<p>“When such a large number of students are being admitted, I think that it makes sense to admit a student who objectively is likely to be in the top 10% of the admitted group–across multiple criteria.”</p>
<p>Sigh. But the elite schools have said, over and over and over again, that the vast majority of their applicants are academically qualified ( = able to do the work), and that if the freshman class they chose all disappeared, they could choose 2 or 3 more classes out of their pool of applicants without suffering any drop in quality. So it’s evident to anyone with even the most rudimentary of critical thinking skills that when they choose this person and not that, they are not saying that the person not chosen wasn’t otherwise qualified - it is just that there are only so many spots. Given that, how can someone think, “Well, if I did all the right things, it’s just not fair that I didn’t get in?”</p>
<p>People who insist on equating merit with numbers are never going to be happy, because colleges will continue to define it more broadly. And the numbers-obsessed will continue to whine about “unfairness” with no real evidence to support them, other than the incomplete factors they can quantify.</p>
<p>This is one of the most vacuous phrases that elite admissions has ever perpetrated on the English language. (Excuse my flair for the dramatic.) What on earth does it mean to be “able to do the work”? Does that mean qualified enough to pass the classes? How dumb do you have to be to not be able to graduate in some major in an ivy league? It’s a meaningless phrase, and the fact that ivies estimate that upwards of 90% of applicants are “qualified” makes it meaningless, especially in discussions as to who should get a seat in the class. I think it’s safe to say that 90% of the applicants aren’t roughly equal in academic ability.</p>
<p>“Qualified” means they got in. Doesn’t matter if the applicant is dumb as a brick, or smart as a temple elephant. The “most qualified” get in, the “less qualified” don’t. What admissions officer is going to say othewise?</p>
<p>I think it’s wrong to know so much about your kids’ classmates that you actually know / can recite their GPA’s, class schedules and rigor, SAT scores, and specific honors and awards won. It smacks a little too much of nose-in-other-people’s-business for my taste. I would no more know that about my kids’ classmates than I’d know their parents’ incomes or medical histories or what they donated to charity last year. Aren’t there any boundaries any more?</p>
<p>So what? The Ivies and other elite schools have never claimed that their end goal was to admit only the most academically qualified. They make it clear, very clear, that they want to admit a highly academically qualified (highly =/= most) that has interesting characteristics - whether those characteristics are personalities, leadership potential, extracurriculars, service to others, athletic ability, or diverse / interesting life stories. What’s the big secret here? Where is there wool being pulled over someone’s eyes?</p>
<p>Of course, merit INCLUDES objective criteria, but how do you objectively evaluate essays, ECs, recs, etc., if one of your goals is to select students who have a strong potential for, say, making a positive impact on the campus community? That’s always going to require some judgment calls, and without the complete portfolios of every applicant in front of them, and also a knowledge of the school’s perceived mission, no one is justified in calling an application process “unfair.”</p>
<p>In his insightful postings on the MIT forum, MITChris has said in so many words that once you’re over a certain threshhold of stats, the subjective factors are the most important driver of who gets the fat envelope and who gets the thin one. I suspect that’s true at all the colleges where the applicant pool is bunched around the top of the GPA and SAT numbers.</p>
<p>Of course. MITChris has done a noble job explaining it, and it’s pretty much common sense when you have that many qualified kids that the scores aren’t the tie-breakers, but we’re still going to hear the whining about how my kid didn’t get in and he deserved it and he was entitled and that (legacy/URM/athlete/lower-scorer-whatever) stole his spot.
Whatever. I’m going to take a break from CC for the month of September, at least - tired of arguing the obvious.</p>
<p>Pizza,
I just cannot resist saying that if your kiddos had not had such happy results in the college admissions game, you might be less satisfied with all this mumbo-jumbo. You claim you did not care. I say that anyone who succeeds (on their own terms) in this game is less likely to ask questions. It is easier to accept things as they are from your position.
It smacks of smug complacency. Haven’t you ever sensed how painful it must be to have a super successful hardworking good kid not get in to a bunch of schools. Even if his/her heart was not set on any of them or he/she was not misled into feeling entitled. Or misled, according to you, into feeling rejected. You overstate it- not all kids or their parents are whining when they express puzzlement and disappointment.
Setting goals is GOOD. Setting high standards is supposed to be an admirable quality. So this is a subtle message- do not care too much, but work hard, do your best and more, follow your passion, pick schools that are a good fit, but do not take it personally if your do not get in. And don’t you dare fall in love with a school. And god forbid you fall into the foolishness of going for prestige or believing those idiotic college rankings…
If you do not get that, I agree that you are smoking the ****, drinking the koolaid.
The “merit” part is both objective and subjective, and the subjective part does not feel much like merit to some, and can obfuscate the process enough for some to wonder if there are things going on that are not openly discussed by the AdComs. All are entitled to their feelings and their questions.
Subjectivity and holisiticism are, indeed, mysterious. The results can stimulate questions. So be it.
Just the way you keep saying—
“so be it” about admissions…<br>
so be it that some are questioning the process.</p>
<p>@Pizza Girl- -How I spend my time and live my personal life is my business, and clearly what other people tell me about themselves and their lives is THEIR business. I live and work in a community of people with much in common, who shared much in the process. So you don’t have a common experience with me in that regard. Different approaches to life, different mores. That’s cool–Live and let live. </p>
<p>I have no problem discussing ideas, and having differences of opinions of ideas or opinions–it makes the world go round. But getting all personally judgemental about others posters and speaking disparagingly of them on a personal level here has no appeal for me. Its just not my idea of fun. And after 9000 posts, if you are taking time off, then clearly it isnt fun for your either.</p>
<p>PG, while it is harder to know much about the prior years’ classes, there are a number of elements that are commonly known. As Proudmom shared, the graduating class is about 90 students. In addition, this particular all-boys private school is known for the closeness of its community of parents with plenty of reasonably forced interactions. With many students spending 12 years at the same school, lots of information are shared as a matter of routine. </p>
<p>Just as many other cities throughout the country, Dallas is not immune to being consumed by the results of college admissions. The only thing that might actually dwarf the college admissions scene might be the talks about the jockeying to get in the right kindergarten, first grade, and the incredibly important middle school destination. </p>
<p>Despite its size, in many ways, this is like living in a small village, with all its benefits and drawbacks.</p>
<p>True that, Xiggi and Proud Mom.
I can second this as my own have attended at times and over long periods very small schools in large cities. MUCH info is actually shared.
Naviance is also a pretty easy source to parse, even though it hides the info which involves few enough students that one can know for sure who the dots on the scattergrams are.
Kids over time give speeches, win awards, publish writing, build things, on and on, as well.</p>
<p>So who is likely to appear more “meritorious” to an adcom: a kid who spent 12 years at an exclusive private school, writes an essay about what he learned about other cultures on a trip to Europe, has a 4.6 WGPA with a dozen APs, and scored a 2350 on the SAT; or a kid from a one-parent family who went to a crummy, small rural HS with no gifted program or advanced college prep courses offered, and pulled a 4.0 GPA, who writes a compelling essay about overcoming real adversity, but “only” scores a 2100 on the SAT?</p>
<p>I agree that it’s good to select students who can make a positive impact on the community. From the vantage point of four years on, I wish there were a way to tell you about the positive impacts on the community of students admitted to MIT from the waiting list, without compromising their privacy–but can’t see how. </p>
<p>I agree that scores aren’t everything. I understand that the Ivies are looking at a range of characteristics. A friend of mine who worked in Harvard’s admissions office many years ago remarked that Harvard wasn’t looking for the smartest people, they were looking for those who would be most successful. It’s probably harder to project who will be most successful, when the applicants are 17 or 18, than it is to figure out which applicants are “smartest,” so it would not be surprising if the admissions people are wrong some fraction of the time. </p>
<p>MITChris is accurately representing their current admissions philosophy, as far as I can tell. But speaking of MIT specifically, I think that the admissions office is setting the threshold for being “qualified” too low. I’ve talked with MIT professors who have said that they couldn’t understand how 10-15% of the students got in, based on their course work. (They are not speaking of students admitted through affirmative action, which they and I support.)</p>
<p>On the SAT I math, I’d be willing to allow a student an error or two, or even three, out of sheer carelessness, and say that the score was effectively equal to an 800. When the number of errors goes beyond three, I think that reflects actual differences in capability, which are likely to affect course work, by affecting whether or not students “get it,” in math, science, and engineering. </p>
<p>Again speaking of MIT specifically, I can’t see the rationale behind admitting a student whose 11th grade SAT math score is 60+ points below the 7th grade SAT math score of a student who is rejected–unless there are very exceptional circumstances. One would have to anticipate that the student with the lower score will advance more than twice as fast as the other student, just to have the two reach approximately the same level, as graduating college seniors.</p>
<p>Naviance’s hiding criteria apparently can be set by individual schools. At my D’s school, the scattergram is populated for all colleges where anyone has applied in the last three graduating classes.</p>
<p>“…who writes a compelling essay about overcoming real adversity, but “only” scores a 2100 on the SAT?”</p>
<p>I’ve probably read so many essays about overcoming real adversity that I’m totally sick of them! Give me something about spending money in style! (and what has that counselor at that crummy school ever done for me?) Besides, we’ve already used up our Pell Grant quota.</p>
<p>Hey, the second kid is going to get a GREAT education, likely for free or close to it, at the state honors college. (And the first kid may not get in either.)</p>
<p>It may be that MIT is intentionally taking chances on some candidates whose stats are marginal but who stand out in other ways. And with a 6-year grad rate of 93%, it’s hard to believe the process is that broken.</p>
<p>And thanks, performersmom, for your comments in post #191. If I had assessed college admissions based solely on QMP’s results, I probably would have agreed that the admissions process works well in general, with a small number of unpredictable outcomes that one can ignore. I could easily have wound up seeming quite smug about it. However, I saw the outcomes for other local students too, and cared about them, despite being unrelated.</p>
<p>Pizzagirl apparently lives in a different type of community from mine. In a few cases, I knew QMP’s school classmates from the time they were 18 months old; and I knew quite a number starting when they were 5 or 6. The families interacted often. One gets to know people pretty well, in those circumstances.</p>