it’s not true that if you don’t do community service that you have no chance to be admitted.*
We- at least, epiphany and I, maybe xiggi- already agreed. But there has to be a way for adcoms to see you engage beyond what’s handed to you or happens when the afternoon bell rings. Or suits you own minor interests or places you in a fun environment with friends.
And let’s not, please, get involved in arguing declarations about quotas. Apologies, but I believe that’s a hs kid.
Btw, we looked into Rubin’s work a few years ago, looked at the various comments back, and it is not definitive. Just because anyone finds an article isn’t enough.
And note she looked at 75 colleges. Nearly all of us know the diff between, say, top 20 or 30 and number 60.
Allow me to disagree about the changes in the last 5 years! I would like to know what are the changes that you’ve noticed. I understand that some colleges have enjoyed a growth in applications (albeit it has slowed down from the previous five years) but what is that you see, except for the growth in applications from people who are courted through the new technology but do not necessarily have a better chance than before?
On the other hand, the changes since the 80s, and perhaps even since the 70s, are remarkable. Are there patterns that emerge from the slightest of scrutiny? Should we perhaps look at the subgroup that is both massively over-represent and most vocal about the … lottery issue?
Except for what I describe above and the unveiling of financial aid for middle class families at the most selective schools, what changes have been drastic? I happen to think that there have actually been very few changes in the enrollment.
Also, @lookingforward
As you well know, Ivy college admissions is ultimately not reducible to a predictable formula, but there are people on this thread demanding reduction and misrepresenting others in that process. It is most certainly not a zero-sum game when it comes to elite college admissions. I have never said on CC that it is, once. Nor would I ever pretend that. Quite the contrary, I have stated often that there is no formula. So have @Pizzagirl and many other veteran CC’ers. Perhaps you, like me, have noticed that there are a disturbing number of people on CC who seem unable to handle uncertainty of any kind and then project their hand-wringing onto the supposedly evil Elites for not being more “transparent.”
One aspect of its being not a zero-sum game is that there is no way to find an absolute for X, as in solving an equation. And what that implies, as well, is that an inclusion does not always necessitate a corresponding exclusion, and vice-versa. Becuase it is possible – because College X “has admitted” particular students (note that the response of the admissions rep did not reveal whether such admitted students were or were not hooked) does not mean that it’s a really swell idea to forego serving anyone but oneself while expecting a positive outcome, or being surprised about a negative outcome.
Most college applicants – especially to Elites-- either engage in explicit community service by name OR in some informal equivalent by private habit, maybe only vaguely quantifiable. And teacher recommendations will often, often reference whether the student does give two figs for the rest of the universe. That’s your competition. Deal with it.
All college admissions at selective institutions are comparative. I’m sure it’s also “possible” to win a marathon with barely any training, prep, or evaluating the competition. But it’s a really, really stupid idea, and the runner has only himself to blame if he gets licked.
I really liked your post #124. That described my son, who did not seem to be Ivy material, but did manage to get into Penn. I’m guessing it was a combination of the various non-academic activities that he had that may have gotten him in, since he was academically pretty weak (no AP classes/exams, less rigorous coursework). I see in the article from Inside Higher Ed, that 42% of schools viewed “exceptional talent” as most important. I wonder if that means even in a non-major area. I would guess that played a huge part in my son’s application.
Comparative, with certain hopes and expectations. (And the institutional needs.)
If you want to help your kids, then help them understand that, for these elites, a college app is not just another form to fill out. It’s about what you project that that college values and needs. What you “show,” as much as anything you “tell.” To them, this isn’t about March 31, so much as how you will fit and thrive in their particular environment, contribute to the whole, influence and be influenced, over the next four years. And then after. How hard is that to try to understand?
The title of this thread should be “Should We Really Try to Understand Elite College & University Admissions”
The process is not a lottery per se but neither is it systematic from our perspective. Constantly mentioning Ivy League schools doesn’t help parents or students because many view non-Ivy schools as a walk in park when it comes to admissions.
The objective for top students, all students really, is not to focus on a particular school but to gain admission into at least one top school.
Everyone would be much happier and your odds would go up. As you can see I believe most admissions results are just compartmentalized luck when it comes to the top 25 colleges and top 25 universities.
I do agree, @BatesParent2019 , and also @lookingforward. Yes of course (it goes without saying, in my mind) the institutional needs. You asked rhetorically,
The luck of your choice of major, musical instrument, sport, ECs and hobbies in relation to what college X is “looking for”; the luck of your type of personality, how that comes across in your essay/ answers and how that happens to draw or repel the reader ; the luck of race/ethnicity and geographical location with regard to the college’s box checking needs; the luck of the disposition of your essay reader/interviewer at the time of encounter with your work/you, the luck of your financial need/ability to pay and how that fits the college’s budgetary constraints, etc. etc. I’m calling that all luck. Yes, luck play a part. It doesn’t explain everything, of course. To what degree it plays a part for each applicant–who can say? But it plays a part.
So, my answer to the OP’s question is yes. Treat the outcome like that in a lottery. Don’t take your rejection (or acceptance!) too personally. You are not the “next best thing” because you got in, nor are you a failure because you didn’t.
“The luck of your choice of major, musical instrument, sport, ECs and hobbies in relation to what college X is “looking for”; the luck of your type of personality, how that comes across in your essay/ answers and how that happens to draw or repel the reader ; the luck of race/ethnicity and geographical location with regard to the college’s box checking needs; the luck of the disposition of your essay reader/interviewer at the time of encounter with your work/you, the luck of your financial need/ability to pay and how that fits the college’s budgetary constraints, etc. etc. I’m calling that all luck. Yes, luck play a part. It doesn’t explain everything, of course. To what degree it plays a part for each applicant–who can say? But it plays a part.”
Well, of course, it’s also luck that you’re born to parents who are supportive versus parents who are dysfunctional, or that you’re born with raw talent in music or art or math, or any one of a million things. It’s also luck that your essay about your dog was read by the college adcom who loves dogs versus the one who hates them and subconsciously lowers you a tad. This is all uncontrollable. Just like going after the guy / girl you want, or the job you want. This is life.
One thing people overlook in the whole “lottery” or “crap shoot” argument is that schools are clearly making a distinction between a score like, for example, a 2200 and a 2350. They just are, even if they deny it. If they weren’t, then HYPS wouldn’t have higher average SATs than everyone else. That’s not a coincidence.
The real “lottery” doesn’t start at 3.8 and 2050 - you really aren’t even in the game with those numbers. A 2050 is three standard deviations from a 2395 - it’s as close to a 1705 as it is to the top of the scale. Why would a person with those numbers have the same chance as someone with a 4.0+ and 2395? I think there is a “crap shoot” - but it starts at 4.0 and 2300+, and is mitigated by the factors discussed here at length, including recommendations and extra-curricular achievement.
I do not think it works like that! And for one simple reason: a student with a 3.8 GPA and a 2050 might be a statistical oddity at HYPS but still a BETTER applicant in the eyes of the people who compose a class for HYPS that … a student with a 4.00 and a 2300+ (including a 2400/36.) It does not work like that because a 4.00 and 2300 SAT does not equate to an automatic qualification (even if some still think it is) and that lower scores are an automatic disqualifier.
Grades, EC, scores, essays … all of those things are measured in THEIR context. We might not like it but a Deerfield or Exeter applicant is not viewed with the same lens as a kid from Detroit or Compton or Ferguson. Or Lima for that matter!
I really wish they would keep that “map” current as it is a terrific tool. Think they are supposed to update in the “even” years but they did not so in 12’ or 14’ that I can find. We analyzed that map in a thread a few years back and I was awaiting the updated data but it never materialized.
Um, H “looks” more diverse because there are lots of little states making up its catchment area whereas S is situated in one very large state. But when I ran the numbers in an old thread last year, H and S were both equally (over) skewed to home regions. As all elite colleges are.
That interactive map provides completely misleading visuals since nothing is normalized by either the % of the population in that state or the % of the applicant pool from that state. That leads to erroneous conclusions that H is more “diverse” than S because look, see - H pulls from Maine and NH and VT and CT and RI and so forth - distances that would all still fall under CA for Stanford. Completely misleading chart junk. They need an index to make it meaningful. My clients would fire me in a heartbeat if I produced visuals that misleading and meaningless.
There are a lot of different ways to meet Line 1. I don’t think my son was accepted at Harvard because of one measly summer at the senior center. But he did do some unpaid computer programming for a couple of labs at a med school. He had a job which included doing work for the World Health Organization. Maybe there were other things that might be considered as contributing to a community that he did. Or maybe it’s just not that important.
I do think he was lucky to have applied in a year when they were planning on expanding engineering.