That is the nature of statistical analysis. Holding constant for other variables, does one variable (in this case, timing of application) correlate strongly to a different outcome.
But an admit is not random. Correlation isn’t causation and the ratings alone aren’t the “it.”
You also aren’t accounting for institutional needs or the very fact that assigning a quantitative rating to a qualitative decision process isn’t enough.
In holistic, it sure helps to skip the higher math fixation on numbers.
IMHO holistic really does translate to random. There are so many factors, variables and biases built into a holistic review that, especially at the tippy top schools, there is a huge dose of luck involved.
Vpa, nope. Not random. They don’t close their eyes and pick every 10th or 20th kid.
Random, as in, without a method applied consistently. Yes, that sums it up.
The problem with the statistical analysis of the Harvard data is you do not truly have a control group. It is a flaw in many scientific studies trying to link correlation with causation. Think of a double blind drug study where neither the researcher or the patient knows whether they receive the medication or a placebo. In this case, the students are self-selecting which pile they go into, which may be altering the quality of the apps when looked at in totality. A true control group would be taking the SCEA apps and randomly assigning 1/2 to RD without the AO being informed, but I think this would lead to a different lawsuit.
I cannot look at a thousand applications to Harvard and tell you who is getting in. But I’m willing to bet dinner that I’d do a very credible job of telling you who is NOT getting in.
My own kids HS (I know y’all hate anecdotes, but I am not a Harvard adcom so don’t have super secret statistics to share)- 4 kids would get into Harvard every year since forever. The kids assumed it was some sort of quota system which of course is bogus- Harvard takes who they take. One year the “collective wisdom” was that there were 5 Harvard worthy applicants. And two of them were legacies. But 5 absolutely spectacular kids who were applying to Harvard. The one with financial need (or so it was assumed based on the family’s lifestyle, obviously nobody knows the truth) had zero “social capital”. Just a spectacular intellect; incredible interests outside the classroom which he had pursued to a nationally recognized level; and most of all- the kindest, most modest and unassuming kid you would ever meet.
So the kids- being kids- assumed that since Harvard always takes 4 kids, the modest/modest lifestyle kid with zero connections to Harvard would get rejected.
No, because Harvard takes who they take. 5 kids that year. 5 spectacular kids, including two legacies who were also incredible candidates in their own right.
The next year- back to 4. But one of the kids they didn’t take was a multi-generational legacy with parents and grandparents who had been very generous to Harvard over decades. They didn’t take him because he applied early to Yale.
It’s easy to look at your own town and assume that represents the entire world which of course it doesn’t. And every year there are kids who don’t get into Harvard who go on to do great things from Yale or CMU or UIUC or U. Wisconsin. That’s the thing of it- Harvard is not the magic sorting stick which determines who gets to flip burgers for the rest of their lives, vs. who becomes a Rhodes Scholar and goes on to cure cancer after solving the China/Tibet conflict.
Tell your kids that they get to become whomever they want to become, even if they DON’T get into their first choice college. That would go along way to reducing the stress of the process for sure. For the folks who are grinding their teeth at how awful the process is and therefore we must skewer the single digit admit colleges at all costs because of their nefarious admissions policies- what message do you think your kids are picking up from all of this?
The game is rigged? You are a loser if you get rejected from a college or 3 or 4? Someone else- less worthy- got your seat?
I’m not against holistic admission. However, schools should make the rules, the parameters and their internal processes of admission public, so not only applicants have a better sense of their admissibility, but also the public at large can check whether the schools follow their own rules and processes. Without the openness, arbitrariness in admission is hidden. No one is accusing adcoms making random admission decisions by throwing dices, but the elements of arbitrariness are definitely present in many decisions, especially when they only have 10 minutes to spend on an application. How do you tell an applicant’s “personal qualities” in that 10 minutes, for example?
Why should a private school make their admissions process completely public? Since they don’t use a strictly stat-based admission, why, aside from what they do share on their CDS, factbook and what is shared on their website, in their info sessions and local presentations of what they are looking for, should they make what is not completely formulaic “public”?
Should every company hiring for a position and every theater company casting roles give more than what is shared about the job, the requirements or the nature of the role? The application /admission requirements shared by colleges may be minimal requirements, they may be average info of previous admitted students, and they may describing the kind of student they are looking for, but (a) no its not random and (b) no they have no reason to give more information about their process just because someone wants to know.
What corporation do is their business, with the minimum contraints of legality. What the government, or those receiving massive taxpayer funding do, is all of our business.
Nope-- Colleges are businesses. Theaters get grants, as do colleges. But businesses are businesses whether they are colleges, a Fortune 500 or a theater, and not required to share that level of information (especially the private colleges).
Just because you apply for a job with the federal government does not mean you will get the job. You see the qualifications listed on the job posting, but are they going to tell you exactly who they hire and why? No way. Just because you think its “your business” does not make it so.
Great-if they are businesses,we need to revoke their nonprofit status asap! Think of the tens of millions of dollars in property taxes states and localities can collect immediately. It will really help them. And of course we shouldn’t be subsidizing the colleges’ business model, so we can cut all that financial aid and educational grants-businesses need to be profitable or go bankrupt in our society .
The federal government maintains the most comprehensive hiring statistics of any employer, by the way. Accessible in aggregate, as college stats should be but are not. But don’t want to rehash the transparency thread. Thank our lucky stars for litigation, which at least forces limited disclosure by defendants.
Why so bitter? I really don’t understand.
Also not for profit educational institutions make PILOT (Payment in lieu of taxes) to local governments.
There seems to be a huge discounting of the benefits of universities.
The CIA is entirely funded by the government and even they operate with whatever transparency they deem appropriate in terms of who they hire and who they reject. I’d call that massive taxpayer funding btw.
And Roycroft, you’d be surprised at how much government revenue flows through corporate income statements. The GSA is the largest procurement organization in the world, and most of what they are procuring comes from private industry. The high ticket price items (airplanes, for example) get a lot of attention, but what about the low ticket items- every computer screen and mouse, every roll of toilet paper in a government facility, every cookie consumed on a naval base- all sourced from corporations in quantities that make the tax exemptions and other federal dollars flowing to colleges look like- well, crumbs from cookies.
So not sure I follow your logic.
Most non-profits are businesses. I consult with many non-profits, and there is an adage frequently heard in my industry:
“No margin, no mission”
4-5 admits to Harvard from one school? What kind of school is that?
Actually, I used to work for the CIA, as a lawyer, so I have spent a whole lot of time defending the withholding of info for them. Every single item withheld rests upon a statutory exemption from disclosure which has been approved by Congress and upheld in the courts. An enormous amount of info actually is disclosed-CIA has one of the most active FOIA offices in the government, and has even won an award (Yes, seriously) for its disclosure from the ACLU. And it’s hiring and promotion practices were subject to class action litigation in Northern Virginia. So if colleges want to get laws written to exempt their info, that is fine with me.
My BIL worked for the NSA. He did not know why they selected the applicants they did. Nor should he.
@Trixy34 I’m guessing a local one ?
Colleges are tax-exempt because they perform a useful and critical public service. They need to be held to a higher standard than typical private for-profit businesses. Even private businesses that perform critical public functions are highly regulated and monitored (e.g. banks). The alternative to not having public disclosure is to be constantly monitored by some governmental entity (as banks do, for example), but I don’t think that’s what colleges want.