FC, can you also address the fact that the OP has ignored the posts attempting to answer their question? Post #1, for example. I think this is a sign that this poster isn’t really looking for this information at all.
Also, as far as there being older threads out there: If they are sufficiently old, you all know the policy is not resurrect them but to start a new one that can see if there is anything new on the topic and/or create some fresh thinking. If there is a more recent thread that seems to be the same or nearly the same topic, then wouldn’t posting a link to tat thread be the more polite thing to do? It isn’t always easy to find other threads that are similar, depending on how the thread is titled, what forum it is in, etc.
And… The fact that the OP has ignored the constructive comments that have been made? This does not smell like a “real”'question or a poster who really wants to discuss this issue.
*You cannot know that any of what you are saying is true, @intparent. Just because they don’t choose to address every response, or even any response, doesn’t mean they are ignoring them or unappreciative of them. Just because post #3 is referencing the unhelpful nature of post #2 and not commenting on yours does not mean s/he was including yours in what was said in post #3.
Especially in this case, there were bashing and inappropriate comments before they even hardly had a chance to respond. In fact, through the first 11 or 12 posts, yours was the only one actually engaging the question. Not everyone spends every minute on this site. And in any case, if you think that, then either report them if there is a violation of the ToS or use your time more wisely elsewhere.
But assuming the worst when they really haven’t said anything at all except to take offense (correctly IMO) that people torpedoed her/him very quickly for even asking the question is not appropriate. I am not sure how anxious I would be to engage the few helpful comments when there were so many negative ones right off the bat. Bottom line, they asked a fair question that people ask all the time and there are any number of actions members can take, but bashing them for asking the question is not one of them that is appropriate.*
I went to the trouble to write a reasonably lengthy answer, and it was the first one after the initial question. It is annoying to do so for posters who it turns out don’t want to discuss the subject at hand. The OP could have commented on aspects of my post. Or asked for names of specific books that other posters referenced. Or asked posters who mentioned other threads to post those links. The poster did none of those things one would expect from a poster who is really asking for information.
*Those are your standards and expectations, and they are reasonable. But they may not be this person’s. I can certainly understand waiting for more than one serious response rather than engaging each one, that is reasonable as well. But then they started seeing the other kind of responses. And it is also reasonable that they didn’t ask for or want a book list, they wanted conversation. Why should they ask for something they had no interest in? Do they have to because you say so? That is primarily what this site is, conversation. You are essentially bashing them for not doing what you would do.
But again let’s go to the bottom line. Yes they COULD have commented on your first post immediately, and you are more than welcome to privately have the opinion that they SHOULD have. But to draw such negative and unfriendly conclusions because they didn’t follow your conception of how this works and express them on the thread is not right. I’ll say it one more time: If that is how you feel about someone’s post or lack thereof, either cross the thread off your list and move on or report them if their post violates the Terms of Service. Not responding to the first reply doesn’t enter the same solar system of violations.
In fact, while I would often (but certainly not always) consider it rude to start a thread and then never respond (which is not what happened here), that isn’t a violation either. The thread just dies. Or it doesn’t because other members have a good time talking about it anyway, despite the disappearance of the OP. We have certainly seen that. Whatever the case, you tell me where the ToS say that would be a violation. In fact, Dave Berry does that as a matter of routine. Should we sanction him??
What is not acceptable is for others to immediately then start creating a hostile environment for that person, when in fact they did absolutely nothing wrong but not live up to some other people’s standards, and dared to ask a question here rather than do hours of research first. Sorry, but the hostility and many of the initial comments were unwarranted and not in the letter or spirit of the Terms of Service.*
Okay… now we have had the lecture… Did you notice that the OP started exactly the same thread previously, just asking specifically for the ED process at Penn? Maybe you should merge the threads, as typically posters are discouraged from creating new threads because they didn’t like the answers in the last one.
OP: we went to one of those “how admissions works” workshops last night. It was interesting. They did 3 votes for admission: one after just GPA/sat, one after that plus ECs and a final one after those plus “personal qualities”. Of course the highest first vote was different than the end, though one candidate seemed to “have it all”.
What I found odd was the “actual” result, from which I deduced that if your rec calls you a “modern day (fill in the blank)”, they were undully impressed IMO. For my choice, I picked a “steady high performing, lately maturing a lot and good critical thinker” over the low GPA/SAT “renaissance man” and a high scoring girl who wrote a list of her likes, including black nail polish and pretty blue hydrangeas!
While I could see what they were looking at holistically, I will say it left me scratching my head a bit at their choices! So after all that, I suppose it is not just scores, but scores plus, Plus what? Who knows? Likely different for each school.
Thank you @fallenchemist
Not sure why someone get rattled about merging threads. It would be a fantastic idea to merge people’s thoughts and nations without borders is a Utopian idea. But that is simply NOT possible. in the same way, please answer or refrain, instead of being an obstacle. Please ACT and DO NOT RE-ACT:-).
HRSmom: Thanks for the feedback. This is exactly the reason, I am scratching my head. Its not scores; its not GPA, its not essays, ethnicity, athletes, reservations, quotas, etc. etc. Then you wonder: WHAT IS IT?
HOW do these great schools select 2000 out of huge a pool (10K or 30K) applicants in ED or RD?
Truly appreciate all answers. What exactly is HOLISTIC?
Do you want a specific list of ECs that provide the extra “pop”? Do you want more info on score ranges than can be found in the Common Data Set for the college? Do you want a list of the adjectives that are used in the most successful application letters? Do you want exact percentages of spots given to students with hooks? It isn’t clear what you want – some “secret sauce”? There isn’t one. This isn’t a math problem with one solution.
Discussion. Op is starting a Discussion, not looking for answers…as you said, no one answer.
I am not looking for a “secret-sauce”, as I am convinced that there is NONE.
BTW, if you love Math, results are based on boundary conditions. So, there is nothing that has a single answer.That is the whole reason of discussions and brainstorming.
The OP actually came looking for answers from admissions officers. I think that Is why suggestions or comments from others are being ignored. And they did ask a question, not merely start a discussion thread.
*That last comment makes no sense to me. They even used the term brainstorming session, which to me says discussion. I see nothing about admissions officers only, did you just make that up? Very misleading to imply that is what they were doing, it is clearly open to all, with a special call out to people that actually had to do what the OP is asking about. Of course it makes sense to ask admissions officers or similar people to contribute, what’s wrong with that? If you thought they wanted only admissions people, current or past, to answer then why did you? Is that your background?
And as far as the Penn ED, that is a very specific case, this is opened up to asking about all highly selective schools.*
MODERATOR’S NOTE:
At this point, the thread is going around in circles and snarkiness abounds. Additionally, this topic has been brought up before, including from the original poster. The OP is looking from insights from admissions officers, which is unlikely to happen on this thread. For these reasons, I am closing this thread.