchestra. For that year alone, horn players had an advantage in admissions. "
Based on this article it seems the ADCOM definitely has a plan. And, although it may be arbitrary for parents and students, it isn’t for admissions. This is why I thought the lottery idea was hubris on our part. They know what they need and want in an incoming class. I don’t think it matters to them how much we know.
Many years ago, when I went to a big U state law school, I knew I was almost guaranteed to get in. Big U Law School published a simple chart. Along the top were the GPAs. Down the side were the LSAT scores. Find the box that matched your scores and you knew your chances. Barring some criminal activity, I knew admission was a lock.
Very transparent. And yet we had a diverse class, lots of women, some minorities, people from other states, city, country, older students and those fresh out of college.
"one of our former long time posters, mini, who was a socialist before Bernie, and mini always used to say that if he was “pricing Harvard, he’d charge $100k+ to the scions of the rich and famous so he could offer more services to those low income folks, such as those on Pell grants.”
This is the system we already have. There’s the $70k sticker price with about 40% of students paying sticker. The 60% have a sliding scale price based on family income.
I’m no socialist. But it would make perfect sense for Harvard to raise its sticker price to say $200k. And then also raise the fin aid threshhold too – so maybe you can get fin aid if you make less than $1 million a year.
Same system as you have today, but you could direct more money to the lower incomes. And also move the point at which the system becomes regressive. Today, the CPA making $300k usually pays sticker price – 23% of annual income. Hedge funder making $3 million pays 2% of income.
The composition of the class likely would not change that much however. Harvard’s class would still have plenty of upper SES students. Because the single thing that tilts the playing field towards upper SES is requiring high stats for admission. There’s just so many more high stats in certain places than others (as we all know). And Harvard still would need to enroll a lot of kids whose families could pay $70k or more. Even money bags Harvard has a budget it needs to hit.
And we’d still have plenty of “donut hole” threads on CC. They’d just be coming from the $1 million parents rather than the $300k parents. : )
@TatinG you know why this wouldn’t work for Ivies. They could probably fill 3 or 4 classes with the very top scores.
Holistic is not an inscrutable process. It just isn’t handed to you, like some formula. It does take some work to look into what the colleges say and show (so why do so many only read USNews, the media or what bloggers or CC folks say? That’s some irony.)
And the Harvard issue was nearly 100 years ago. Not an excuse to call things corrupt today. I advocate doing the digging. Plenty is there, to be found. And I find bright kids who put in this effort then do understand, their perspective changes and they can present as needed. (Or self match and realize what they’re lacking.) I firmly believe that those who want it all simplified are missing that opportunity. You want to be a tippy top kid? Then think as they expect, do the work. It is doable.
In the end, no one can control results. But you can control the degree to which you are informed. And how current your info is. An ill-informed app, allowing yourself to stop short and assume or point fingers, is not going to get you into a tippy top. It’s so far off the mark.
Northwesty, you know top colleges have a desired bracket for scores, it’s not just that those with the highest stats get pooled by themselves. Anyone can look at the admit stats for the colleges that present them (eg, https://admission.princeton.edu/how-apply/admission-statistics.)
And, see that not all applicants in the top range or two are accepted. That’s not because they weren’t high SES or didn’t hold some national title. Or cure cancer. It’s the quality of their apps, how they met, in full, what these schools want. Most people, if they look at all, tend to stop at stats.
Most also make wild assumptions that urms can’t be as qualified, aren’t out there doing and that only wealthier ones can be interesting.
It does pay to look at Chance threads once in a while, see the misconceptions- and the misplaced encouragement from outsiders.
The problem is that most parents and students are under the mistaken impression that college admissions are based on some kind of academic meritocracy. Then when their “high stats” student is not accepted to their dream school, they look to others who “no doubt had lesser states” but were admitted over them due to some irrelevant edge or hook. The simple truth is that colleges admit based on business decisions and marketing needs. Yep, they need to pay their bills, attract the best faculty, and maintain/grow their infrastructure while simultaneously building their brand reputation. So, while parents and students search for schools where they will fit, schools are looking for students that will also fit – into the schools’ culture. So, while academics are a key attribute, they will also look to students who can pay, play sports (depending on the school), check off demographic boxes, and ultimately, raise the brand of the school.