But unlike MIT, GTech admits to specific majors.
One might be forgiven for thinking a top math kid (not just competitions, but published papers, research awards, extremely selective research programs, etc) would be a good match for their math major. 
4 Likes
Seems like OOS trumps great academic match on paper more often than parents/students realize for GT.
Thatâs not a broken process. That is institutional priorities in action. Ones that Georgia Tech is open about (in-state preference).
Put another wayâŚmaybe that year there were lots of Georgia resident applicants for the math department. Maybe not as strong but not anything close to weak (maybe a couple as strong, who knows?). Not surprising that a public university in a state that preferences in-state applicants would choose to admit in-state applicants over OOS applicants. Even if they have double the admission rate of MIT (a private school).
1 Like
I will reiterate that GTechâs OOS admit rate, while low, is twice the overall MIT admit rate. (ETA: I see your later edit addresses that point)
But I am basically in agreement. There are no guarantees, no certainties, no discernible rhyme or reason.
Our kids are judged by invisible gods looking into their âcharacterâ.
2 Likes
Being legacies or kids of major donors is simply an offshoot of being high income. All I am saying is that schools look at a familyâs ability to pay (and possibly become donors) and that it carries significantly more weight in their decision to admit or not. This has nothing to do with the nonsense we hear about being âholisticâ which implies a level playing field. It is anything but level - a fact that most middle to upper middle class kids with great stats have already learned.
Yes, shed a tear for the middle and upper middle class kids with great stats.
2 Likes
This is where I have big disagreement (even if this is mostly facetious).
After confirming academic match - I think AO are, for the most part, trying to figure out which students match the âvibeâ on campus. I donât think AOs are trying to decide which student is the nicest, or has the best character. I do think they are screening out obvious red flags, but beyond thatâŚit is about whether the students look like they would âfit inâ.
What would this person do or not do on campus? Is there a tribe for this person? Do students like this one accept a spot on our campus or do they usually say ânoâ? If they do say yesâŚdo they stay or do they transfer? What activities would this student participate in? Can we see this student on our campus being happy and successful or not? Is this a student we want to spend resources on (for the merit money question)? What does this student bring to our campus/do for our campus?
If that sounds mostly self-serving on the part of the AOsâŚit is! They are trying to put together a class for the next year which will fill spots across many departments, that will hit revenue targets, while also increasing the schoolâs good stats. They want to have a good handle on yield (in close connection to revenue). While also trying to make sure that their âsoftâ targets (athletics, music, theatre, activities) will also continue to be well supported by the incoming class.
7 Likes
Iâm not âshedding a tearâ - merely pointing out that the high cost of college continues to propagate a system where the wealthiest get to keep everything for themselves and that colleges are less than honest about it.
1 Like
Itâs probably a personal bias from someone who canât make top grades or scores even if they tried so they come up with a bunch of excuses for why theyâre superior human beings.
1 Like
The other aspect of this is not in the admission process itself, but in having a lifetime of parentally purchased opportunities* to earn achievements in. Obviously, the achievements still have to be earned, but that is a greater starting advantage compared to those whose parents could not afford the opportunities, or where additional barriers have to be climbed before finding the opportunities.
*Including attending good quality schools.
3 Likes
Not really (at least until CS this cycle), although they do have to answer Techâs supplement showing fit to their initial intended major. GA tech students have basically unrestricted ability to change majors (again, not with CS starting with Class of 2028).
1 Like
In the case of major donors, of course the schools know that they will be full pay, but they are looking at a lot more than that. In those cases, the schools are hoping for 7 figure gifts - tuition is a minor consideration. And while real wealth is a driver for these schools, just being to afford tuition isnât enough to move the bar in my view. Especially since these schools are ostensibly âneed blindâ - of course, in the case of kids of potential mega donors they can easily figure out that there could be something more there.
Sometimes the college wants the opposite â avoid having too many students who cause the college to be seen stereotypically, harming marketing to other students. For example, a college seen as being full of highly competitive premeds may favor non premeds to diversify its students and make it more attractive to future non premeds.
Historical policy was one unrestricted major change in the first few semesters.
1 Like
Personally, I worry most about kids who canât afford college at all. Solid students from low SES households who arenât the kind of academic standouts that will attract meets full need schools. For those kids there are often not many affordable options - which means CC (if it is available nearby), commuting (if there is an option nearby) or taking out too many loans. Compared to those kind of struggles, my UMC kiddo is going to be just fine even if he doesnât get into a T20.
9 Likes
So the college admission system worked?
Iâm rational. Iâd love to see data which shows âthe wealthiest get to keep everything for themselvesâ. I absolutely understand the issues around the 1%, the accumulation of assets at the top and the lack of trickle down to the bottom⌠but I fail to see the dots you are trying to connect. Is it your contention that going to U Conn instead of Duke is somehow enlarging the gap between the top and the bottom?
Help me understand the point you are trying to make and Iâll drop the snark. Numerous surveys have shown that public flagships (Wisconsin, Michigan, the top tier publics in NY and CA) have a disproportionate number of graduates who end up in the C-suite of Fortune 500 companies. So again- is it an economic tragedy when an upper middle class kid goes to Binghamton and not Columbia because some âfull pay rich kidâ took her spot?
1 Like
Although it does seem in @Chekovâs case, it was a type yield protection, not for a statistical end, but by not wasting a spot on a kid who will likely go elsewhere. Waitlist is the perfect tool then. If they are serious about attending, they will go through the waitlist process vs just withdrawing.
1 Like
I think the general point is that most people cannot afford college. 20K a year at your state school is still unattainable for many when all other costs are increasing.
1 Like
I have seen no evidence that Ga Tech yield protectsâŚthatâs not all that common among publics.
Why would they waitlist if yield is the issueâŚbecause historically waitlist admits have relatively lower yield at many schools (waitlisted student committed to a school already that they have learned to love, nonrefundable deposits and the like).
2 Likes
That is why I said that this was not a function of trying to improve a yield statistic. GT has limited OOS spots. Seems rational that if an AO thinks an applicant is using GT as a âsafetyâ that it would put such an applicant on the waitlist (same for Rice if I remember @Chekov post correctly).
1 Like