<p>mathboy, the colleges which scrutinize essays for character elements are mostly the same colleges which scrutinize teacher recs and which virtually require interviews. It’s difficult to fake it all the way around; and if a student can, then probably he or she belongs in acting, not in academia.</p>
<p>I get your point about “pure merit,” but even that cannot be assessed objectively, nor projected into the future with accuracy. The elites do care about character qualities because those figure into post-college leadership as well as success. While they’re thrilled to be able to brag about an innovative scientist with a headlines discovery as one of their own alum, they’re just as excited (if not more so) to be able to brag about someone in a private or public leadership position, since that person will tend to stay in the news longer & reflect positively on the institution. </p>
<p>No institution is immune from that kind of motivation; it’s just that Ivies compete with each other more in that department than do some other excellent schools.</p>
<p>“I wish we could go back to pure merit, and not have these what I’d call flimsier factors be used. Even under a purely merit-based system, there will be ambiguities as to what constitutes “merit” but at least I think the spirit of what would be going on should be right.”</p>
<p>There has never been a system in the U.S. in which university admissions was dermined soley by “pure merit” if by that you mean one’s grades and test scores.</p>
<p>From the very first, race, religion, gender, ethnicity, and social class played a big part in who was admitted to colleges. In fact, many people were totally prohibited from attending college due to their social class, race or gender.</p>
<p>Now, many more factors determine whether a person is admitted, and most people who want to go to college in the U.S. can find some way of obtaining a college education. </p>
<p>Meanwhile, when it comes to determining merit by scores and grades, there are many more factors that can help determine merit depending on how merit is defined. All of the people who get college acceptances were deemed by admissions officials to have merited admission. When it comes to top colleges, there are far more students who merit – qualify – for admission than there are spaces for such students who apply.</p>
<p>I’ll be honest, this one still hurts. ED to University of Pennsylvania, Deferred to Rejected. I am the person in question. And anyone willing to point out anything would be a great help. </p>
<p>Decision: Deferred</p>
<p>Stats:</p>
<pre><code>* School applied to: College of Arts and Sciences (Classics, Biology)
SAT Verbal: 760
SAT Math: 780
SAT Writing: 770
SAT Total: 2310
SAT II: 750 Latin, 730 World History, 730 Math II
ACT: N/A
AP/IB taken/scores: 5 AP Calc AB, 5 AP World, 5 AP US; additional 6 APs this year.
GPA weighted: 97/100
GPA unweighted: Unknown
Rank or % estimate: Top 5%
</code></pre>
<p>Subjective:</p>
<pre><code>* Essays: Outstanding.
Optional Essay?(Y/N): Yes.
Teacher Recs: Should have been terrific.
Counselor Rec: Should have been great.
Supplemental Rec(s)?: Yes… And not from unimportant people…
Hook (if any): Classics?
Interview?: Yes.
</code></pre>
<p>Location/Person:</p>
<pre><code>* State or Country: NJ
School Type: Independent, ~215 students
Ethnicity: White
Gender: Male
Financial Aid?(Y/N): No
Legacy Yes/No: No
Recruited Yes/No: No
Important ECs: Treasurer of National Honor Society (helped create/run revamped peer tutoring program), President of Classical Cultures Society (Treasurer two previous years), on executive board of State Classical Culture League, Latin Honor Society, Editor-in-Chief of literary magazine (Asst. Ed-in-Chief year prior), Witness in Mock Trial (Two years), member of anti-destructive decision group. All activities have more than two years of involvement, most are all four years. Programs over the summer: NYLF on Medicine, New York Film Academy Film Camp, Math Course.
</code></pre>
<p>Other Factors (weaknesses, strengths, etc.): Meh SAT IIs, I guess. I dont know. Nothing else was weak.</p>
<p>General Comments/Congratulations/etc: Two others from my school applied to Penn ED, both got in, although to different schools/programs. Im happy for them. But, as Shakespeare said, woe is me.</p>
<p>There’s nothing to “point out,” because it’s not as though anyone can say “Aha! If your SAT score had just been …, you’d have gotten in!” You were certainly in the ballpark for Penn (and you got into Brown!). Penn could have just as easily taken you and not some other kid. There was no magical formula that you fell short on.</p>
<p>I still think TheWerg’s rejections were way more surprising than Amadeuic’s, personally.</p>
<p>After chillin’ on the HYPS chances boards with him for several months, I was almost positive he would get into ONE of them. I didn’t either, but that wasn’t entirely surprising. He had better stats than me, AND he was a URM. My jaw dropped; not gonna lie.</p>
<p>England has a more objective system, there is a personal statement but nearly the entire system is based on test scores.</p>
<p>I agree with mathboy, it’s impossible to shape a student body using 500 word essays. Better to accept the best students and let the college develop a reputation for itself.</p>
<p>I clearly do not mean to say merit depends only on grades and scores – these themselves are factors that must be considered in context of the applicant’s background. I am just not in favor of rejecting/accepting applicants based on perception of their character. I am not quite confident from the way I’ve seen admissions work out that snobs are weeded out, even to a large extent actually. </p>
<p>I would like applicants who’re admitted to be admitted because they show exceptional promise in some area – whether that be athletics, music, whatever – say school X has one of the best football teams around, then I’d say it should recruit the best football players. Grades and scores are far too generic measures in my opinion, though they are very important baseline points. But what I mean by merit is that students should be admitted because they show potential in some way that the given school could help them progress. I do not know that it’s quite so straightforward these days, whereas I’m pretty sure it was more so before, say around 15 years ago.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Interviews are better than essays to me, though the obvious flaw many find with interviews is that some freeze on interviews, but say what they want to better on an essay. I just like interviews a whole lot better – you really get a feel for what someone is like by talking to them. And I think it takes more acting talent to fake an interview.</p>
<p>I also prefer teacher recs to essays, because usually a teacher is someone you met in school and even if they like you, it’s usually because of what you do in their class. If they can describe wonderful things about you, I’d say there’s a bigger chance you’re a joy to have at school. And again, not describe what a nice person you are – I’m talking about spotting real, genuine intellectual curiosity, and describing it. </p>
<p>I feel if anything, essays should be there to make a statement of interest in the school – not to “get to know you” – for instance, it’s nice if a student can present a mature statement as to why he/she would want to attend Harvard. Those are the good kinds of essays. Many of the essays required today, which are very important in the selection process, really seem frivolous measures to me.</p>
<p>This, concisely, says what I think is one of the biggest frustrations I have with how things are done today. This thread makes it sound like admissions officers really try to treat applications as people, and simply put, applications are not people. They can state qualifications and briefly give insight into the applicant’s world, but engineering a class based on them sounds like fun, but in principle I have little reason to think it does anything fantastic – rather, makes the process appear whimsical, and perhaps truthfully so.</p>
<p>I don’t disagree with your thought process, but I’d also note that the “issue” with favoring teacher recs over essays is two-fold:</p>
<p>1) The teacher at an “meh” public school is simply not going to be able to write the type of insightful essay that a teacher at a high-achieving private school might, because the former might not even know enough about elite college admissions to understand what’s being looked for (he / she might write “X is a hard-working student who is always prepared” and think that’s a good rec, whereas a teacher in a more sophisticated environment would know to write more conceptually about strengths and academic promise).
2) The teacher recs favor extraverts over introverts, and a good school environment needs both types.</p>
<p>Yes, this is why I say essays should still exist as an important part of the process, but for very plain purposes – for instance, making a plain statement why school X is right for the given student. That is, can a student applying to Harvard give a good reason he/she wants to go there, and not “Harvard is a terrific school” – what could this student accomplish there? What’s special about Harvard to that student? This favors students who’ve taken the trouble to research Harvard enough that they really know what there is out there – even if students fake this to an extent, in the process they have to find out something about Harvard. Then, you take a look at their credentials and see if they’re really looking like someone who can take advantage of Harvard in the way they say they will.</p>
<p>As for the issue about the teacher at a “meh” public school, well the same exists for an applicant who is less seasoned than another – a “meh” application-essay-writer who may otherwise be a stellar candidate doesn’t exactly have it easy. It’s an unfortunate imperfection in any application process – the more seasoned ones do better. What we can do, however, is keep it as straightforward for the seasoned applicants as possible. Still no guarantees, but it’s not a wild “assemble your ideal class of human beings” party for admissions officers in this case – more of an “assemble your ideal class of talent.”</p>
<p>In the end, I think a straightforward essay statement plus honest feedback from teachers are the best we can do.</p>
<p>I don’t like teacher reqs, I’d rather have essays, but have them be “explain any special circumstances that hurt your app” essays rather than “explain why you are a unique and beautiful flower to add to our garden” ones.</p>
<p>Essays are better because it’s much easier to improve your writing than your teachers.</p>
<p>Ooh, sorry, I wasn’t really paying attention to the flow of the thread.</p>
<p>I don’t know if you were talking about someone in particular (I’ll check back and read through after I post this), but I certainly would not expect you to be talking about me and it was just a coincidence. Once again, I apologize for any confusion.</p>
<p>This was just my own experience that bothered me; I didn’t mean to interrupt any ongoing conversation.</p>
<p>I was just looking at WaitingForGodot’s posts and he was rejected from MIT, Harvard, Princeton, and Duke, and only got into UVA. I’m thinking he must have written poor essays, or came across as extremely arrogant and narcissistic in interviews. It is quite baffling based on his great stats.</p>
<p>mathboy98 said “I wish we could go back to pure merit”</p>
<p>When was that? Before or after Jewish quotas? Or after women were permitted entry inopt the Academy?</p>
<p>Point #1: there has NEVER BEEN a time when there was anything close to pure merit. I’d argue that we are more meritocratic now that ever before.</p>
<p>Point #2: your measure of “merit” ( I assume that’s grades and SATs) is itself marbled with cultural and economic bias; so even your measure of merit is itsef not purely meritocratic.</p>