<p>I asked and was told that they do not admit at all based on stated major or area of study. They do give a favorable nod to certain groups (small town kids, URM’s etc.), but not in any “quota” based way. I was told, and have seen it written, that main consideration is the faculty. The question is asked is “Would the faculty like to have this person in their courses?” At orientation the Dean of the College told the group of students S1 was with that they had been admitted for the faculty, so its seems if it is a line, many are repeating it.</p>
<p>Thanks Roger!</p>
<p>Just a couple of thoughts
uhhhh…what was that? I must have misread. Nothing like the weight of an entire extended family on your shoulders to make the day go easier. </p>
<p>
The recipe for admissions disaster. Unknowing parents + a stat collecting kid .</p>
<p>As I’ve said before - select college admissions offices don’t care a whit about selecting the quantitatively best or quantitatively most accomplished kids. They are not choosing between your kid and another kid. You cannot compare admissions results between kids and learn anything meaningful. They are selecting interesting, unique, striking, unconventional, original, brash, outspoken, studious, leaders, doers, movers and shakers AND enough contemplaters, navel ponderers, and bookish writers AND enough science and math geeks AND enough musicians, artists, ballplayers, rich folks, legacies, URM’s, fac brats, townies to meet the college’s needs and desires. And all they have to go on is that app. </p>
<p>The “program” or “strategy” was never designed to chose the “best”. It is simply a methodology for choosing what they want. If they don’t want you, why in God’s name would you want them? Are we so shallow that we need the validation of a name school or else life suddenly becomes a never changing gray? </p>
<p>For those who want clarity in the process, well here it is. This is their plan. That’s it. Nothing more. You cannot discern a formula because there is no formula. That’s what we are saying. You can’t have transparency in a system that is designed to be not only opaque and non-quantitative but constantly changing to meet the school’s needs and desires. </p>
<p>Change your goals. Stop wanting only the top schools. You are setting yourself up for a fall. </p>
<p>Now, I didn’t say there aren’t ways to increase your chances but that’s a different question.</p>
<p>OT: Someday soon I anticipate my D will come to me and say “Hey, Dad. How do I get one of the major graduate fellowships/scholarships (like Rhodes, Marshall, Gates Cambridge)?” Well, dear. It’s like this : they aren’t deciding who the “best student” is . It’s not really a quantitative thing. What you have to do is to follow you heart. If you are excited about something keep doing that thing and that’s what you can base your application on…and anyway, sweetie, if they don’t want you it’s their loss, right? ;)</p>
<p>curmudgeon: Great comments about “no formula.” Wish that all kids (and their parents) who want to apply to the top schools could read them.</p>
<p>Once again, Curmudgeon hits the nail squarely on the head. Should be required reading for the many parents and kids who feel they have “earned” admission to a top school and feel cheated/wronged if they are rejected.</p>
<p>Duke University website - undergrad admissions page - "Who we’re looking for:
“We want to find the ambitious and the curious, students who want to tackle issues head-on and are open to change. Duke is a community of talented learners, and we look for people who have unique qualities, who can challenge us as much as we challenge them. We want some bumps. We want some students who are well-rounded, some with sharp edges. We want people who are not afraid to undertake things that are messy, complex, and extremely difficult to do well—because they love it. We like students who already know what it means to succeed and those who know what it means to reach and not succeed and reach again. We like students who make intelligent and interesting mistakes, students who understand that only in risking failure do we become stronger, better, and smarter.”</p>
<p>Doesn’t sound like something easily quantifiable to me.</p>