<p>
It’s not that difficult to do the research to figure out what a college is (or might be) looking for. I realize that many kids & parents lack the experience and knowledge to figure that out, but I think those contending for elite admissions should put in some effort in that area. If they did, then maybe many would realize that the 8 Ivies weren’t necessarily the best colleges for their individual goals in any case.</p>
<p>calmom - I don’t know - maybe colleges should just be more transparent upfront. In the million information sessions I attended the admissions officers always said they were looking for: grades first and foremost, over and over again, rigor (again, again, again), commitment to community service, activities, etc, SATs (yes, but lower on the list). They never said we are looking for the “creative loner” type. </p>
<p>I have long said that there should be some training for admissions officers. There is no way that a 22 year old can have experience or understanding of everyone’s circumstances. There is more protection (re: manipulation) for the consumer in purchasing a car than there is in purchasing a, now, $200k education. I don’t think we should put this back on the l6 year olds to figure out. Society is responsible for ensuring that 14 year old kids know what they are up against when they start 9th grade (well, really - sooner, right?) so that they can make realistic choices and have realistic expectations.</p>
<p>Just because there was a recent posted article about a Dartmouth grad immediately appointed to an admissions committee does not mean that all admissions officers are 22. They vary in age, from seasoned to youthful.</p>
<p>I agree with calmom – about the research that IS in the family’s control. But it’s also why I think adult involvement is important: the interpretation of that research (from life experience), guiding the student in the process of selecting a realistic list. And even IF the average age of a committee is 22 (not), the policies that define admissions are created in conjunction with a college’s mission statement, etc. – which are decidedly NOT the product of 22 year old minds.</p>
<p>What you are witnessing is the continuation of major changes in the affordability and delivery mechanism of a college education in the US. The world is global. Nothing new in that comment but, if what used to be an American job (located in the continental US) can be done anywhere else it will move to the lowest cost provider of comparable value. An undergraduate degree can be acquired in India and China at a 60 to 70 percent discount to an American degree. We can not compete, and we are in a new stage where we will not even try. Don’t you think those who run institutions of higher learning know that 17 major US cities have drop out rates of over 50%? In the past we have tried to stop that, now we figure they might as well fail there and lessen the stain on the college process. Elite colleges build communities to fit there perspective of a perfect learning environment, according to there institutional objectives and biases. They see a mission in admitting first generation college students, underrepresented minorities, athletes, legacies, development candidates, and regular run of the mill geniuses. They can afford it, and it is laudable in many ways. In the public sector student loans are getting hard to come by and more expensive, as property values decline tax revenues will also, and funding for public institutions of higher learning will constrict. Businesses in the US have a reduced need for US college educated employees that have become too expensive on a global market. So at a time when you have to have a college degree as a minimum to compete, fewer US students will get one. Supply and demand. The US Constitution contains not a single word about education, it is not a right.</p>
<p>epiphany, the “recent posted article” is, in fact, one of the subjects of this thread, so it is hardly unreasonable to refer to it.</p>
<p>The notion that it is appropriate that the system requires a sophisticated and knowledgeable parent with time and inclination to shepherd a student through the application process is not quite consistent with the idea of leveling the playing field, is it? Then, we have the independent-minded students who do not really want parents involved to that extent; personally, I would think independent do-it-yourself types would be attractive, but there seems to be a potentially heavy penalty for naivety.</p>
<p>As for the age of admissions officers: 22-25 year olds were the norm for the reps I heard speak or saw circulating at every one of the events I attended with my kid. While they are not creating the policies that “define admissions” they are, at some level, interpreting the policies with respect to real, live, individual students. There is a lot of flexibility/looseness/subjectivity involved in the interpretation of some of the posted “fit” measures for some colleges.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It does not work. My D applied to 6 ivies, got admitted to Columbia, but rejected from the rest, including Cornell. Another kid from my D HS, applied 8 ivies, got into HP, but rejected from Y and others.
If only applying 2 reaches, then comes a million $ Q: which 2?</p>
<p>It’s also much harder to tell, in this climate, what schools will be matches and safeties.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Not only that, but consider the fact that many of the top tier private colleges and universities hold regional information sessions at which these 22 year old admissions officers are the only representatives prospective students and their families see and hear from at those sessions.</p>
<p>Yale sent a 20-something year old to our area to address a large room full of potential applicants. Unfortunately, he came off as inexperienced and incompetent. There was a general sense of discomfort in the room amongst attendees, and there were several quietly muttered comments about why on earth families would spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to send their kids to a college that can do no better than send an inexperienced ‘kid’ to ‘sell’ what would be a substantial monetary investment in their children’s future.</p>
<p>In contrast, Caltech’s and MIT’s sessions had seasoned, experienced admissions officers, impressive informational multimedia presentations, and several local alumni of various ages from many different professional fields on hand to help solidify the value of their institutions’ degrees by placing them within a local context.</p>
<p>Yale’s session was a joke. Many people left the session disenchanted with Yale, to say the least.</p>
<p>"epiphany, the “recent posted article” is, in fact, one of the subjects of this thread, so it is hardly unreasonable to refer to it.</p>
<p>Did I say or imply that it was “unreasonable?” Of course not. I said it was an inaccurate generalization. They’re not all 22; they’re just not. 22-year-old opinions, while valuable as voices of recent experience in a recent student body, are tempered by voices of greater experience & broader understandings.</p>
<p>“As for the age of admissions officers: 22-25 year olds were the norm for the reps I heard speak or saw circulating at every one of the events I attended with my kid.”</p>
<p>Those are reps. The entire committee does not consist of 22-25 year old reps.</p>
<p>“The notion that it is appropriate that the system requires a sophisticated and knowledgeable parent with time and inclination to shepherd a student through the application process is not quite consistent with the idea of leveling the playing field, is it?”</p>
<p>Who introduced the topic of leveling the playing field? You did. Of course the admissions game is not level. However, thankfully, many people on admissions committees, young & old (including the Dartmouth example) do understand this & attempt to read beyond the literal face of the application, to the circumstances often referenced therein.</p>
<p>Some of us parents on cc participate where we can in various volunteer opportunities at leveling that playing field, btw – precisely because of this recognized ‘sophisticated & knowledgable’ element.</p>
<p>“It’s also much harder to tell, in this climate, what schools will be matches and safeties.”</p>
<p>I think it’s harder but not “much” harder. This is not rocket science. It involves <em>recent</em> research, as well as logic & common sense. It does not assume that such research = predictability. It includes looking for schools which still value the well-rounded but not angularly accomplished student; it includes looking for schools which may have activities, departments, etc. which will make the student in question appear to be an asset. It involves figuring out where Enrollment Management may advantage a particular student not needing financial aid and providing add’l, non-financial assets to that college. Most of all, it includes dropping the demand for a fabulously stimulating environment beyond the college campus boundaries. Probably most people on CC would prefer that – parents & students alike. But it is the reason that many excellent colleges go unnoticed. Not everybody can adapt well to a cornfield (apologies to Grinnell fans) or a desert, but for those who can sacrifice Manhattan or Boston for 4 short years, there are many, many outstanding institutions. It’s four years: not your whole life.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, I guess that makes the system as it currently stands OK, then.</p>
<p>Jiff’s mom: I’m glad the MIT session you attended was good, but your story indicates just how variable the sessions are. Our region–nowhereville midwest–got one of their newly patented grads. Not terrible, not good (IMO).</p>
<p>^^ agree completely with epiphany, the goals of an institution information is readily found, and for us I figured that out too late into this process, but will surely benefit my younger children. My younger ones say my first D “was practice”, we learned the hard way, but what I learned in the process was an eye opener on many levels. Wont make the same errors the next time.</p>
<p>“Well, I guess that makes the system as it currently stands OK, then.”</p>
<p>So your point is that the system is horrible because imperfect? Of course it’s imperfect. It’s flawed, because human beings are flawed. But mostly it’s flawed because an increasingly inordinate number of qualified/overqualified students are applying to the same small fraction of available colleges every year. Therefore, doing the math, there’s a guarantee of capable, qualified students being turned away every year. They cannot all be admitted to this small fraction. Given the admissions statistics for this year that have recently been posted on CC, the usual/previous “85-90%” of applicants being qualified & capable of doing the work at HYPCM (& similar) is probably more like 95% this year. Apparently you prefer to condemn the institutions for this mathematical reality, rather than suggest that students diversify their lists more, on many levels (geography & more).</p>
<p>I saw job ads from Princeton last fall looking for admissions readers. They did require a bachelor’s degree but not much else. Considering the volume of apps I would think many schools rely on temps and people new to the field. A 22 yr old recent grad brings their own insights into the school, certainly a voice worth considering around the table I would think.</p>
<p>Wow! That’s an eye opener. Job ads for “admissions readers” for Princeton? Is this a common practice (i.e., posting want ads for admission readers for Ivy league schools)?</p>
<p>My son is really unlikely to end up as Ivy League material. However, he is already receiving mail from many of those schools, encouraging him (and us, if we were really naive) to pursue admission to these highly, HIGHLY selective schools. Why are they considered so selective? Based on the percentage of students they admit. Their freshmen class sizes don’t change much from year to year. They admit about the same number of kids. So, you want to look REALLY selective? (in a self-fulfilling prophecy kind of way?) Play the PR game and get LOTS of kids to apply to your school. </p>
<p>Regardless of how many kids apply, HYPSM and every school down the line is going to admit a certain number. All the kids applying to huge numbers of schools pump up the number of applications, which increases the selectivity rating, which in turn makes more kids more insecure, which increases the number of schools they apply to, ad nauseum.</p>
<p>The winners? The schools, who have a HUGE number of anxious kids to pick from.</p>
<p>It’s their game, and we have to play it, I guess. But it’s not a very fun game.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>I’ve been to presentations put on both MIT and Caltech and I have to agree that they are the best ones I’ve been to. It obviously takes serious alumni support to put on those kinds of programs, and both schools seem to be able to draw such support.</p>
<p>The Yale one I’ve been to was run by a person 1-2 years out of college who was doing this before going to law school, and he seemed perfectly presentable. But the presentation did bring out 4 middle-aged to gray haired alumni.</p>
<p>lextalionis, my guess would be temps are used to cull out apps which are considered below standard and that they have no involvement in actual decision making. I think the pay was around $15/hr. with paid training.</p>
<p>Some of the UCs use readers to read the essays–when you have 70,000 of them, you need help. The ones I have know are often retired teachers and counselors.</p>
<p>Excellent point mom2three! It’s been very interesting to see how the “super selective” universities have handled their press releases regarding the record number of applicants and record low admit rates. Some have gloated (big turn off), some were factual and humble.</p>
<p>For the institutions that gloated, it would be awesome if there were so many cross-admits to other selective schools that the "gloating"schools’ yield rates plummet (because those cross-admits pick the other schools).</p>
<p>Of course, “gloating” is in the “eye of the beholder” . . .</p>