<p>To return to an earlier discussion on the thread: I think it is an interesting question whether the holistic admissions practices of the “top” universities contribute to the proportion of American-citizen Ph.D. students enrolled in US universities in some fields being 50% or below.</p>
<p>Perhaps it does not, at all. On the other hand, a bright student who was interested in maximizing chances of admission to the “top” schools would be well advised to do something to differentiate himself/herself as an applicant, that did not involve private advanced study. On the plus side, the student might accomplish something of significant benefit to others. Good!</p>
<p>On the down side, I am not sure that there is any particular advantage for a student who has completed multi-variable calculus and AP Physics C (both parts) to take courses beyond that. (Congratulations, kid, you are about on par with a 10th grader in much of Asia!)</p>
<p>I might guess that if students are discouraged from going further in course work while still in high school (and I have no evidence that it is an advantage for top college admissions), then they may be more likely to change out of STEM majors while in college. This may be the case, or not–I don’t know of a study of it.</p>
<p>I do think that high school students are often savvy enough to see what sells, and to shift their efforts in that direction.</p>
<p>With regard to the Berkeley applicants who were profiled, specifically, I was glad to see the remark by lookingforward (I think it was she), to the effect that protestations of wanting to “help people” don’t carry an applicant very far without concrete evidence. Most STEM faculty teach large numbers of pre-meds and hear from every single one of them about a deep desire to “help people.” When it is genuine, as it is sometimes, that is great. When it is phony, it’s really off-putting.</p>
<p>“i am not sure that IBM is representative of Fortune 50 companies, though. I looked up a Fortune 50 company familiar to me, and found that it has slightly over 50,000 employees counting part-timers–so it’s about one-tenth the size of IBM. I am not sure about the split in terms of employees with and without college degrees, nor about the full-time/part-time split for it. If they are hiring 1,000+ college grads in a single year, I think I would know more people receiving offers from them.”</p>
<p>No. No one said it was 1000 freshly minted college grads in a single year for the same / similar job. We said that a company that size hires (well over) 1000 people a year that have graduated college. They might be fresh out or they might be mid career. </p>
<p>I used to work for a Fortune 50 multinational. It has offices, plants, sales centers, research labs all over the world. I worked in the headquarters building which probably had 2500 employees of the thousands worldwide. Over my tenure there, maybe I was acquainted with several hundred. Why on earth would I think I’d know “a lot of people receiving offers from them”? I’d know the ones in my department and adjacent departments. I think you’re not familiar with how large these kinds of companies really are.</p>
<p>True, it looks like a significant number of California high schools have AP courses in two or three of the named categories (English language arts, mathematics, science and social studies) rather than all four, although it does not seem very easy to find a high school with none (other than continuation schools and the like, non-accredited schools, or the few schools that do IB).</p>
<p>Well, if the 1000+ employees hired in a single year come from across the spectrum of job experience, that doesn’t seem to me to be parallel to university admissions, either. University admissions works generally within a single age cohort. There are exceptions, of course, due to gap years, people returning to college some years after high school (though I think that is more common at the mid and lower-tier universities than at the top), people who have completed military service . . . But it’s more or less 1000+ people all at the same stage.</p>
<p>My university has on the order of 2500 faculty on campus. What level of acquaintance do you count as “knowing”, PG? I think I know more than several hundred of them.</p>
<p>The Fortune 50 company that I mentioned hires students in my field at BS and Ph.D. levels. They take one per year, on average. There are not 1000+ universities that are sending students to them. We are not so far down the academic totem pole that they are hiring 50-100 students from some other universities every year and just avoiding our students.</p>
<p>The fact of choosing x thousand admits for the freshman class can take the notion of “cherry picking” to new levels. They’re composing an entire cohort, all based in the same location, only a small percentage with college experience (if you count DE or a summer class.) I’m not sure how far the corporate comparison works. A large number of applicants are qualified to do the work. The college can afford to be somewhat self-indulgent, can include the issues related to “campus vitality” and- especially when your pool is vast and generally highly qualified- can take some risks.</p>
<p>It’s really irrelevant that university admissions is within a single age cohort / for the same “job” (=Freshman 101) and company recruiting isn’t. The point that was being made is that job recruiting and college admissions are both done holistically, not rack-and-stack GPA’s/SAT’s/etc, and anyone who’s had ANY hiring experience in the real world gets this, but apparently the academics or those without hiring experience don’t.</p>
<p>Ok, but let’s turn it around. Not just that hiring and admissions are both holistic (along with a host of social situations.) But, the fear it’s something about “you” that will turn them off. Thousands of kids clamoring at the gate, some vagueness about who gets into the party. I don’t think it’s enough to say, that’s life. I think parents are reacting to the possibility some unknown will alter their kids’ seeming chances and assuming there is no control. Remember the ridiculous thread about whether or not the adcom likes your home sports team or had bad pizza in your city?</p>
<p>Everyone seems to deal well with uncertainty in recruiting – no one whines that they “deserved” a job at XYZ Corp but didn’t get it, or that their “rightful spot” at XYZ Corp was given to (a minority, the boss’ son, someone with a lower GPA, etc.). So why can’t you all deal with that same uncertainty in college admissions? Sure it’s unpleasant. Sure it would be easier to have a formula that you could plug in. But that’s not life.</p>
<p>I agree about just dealing with college uncertainty- but we’re able to look at and grasp the numbers, the sheer volume of the competition (not just numbers of applications, but the number of high performing kids in line.) It stands to reason, after the stats, activities and some reasonable effort on the CA, even the best kids still have only some rare chance.</p>
<p>Where I think parents miss the point is that, with their own narrow view of how hard their kids worked, how bright they are, how successful they seem, their special talents, what sorts of teacher or class challenges they suffered and mastered, in the hs context…they have no perspective on what the volume of quality kids applying to a competitive college really means. It’s no longer that Bobby is top 3%, has top scores and is varsity captain. Thousands fit that pattern.</p>
<p>So, they sit there and gripe about the unknown, call for standards based on what is a big deal in the hs context, what served their kid and what their kid served. Someone gives a hint (cure cancer! start a foundation! have passion!) and they rush in that direction. And, all the while, assuming adcoms are a bunch of dumb clucks. We know the range of complaints and assumptions.</p>
<p>I agree with lookingforward that there are limits on how far the corporate comparison works. I understand that in both circumstances the selections are holistically based currently. That’s not at issue. But in a corporation, people are presumably being hired to work together with current employees to accomplish specific things. It makes sense that if someone doesn’t “fit,” he/she won’t be as valuable a team member. I think where PG and I differ is in our view of what universities are or should be selecting their students to do. Personally, I think universities thrive on people who don’t “fit.”</p>
<p>lookingforward, I can understand your impatience with people complaining about the rejection of the Bobby-category applicants. Please give me some credit for the type of my complaint, though–the student (QMP’s friend) whose experiences made me cynical was a very great deal more impressive than Bobby-category. He shares characteristics with Nobel laureates I have known. I don’t think adcoms are “a bunch of dumb clucks.” Not at all.</p>
<p>But at a small number of schools, either the priorities of the admissions personnel were misplaced, or the student was adversely affected by combinations of circumstances that the admissions personnel had no way of knowing.</p>
<p>I have remarked elsewhere that the really quite impressive applicant is an atheist–not of the “in your face” Christopher Hitchens category, but not hiding that, either. The head GC is a proselytizing Christian. At the high school baccalaureate, held at a local church, he spoke to the graduates about the importance of his faith. This is a public high school I am mentioning. I doubt that any suggestion of this mismatch was apparent in the GC’s letter. I also doubt that the GC’s letter was as strong as it would have been for a Christian student. (I am a Christian, myself, but I would not let a student’s religious beliefs or lack thereof influence what I write for him/her.)</p>
<p>Getting accepted to UCB is not an uncertainty for at least the top 3-5 percent of the class. Each year about 60 kids in my local schhol are admitted. It’s pretty much predictable in my kids’ school. We don’t have the private college drama. I am pretty sure the kids having more than 12 APs are admitted. The uncertainty we are talking about here is for the kids close to the top 5 percent and the kids who are much below than that.</p>
<p>Well, the parents described the GC’s letter to me as “lukewarm.” I can see how that might be a deal-breaker. I am speculating, sure. Who knows how the decisions are actually made? Most of the other decisions where I know the students made some sort of sense. (That’s not to say that no one was disappointed, just that the decisions could be understood.)</p>
<p>coolweather has a valid point–this wasn’t about Berkeley admissions. But I don’t think lookingforward reads for Berkeley (unless I am mistaken). And I don’t think there are Berkeley students/grads in the PG family, either. And none in mine.</p>
<p>What does that have to do with anything? What, if I had a Berkeley student / grad in my family, that would give me tremendous insight into Berkeley admissions? All of us (except LF) are only seeing very tiny corners of the whole process. We simply CANNOT conclude that “Joey did community service, and he got into Yale, so therefore Yale likes comm service.”</p>
<p>Actually, people do complain about such things, sometimes to the extent of making lawsuits about illegal discrimination (age, race, gender, etc.) if applicable.</p>
<p>Berkeley is not super-selective in the sense that HYPS are. HS GPA (unweighted) over about 3.7 with SAT over 2100, or HS GPA over 3.9 with SAT over 1800, appeared to have a good (but not certain) chance of admission to Berkeley L&S in 2008-2009 (last year of UC Statfinder, when it was up). For Berkeley Engineering, HS GPA over 3.9 with SAT over 2100 had a good (but not certain) chance of admission (with variation by major not shown on UC Statfinder). Of course, things may have changed since then, but probably not hugely.</p>
<p>In comparison, Data10’s recent postings indicate that Stanford admission requires something like HS GPA over 3.8, SAT over 2000, *and state or national level award or extracurricular<a href=“or%20something%20equally%20impressive”>/i</a>. I.e. grades, test scores, and a decent essay can get into Berkeley a lot more easily than they can get into Stanford (even though Berkeley should not be considered a safety for anyone, some people may reasonably be able to see it as a match).</p>
<p>The one glaring difference between an employer choosing and employee and a college choosing a student…the financial relationship. The employer chooses whom THEY want to pay…and the applicant never pays an application fee. </p>
<p>In the case of the college…the applicant PAYS to apply and then PAYS once accepted. So, arguably if one is able to pay full price for an item offered on the open market and the seller refuses the money…it can be viewed as discriminatory.</p>
<p>The relationship between applicant and provider is completely different.</p>