“… One “B” in an academic class senior year can be enough for an admissions officer to not recommend admission for a student without a “tag.” One typo in an essay. One set of check marks on a teacher recommendation form that lists the student as “excellent” but not “outstanding.” This is enough for kids not to get admitted, unless, of course, they know someone.” …
Opinion.
Some of this is new information to me. So no "B"s, no essay typos and no “excellent” but not “outstanding” rec letters. Points taken.
She mentioned if scores don’t match the grades they look to see “if they get testing accommodations” for health reasons or a learning disorder.
This along with the b or the average recommendation or typo leads to being denied.
Really. A sick student or with a LD gets thrown to the wastebin? How do they know this and it sounds outrageous. And no my child does not have any of these issues.
I wonder if it’s not the opposite? DD had a friend with super high test scores but not stellar GPA (not bad but weighted 3.8 ish with a smattering of Cs). Student just didn’t try that hard in the classes he wasn’t interested in. No LD or accommodations, again just wasn’t that motivated. He had a very, very rocky admission cycle. I would hope that if he had an LD, there may have been more understanding about the disconnect. (Maybe I’m being naive though…)
AOs are definitely looking for ways to say no. But, it can be subjective, as even AOs in the same school have different reasons for making cuts (a typo might be overlooked by one and not the other, same with a student not having bio-chem-physics to take another example not cited in the article). Grades are also taken in context (quality of high school and level of course rigor)—there are relatively few students with straight As from top and/or highly competitive high schools.
She’s unclear if they really try to find out the answer about whether a student had extra time on tests, or it’s just having that question along with some number of others gets an applicant in the reject pile. I certainly hope they don’t try to find out about LDs and/or accommodations----unless the applicant wrote about those, finding out this info would mean someone, somewhere broke privacy laws.
The skeptic in me also was thinking the whole time that this was just a marketing piece written with tantalizing tidbits of information geared toward driving people to the author’s admissions counseling.
The writer of this article might just have earned her way on to the witness stand as an expert witness for the defense if any of the 50 charged decide to go to trial. (Expert witnesses are usually paid for their time & reimbursed for expenses.)
Maybe more colleges will have AOs sign agreements to not divulge trade secrets for X amount of time
Seems like when a college is that selective so that it gets many times as many applicants as it will admit, the admission process becomes a negative one, where any “defect” leads to quick rejection (unless the applicant is specially tagged with a major hook), rather than investigation as to whether the “defect” is explainable and the applicant is worthy of admission, since there are plenty of other similar applicants without any “defects”.
Puh-leeze. Check her background. She’s yet another pro counselor looking to sound authoritative. She left Penn in 2008. Things evolve. Dont be so determined to find answers that you forget to vet the source.
Typos are not an issue.
The download itself can screw up some words. The problem is poor writing, irrelevant topics, thinking issues, etc.
Please dont think reading one article makes you informed. Not if you want a top college.
How does what she says negate bribes to coaches with associated tax fraud, SAT/ACT fraud?
@Nrdsb4: Never wrote or suggested that it did negate any of those things. That is solely your reading & misinterpretation of what I wrote.
She asserts that the admissions officers should have caught discrepancies. Can help mitigate matters in order to minimize penalties.
I used to judge debate tournaments…some on the national circuit…and, believe me, when you have 10 guys on the stage, all excellent, it is an incredible relief to find a concrete reason to rate someone lower.
This quote from her article is one of the more ridiculous and self-serving thing’s I’ve read recently:
Admissions officers and deans of admissions are some of the most intuitive human beings in our workforce. As a former admissions officer and dean myself, I can speak to a student in a matter of a few minutes and be able to assess their authenticity, academic curiosity and integrity.
Why do you think that this statement is unreasonable ?
In light of the crimes allegedly committed, seems kind of far fetched, but we shall see. I think anyone who is called an “expert” will probably face some scrutiny of their own.
It is not “far fetched” in the legal world. Maybe in the eyes of lay people, but the real goal is mitigation, not exoneration.
@baltimoreguy That they can actually do such as a thing seems far-fetched, agreed, but not so much that they say they think they can. This goes to the point @SouthernHope made above. All the interviewees are gushing authenticity, academic curiosity and integrity like a firehouse. Any that slip up somehow get a demerit.
@lookingforward - after she left Penn, she was Dean of Admissions at Franklin & Marshall.
@damon30
I agree they think they can tell these things - the reality is that they’re mostly throwing darts at a board. I’m always surprised by how few admissions departments systematically review their decision-making process, based on the experiences of the students they admit, and alter their practices based on that data.
The author of this opinion piece was my daughter’s college counselor. She is nothing short of amazing, knowledgable, experienced, and most importantly, full of integrity. She offers a wealth of free information to all if you would bother to check out her credentials and services.