Shelby Steele on Ivy League Admissions

<p>[Censorship</a> - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia](<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship]Censorship”>Censorship - Wikipedia)</p>

<p>parent1986, it doesn’t mean that anyone is “discrediting” anyone else, when questioning the accuracy of hearsay. People say lots of things, as I explained in my previous post, especially when it comes to college admissions. They have various motives for saying so. The entire subject is also one that, as other astute posters have commented on, is a form of entertainment. It’s a form of recreation for some people to theorize about Why Who Got In, and especially if there’s any possible self-flattery involved. :wink: (I’m speaking of the ones passing along “information” to you, not about you!)</p>

<p>parent1986, try looking at a Websters dictionary definition of censorship . Wikipedia’s is not the be all and end all definition, especially since any definition can be changed by other posters. Wikipedia is just a website.</p>

<p>Okay, you want to link to Wikipedia, let’s see what that Wikipedia page actually has to say:</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Nobody’s suppressing your speech. You are free to continue making foolish remarks, and no one will stop you - unless go over the bounds of the TOS, then the moderators may suppress you; and under the broader definition that the Wikipedia page uses, that would be censorship. But since I’m not a moderator, I have not the power to censor you, and would not choose to use it if I had it.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Epiphany is correct in stating the aptitude of a well-trained education specialist to recognize the voice of a teenager. There are, however, a few assumptions that murky the waters of the … final outcome:</p>

<ol>
<li><p>Why should we assume that there are no specialists who did … crossover? Aren’t many tax experts former IRS agents? Why should we assume that former adcoms or former readers are not earning a living based on shared their insider’s knowledge? Why should we assume that people who were tasked to segregate the true voices from the fake one are unable to create the … needed voices. There is a world of difference between the essay mills who sell online and the work of true admission counselors. Just as there are voice specialists in the music world, there ought to be voice specialists for 499 words essays! </p></li>
<li><p>Why should we assume that the essays are read by WELL-trained specialists? Solely focusing on HYPS, you will need a LOT of people to slug through close to HALF A MILLION essays in a very short period of time? Then, the question becomes who are those readers and adcoms? Isn’t the adcom position really a young person game? What are the qualifications? Take a look at the current adcom who represents Chicago on … this forum, and you tell me how experienced a reader this person might be and where did the training Epiphany describes in her post might have come from? Did it come from writing her own essays five years ago, and reading College Confidential? </p></li>
<li><p>When you consider the sheer volume AND scope of applications and compare that to the resources available to most admissions’ office, you will recognize the gross imbalance between a view that the applications are dissected as some on CC might advance and the … less romantic reality. The application that might have taken months to polish (at perhaps a great expense) MIGHT get blessed with the attention of a junior technician who will reduce the “data” in a small attachment, a few SECONDS of a seasonal reader, and a few MINUTES of an adcom who will make wholesale decision. While the next phases might involve a more complete review or a full debate in committee, the reality is that very little time CAN be devoted to thousands of applications, at least not to the overwhelming majority of files that earn an outright red R stamp as a matter of routine. </p></li>
</ol>

<p>Fwiw, none of this is an indictment of the “system.” I truly believe that the “system” works well --or at least exactly as intended. I also believe that there can be NO question about the integrity and decision abilities of the admission offices. </p>

<p>And this even when Kaavya Viswanathan could count on the professional help and packaging talents of Katherine Cohen to make a mockery of the system at Harvard. Or that the same person could find more help (think Jamaica Kincaid) on her way to Georgetown Law and the law firm of Sullivan & Cromwell. </p>

<p>One has to believe that such paths of deceit are the exceptions.</p>

<p>To be really honest, I’m just too lazy to even begin to contemplate writing my kids’ essays. I’m amazed that there are parents out there who would take it on. As my younger one works on hers, I feel so very fortunate that I’m not having to do what she’s doing right now. </p>

<p>Age has its rewards.</p>

<p>Meeting the essay requirements should be relatively easy … as long as parents do not overcomplicate the exercise. :)</p>

<p>I agree with xiggi. The system is not foolproof. It’s just that so many parents and students on CC assume that the mistakes are the rule, not the exception, when there is no objective evidence for that.</p>

<p>Like sewhappy, I never desired to write, or even contribute to, my children’s essays – not in school in general, and certainly not for college admissions. They have solicited my input from time to time – on job resumes, and the younger one even for subject essays in college, but I know how to give feedback, and it would never include phrasing something for a student, which I find highly unethical. I know that my “hands-off” opinion is controversial, given a very long thread about this some time last year, I believe.</p>

<p>My children were required by their high school to have their college app essays “reviewed” by their parents in a general way, but I was extremely careful not to rewrite anything, and I provided the most minimal and broad feedback possible, in keeping with wanting their work to be their work and no one else’s. Second child, an outstanding writer, needed zero “correction” on hers, she being exceptionally mature already in her expression. First child needed only a reminder to include an important aspect of the activity which was the theme of her essay, an aspect she had forgotten about but which was central to that activity. </p>

<p>A friend of mine wrote her child’s essay. It was horrible. It was adult language no adolescent would use. Surpise! Child got rejected from most schools she applied to.</p>

<p>Xiggi - you missed Mr. Wheeler and his perfect recommendations from MIT faculty.</p>

<p>[Campus</a> Overload - Adam Wheeler: Accused fake Harvard student](<a href=“http://voices.washingtonpost.com/campus-overload/2010/05/former_harvard_student_accused.html]Campus”>http://voices.washingtonpost.com/campus-overload/2010/05/former_harvard_student_accused.html)</p>

<p>Ms. Hernandez, the premier college consultant claims that no one will even know she was behind an applicant. Based on the gushing endorsement from mom of MIT student on the left, we can see why people are skeptical about merit based admissions. Good packaging seems to trump all else.</p>

<p>[Hernandez</a> College Consulting, Inc. and Ivy League Admission Help](<a href=“http://www.hernandezcollegeconsulting.com/]Hernandez”>http://www.hernandezcollegeconsulting.com/)</p>

<p>If an applicant didn’t have the right stats (top 1-5%, 2200+ SAT), how could parents or college counselor possibly “package” an applicant. Could great essays compensate for poor grades, or LORs? </p>

<p>In my opinion, “packaging” may be able to make an applicant 10% more appealing (maybe that’s all one needs to help making it into the acceptance pile), but it would be hard for me to believe there is amount of packaging one could do to help a 3.5, 2000 SAT applicant get into a top tier school. There is only so much makeup someone could put on.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Packaging might take many forms, and I think there is a difference between avoiding errors in the application, finding and developing the right angles for a specific candidate, and … fabricating an illusion.</p>

<p>Fwiw, I believe that parents who can afford to hire a consultant should not hesitate to do so. Facing a cold one goes to the regular doctor; if the cold does not go away, one finds a specialist for the ailment. In cases of divorces, it pays to hire the best and most successful attorneys. </p>

<p>For some, it makes perfect sense to hire a specialist. For instance, why would a lawyer who charges 750 per hour in his or her regular job insist to slave over an application and scrutinize the next USnews? That makes no sense for the parent. </p>

<p>But again, such cases are the exceptions. Do not think Ms. Hernandez attracts more than a minuscule percentage of applicants to the elite schools. A very tiny number.</p>

<p>harvard received 35000 applications this year and something like 4000 or more valedictorians among them. Harvard admitted a total of 2100 (?). So the packaging is to portray how one 4.0 is better than another 4.0 or to be precise, one 4.56 and 2300 is better than another 4.62 and 2380.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Psychology aside, an applicant needs to get a young college essay reader’s attention. That’s why essay is called the most important piece in an application and worth hiring a 40K helper if possible.</p>

<p>On the other hand, packaging starts at the age of 9 months, for someone (like Kat in Crazy U).</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Exactly. And the true beauty is without the makeup.</p>

<p>“Also, should add: To say that some of the admissions committees are doing sub-optimal jobs is not the same as saying that they are incompetent fools. I am arguing the former, not the latter.”</p>

<p>They do the job they need to do, which is to assemble a class that meets the institutional mission. To be honest, if I were king at one of these places, I’d set an admissions floor, and then take 50% )or 30% - the percentage doesn’t matter) of the places and auction them off publicly. Not privately, or in a silent auction (as is already done through the development office for a certain number), but publicly. </p>

<p>It would burnish their reputations tremendously.</p>

<p>I have friends that work(ed) in admissions offices at fancy LACs. They claim that faculty are complaining that their classrooms are dead, that students are coming to them the first day of class to ask how they can get an “A”, and that student with 700+ math SAT scores can’t do the math needed in the social sciences. I’m not sure, however, that things have really changed that much - I remember such students at my fancy LAC in the late 60s (before the Summer of Love hit the campus only two years late), and I remember the majority of my students at UChicago and wondering why the heck they were there at all? (don’t get me wrong - they were all very smart - but it seemed the majority were there because they couldn’t figure out what else to do.)</p>

<p>It was a lot more fun to teach at the Community College.</p>

<p>Forget the ivies and LACs. Tell us more about this thing called summer of love.</p>

<p>It was when I stopped wearing a tie to sitdown dinners at my college, and instead wore a black turtleneck, with a copy of Barry McGuire’s “Eve of Destruction” 45rpm attached to a leather thong around my neck instead.</p>

<p>(I wonder if Shelby Steele missed out - he doesn’t seem like a very fun person.)</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Something that is in short supply in this particular thread.</p>

<p>Who cares who the admissions people accept or reject? I mean, if they were doing it very, very unfairly, then I would, but in the end, schools should get to admit whoever they want. If you get in, great. If you didn’t, too bad. In the end, the results are not too different anyways. It’s more about what you want to put into life, not what the school puts into you.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>In all fairness, mini, I’ve heard the exact same complaint from a professor friend of mine at UCSD. I wouldn’t limit it to a particular type of college, size of college, or ‘exclusivity’ of college.</p>

<p>I think that is probably (or may be) true at all “selective” colleges, and, perhaps, the more “selective”, the greater the problem? (But I don’t know admissions officers at UCSD.)</p>