<p>I’m not stuck on my numbers (which were guesswork), but the admissions statement about “diminuation in quality” is not the same as saying that that particular team of admissions officers would make markedly different choices if presented with same set of applicants again (let’s say in a parallel universe). Example: most of the time, the color of an object does not represent a qualitative difference. There is no qualitative difference between a blue scarf or a red scarf or a brown one. And yet my clothes closet is dominated by certain colors. An ad com who thinks an essay is amusing would probably feel the same way no matter when they read it; the one who is put off or offended would also likely react the same each time around. </p>
<p>As between different individuals you might get different results. One reader might have a very take than another. But I think it is common for most colleges to assign geographic territories to ad coms. So no matter how the process was manipulated or juggled, the initial recommendation is probably going to be made by the same person, for most applicants. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think you are right about that and that is also why colleges are very reliant on ED and SCEA. They use their early-write period to get a sense of how their class is shaping up.</p>
<p>That is not what the colleges at the upper end of the selectivity eschelon are looking for in a student. They aren’t looking for undeveloped talent – on the contrary they are looking for the cream of the crop – kids who by the end of their junior year have very highly developed talents and interests, who have demonstrated that they are a step ahead of their peers. </p>
<p>I understand that there are many 17 year olds who just aren’t all that mature or ready to take on that responsibility – and there are many, many LAC’s and universities that will love to have them. But that isn’t what Harvard or Stanford or MIT is looking for. </p>
<p>I don’t mean to put down the kids who aren’t at that level. My son is one who was more of a late bloomer-- he had the “stats” (test scores & GPA), but not the maturity or initiative that my d. had at the same age (though some of her precociousness probably stems from his influence as the older sibling). </p>
<p>You want objectivity? That’s a standardized form that most of the colleges use. Why would anyone think those things don’t matter at the elite level, every bit as much as the GPA and test scores.</p>
<p>*"Back in my daughter’s day, there used to be large prominent buildings at or near major shopping malls called “Borders” or “Barnes and Noble”</p>
<p>“I can assure you, most kids who end up at Ivy League schools have a history of being rather voracious readers, who don’t need their mommy to lead them to books – or at least they did up until the recent past”*</p>
<p>I thought they go for the fiction books? But then again, I’ve been seeing threads along the lines of “I’m in 9th grade, what ‘ECs’ do I need to do for college.” </p>
I doubt that they keep that sort of data. Obviously it a subjective opinion of the teachers. But I’m pretty sure that most people looking at an admission file would tend to look at the form first and then read the letter.</p>
<p>I’m having a hard time knowing if you are serious or not. </p>
<p>My kids have always read nonfiction, as did I. I read fiction too as a kid, but I loved reading biographies and books about science. My daughter was a very early reader, and nonfiction was about all she read – there were only a very small number of fiction writers who were a match for her childhood combination of high reading level, low maturity. She’s be bored with the low end reading level of books geared to her age level, and I wasn’t particularly fond of having my 5 year old exposed to the subject matter of most fiction that was at her reading level (“young adult” genre).</p>
<p>I’m sorry, I can’t imagine not having a house full of nonfiction books.</p>
<p>Despite the demise of Borders, it is my observation that most communities still have an institution called the “public library,” and in my experience, these “libraries” typically have numerous reference books about college admission.</p>
<p>Didn’t strike me that students would naturally know to look up self help books on college admissions in their leisure time. Despite anyone’s voracious reading. I assumed that they would assume like me that it’ll all be as straightforward as doing well in class, send off a transcript, then filling out an app with your name and address. Isn’t that what it’s supposed to be?</p>
<p>Even from posts in this thread, it’s clear that many parents here were surprised when they first learned of the necessity of and the intricacies involved in, for the lack of a better word, “gaming” the process.</p>
<p>But then as I said, maybe times have changed. I noticed many young posters savvy enough to be doing their own research on CC. Not sure if this heavy focus on college admissions is a good thing. </p>
<p>Hunt, do they now?! Must be catering to demand.</p>
<p>A lot of these college guides were around back when I was applying to college. High school guidance counselors often have a bunch of them in their offices. There are lots of resources on the internet, too.</p>
<p>I certainly would guess that all the kids in my state applying to the CSU’s would assume that. </p>
<p>But any competitive admissions process, whether college or otherwise, requires more preparation. My daughter had to audition for acceptance into her arts magnet high school. I remember that early in the 8th grade (if not sooner) she was calling her older friends who attended that school for advice on how to prepare for the audition, and what the teachers would be looking for at the audition. I didn’t tell her to do that (or make the calls) – it was just something that was very obvious. </p>
<p>I do understand that there are kids who don’t get it – who think that they can simply send in a barebones application (or show up unprepared for an audition, and be on equal footing with the others. But those kids are not functioning at the level that fits the elite standards – that is, part of the expectation on an elite level is that students take initiative, ask questions, seek out answers without prompting from others. </p>
<p>The kids who “assume” and do not take the initiative to seek out answers on their own would probably be overwhelmed in an elite academic environment. College isn’t like high school; “you didn’t tell us that would be on the exam” is not an excuse any more. </p>
<p>The Ivies are looking to educate future world leaders and PhD’s. So they are looking for certain types of students. </p>
<p>Your posts seem to have a consistent undertone of “can’t” – you have offered one type after another as to why it is somehow unfair to expect teenagers to know or do the things that are relevant for high end admissions. But it all seems to come down to some sort of expectation that typical, ordinary high school kids should have an equal chance as anyone else to get into the Ivy league, if only they follow the rules and get good grades and test scores. </p>
<p>But you are entirely missing the point about the nature of the elite institutions. That doesn’t happen to be their mission. </p>
<p>I don’t think your posited problem exists very much in the real world. Yes, there are kids who never think to look at a book or web site with advice for college students, but most of them are going to very happily end up attending their state universities or community colleges. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The process has gotten more competitive, but the basic idea that one needs to seek out information along the way and present oneself well on an application is not new. I remember at age 15 sitting in a room at my alma mater meeting with an assistant dean, asking questions about the admissions process. I also remember as a teenager agonizing over an essay before I mailed off an application for a summer internship at a research lab – I didn’t get the internship, and I couldn’t tell you how I possibly found out about the internships – but the point is, I was thinking about that sort of stuff back in the late 60’s. </p>
<p>I don’t think that there is a need to “game” the system. I think there is a need to be objectively realistic about one’s own qualities, and to develop a set of life skills which include the ability to present oneself well. It doesn’t matter what you are applying for: college, a job, a scholarship – a decision is going to be made based on a cursory review of whatever materials are included in the application. You aren’t going to get anywhere if you “bury the lede” – you need to convey a clear message in a direct and clear manner. </p>
<p>There are thousands of high school students who are quite capable of this. I know, because so many of them post on CC. All you have to do is read through any “chances” thread and you can see many kids who are engaged in life and fully capable of conveying important information about themselves.</p>
<p>High scores in Math and a 410 Math SAT speaks volumes about the validity of high school GPAs in California. It takes a real effort to score that low on the SAT.</p>
<p>Calmom. Serious question. Are you a paid employee of CollegeConfidential? If not that, are you paid by a specific college or other college related employer to follow these threads?</p>
<p>Too bad because the emoluments are truly superb, especially when getting CC tenure. And the benefits could rival with the best research sinecures at the schools often discussed in these forums.</p>
<p>@GMT - good info. It would be great to see more of these “studies” done. The last one shows the impact of being a URM in the admissions process. The drivers license essay was lame - interesting to see if the kid had written a decent essay what they would have thought.</p>