<p>I suppose you could look at such leaders and then look back to where they went to school and get some idea.</p>
<p>But I take the holistic idea to be more concerned with students who lead, do great things, build a community, etc while on campus…after is great too. I’m sure colleges love to say so-and-so was educated here and we nurtured the kernels of his/her achievements - but I didn’t think that was the primary goal.</p>
<p>coolweather: If they didn’t I would imagine the “holistic” policies would disappear in a hurry.</p>
<p>Maybe the better question is, if colleges only admitted on stats, what would the answer be? We would possibly have more physics majors…</p>
<p>Why would we have more physics majors? If someone wants to study physics but is not accepted to college choice 1 (because some leader type or athlete or quirky artist “took that spot”), why wouldn’t that same student pursue physics at college choice 2?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That probably has nothing to do with holistic versus non-holistic admissions. Population growth relative to the number of spaces in highly selective colleges and universities is likely the cause of this phenomenon.</p>
<p><a href=“http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2013/2013008.pdf[/url]”>http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2013/2013008.pdf</a> page 49 has table 12 with the number of high school graduates by year. In 1996-1997, 2,611,988 students graduated from high school. In 2008-2009, 3,347,828 (28% more) students graduated from high school. </p>
<p>Assuming the same proportion have the academic achievement to be looking to go to selective colleges and universities, a 28% increase in applications without a corresponding increase in capacity will tend to cause those selective colleges and universities to become more selective.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think Sally meant that if an elite college based admissions on stats only, that college would have more physics majors, not that there would be more physics majors nationwide.</p>
<p>They want critical thinkers and people who have actual life experience not just robots that have had their nose in a book since pre-K. There is an abundance of posts like this on collegeconfidential and I believe it just helps people justify them not getting into their schools.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Correct. Just throwing a bone to QM. :)</p>
<p>ucb, good point. But clearly, even though they can choose otherwise, selective colleges are continuing with “holistic” admissions practices year after year. As RedEyeJedi reminds us…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The real reasons for holistic admissions are likely the following:</p>
<p>a. Certain positive or negative characteristics have a nonlinear affect on the applicant’s desirability from the school’s point of view, so designing a point system or other non-holistic process that accounts for that would likely result in something more difficult to understand by admissions committee people than a holistic process would be. Note that grades and test scores may be among those factors that have a nonlinear effect on the applicant’s desirability.</p>
<p>b. It is easier to be opaque with a holistic process than a point system or other non-holistic process, and the school can change its criteria arbitrarily as needed for its institutional goals. While public schools often have political pressure to disclose their methods (so Berkeley makes the Hout report available, along with some other documentation), private schools may prefer to keep their methods out of the spotlight.</p>
<p>All the talk of holistic admissions, searching for “quirky” kids, and the relative value of American STEM majors over foreigners has me thinking of Kary Mullis. Nobel prize winner, King of Quirk, and ultimate surfer dude American genius. But he wasn’t the first to publish his invention:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.nytimes.com/1998/09/15/science/scientist-at-work-kary-mullis-after-the-eureka-a-nobelist-drops-out.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm[/url]”>http://www.nytimes.com/1998/09/15/science/scientist-at-work-kary-mullis-after-the-eureka-a-nobelist-drops-out.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm</a></p>
<p>Dr. Mullis did his PhD at Berkeley, and attributes some of his insight into LSD experimentation during his time there. Although he is a highly controversial figure given his denial that HIV causes aids and other assorted conspiracy theories, he had an undeniable spark that others noticed and cultivated. Sometimes brilliance is not neatly packaged with test scores, or even rational behavior for that matter. I think that is what we’re missing out on in the selection of STEM graduate students these days. We need more creative fearless philosophers and fewer lab soldiers waiting to be assigned their chapter of the grant proposal to churn through.</p>
<p>Armchair quarterbacking.</p>
<p>According to the article, Mullis went to Georgia Tech; was Georgia Tech’s admissions process holistic at the time he applied (presumably in the 1960s)?</p>
<p>^^^Given his credentials, I suspect he had impressive stats- probably at least a 750 on the SAT math portion.</p>
<p>However, it probably was not difficult to get into any public school (even well known flagships) back in the 1960s. HYP may have been more difficult, due to much of their incoming classes still being taken by students from SES-elite (but not necessarily academically elite back then) boarding schools that they favored at the time.</p>
<p>“Do colleges get good results from holistic admission as they wish? This remains to be proven. The only thing we know for sure is education and college admission criteria change over time.”</p>
<p>If they felt they’d get better results from racing and stacking SAT scores, they would have done so long ago. Do you people not believe in the free market? </p>
<p>There is no “issue” with bright kids not getting into good schools in America. The problem is only that there is no guarantee that they will get into one of a very select group of schools. There are people who exalt HYPSM above all, but honestly, they themselves are pretty stupid if they can’t see that many other schools are equally as fine (cue QM’s idolization of MIT, or the inevitable “but that’s not what my friends in other countries think”).</p>
<p>And the smart kids who are being turned down at HYPSM go elsewhere, duh, and do great things. There’s no “problem” other than uncertainty. Sorry that life is such a zero sum game for you all, but that’s your own limitation.</p>
<p>This shouldn’t scare anyone who has the goods: [Our</a> Selection Process : Stanford University](<a href=“http://www.stanford.edu/dept/uga/basics/selection/]Our”>http://www.stanford.edu/dept/uga/basics/selection/)</p>
<p>Nor this: <a href=“http://admissions.berkeley.edu/selectsstudents[/url]”>http://admissions.berkeley.edu/selectsstudents</a></p>
<p>It’s not all about stats. The challenge is in showing the attributes and potential that go beyond the usual high school box of academics and activities. They’re 17 years old. Many can’t conceive that what worked in their high schools isn’t an automatic for the leap to a highly selective college. Many don’t look beyond the obvious reps of top schools, don’t look into the programs and don’t understand the CA and supps aren’t just a task, they are your vehicle. And, clearly, many don’t find those links and stop to ponder them and the most effective ways of conveying that vitality.</p>
<p>When my kids applied to very selective schools, I definitely counseled them that it was a crapshoot. Not that it was a crapshoot from the college’s POV – but from their point of view, all they could do was try their best, and thankfully we live in a country that offers lots of great schools so they didn’t need to have the pathetic top 20 or bust mentality so prevalent on CC. They had to live with the uncertainty of low admittance rates. Hope for the best, but don’t count any chickens til they are hatched. It seems like some of you can’t handle that ambiguity at all. That you want to know with a high degree of certainty that you’ll make it or not, because ambiguity is too difficult to handle. Well, I submit that bring able to handle ambiguity is a kind of “smart” that SATs don’t measure.</p>
<p>“sally305, why would it be good to accept “the way things are”? That’s the part I don’t get.”</p>
<p>Because it’s just not a crime against humanity if a bright kid doesn’t get into MIT or Berkeley and has to slum it at Carnegie Mellon or whatever. It’s just not the huge life deal. It’s a disappointment, but it’s not “awful” in any sense of the word.</p>
<p>If I apply for a job, I have to “accept” that they might not hire me because they find someone they liked better, even though I’m qualified. If I go to look for a date, I have to “accept” that the guy I think is cute may not be into me. This is life. Why such resistance?</p>
<h1>575
</p>
<p>I agree that having only 50% American citizens among PhD students in American universities in STEM fields is a problem. I had hoped there would be more follow-up to your post #349. I thought all your points in that post were interesting, but especially #6</p>
<h1>349
</h1>
<p>I wonder if some posting on this thread don’t see less than 50% American PhD students in American graduate programs in STEM fields as a problem?</p>
<p>Is the fix in changing holistic or in seeing more US kids better prepped for physics, as they leave hs? I don’t think the answer is easy, if one doesn’t know what is getting to admissions. And then, the quality and personal satisfaction of the kids taking the college classes, how are they being taught and cultivated, in college. Who is building these future PhD students? </p>
<p>Some reality check. For physics and engineering, we look for strong math- but also for (I said earlier) experience with the challenges, mindset and team work. Many kids, of all sorts, come through with some hs math and/or sci competition, acadeca or robotics experience. But, many also fall back on “want to help people.” Their inspiration isn’t experience, it’s (I swear) Discovery channel and their first set of Legos at 5. Many are only just taking AP physics or AP calc, so you can’t check their accomplishment.</p>
<p>And, surprisingly, many who seem qualified, don’t include an LoR from the physics teacher or chem or calc. </p>
<p>I personally think where you have to catch these future PhD kids is with their first true college physics/engineering classes. Ignite the spark. We can look for those with the potential and avowed interest, the colleges have to fuel the fire. </p>
<p>Thus is ime. And, fwiw.</p>