<p>You’ve changed the argument, Deirdre. I’m talking about the admissions process. I never suggested that the schools graded admitted students based on “interesting”.</p>
<p>In response to your “why not” question - the perception is that the “base line” to which you refer is a moving target depending on how “interesting” you are to some admissions officer. Is that the perception that these elite colleges want to create? Or do they simply not care? Maybe its all just a PR problem.</p>
<p>Caltech is one school that is fairly cut and dried in its selection process - scores, grades, scores, scores, scores.</p>
<p>I am very glad it’s out there. A note of sanity in all the madness.</p>
<p>Very interesting comments about the British schools. Think we will look into them for younger one coming down the pike.</p>
<p>I do wonder where elite schools that engage so much in all the holistic stuff are heading long-term with these agendas. It was one thing to attempt lots of social justice initiatives when our economy was awash in money. Things are different now. We seriously need to develop leaders and innovators who are not just pleasing to us from a demographic balance perspective but who actually will make serious contributions to our economy.</p>
<p>I see a troubling number at my son’s Ivy majoring in humanities and government and social sciences and psychology. I think those are terrific fields and I’m glad talented kids find them interesting. But I’m not sure they’re going to help us stay the world economic leader.</p>
<p>I didn’t mean to-- I was referring to your statement about “institutions of higher learning grading and handing out diplomas” .</p>
<p>It doesn’t look to me like the baseline changes-- no one beneath a certain level gets in. To your other question, YES, I think the colleges are trying to create a perception that there is no base line in order to attract the largest possible number of applicants.</p>
<p>The colleges y’all are mad at are not selecting the “best” students. They are simply selecting the students they want from an incredibly talented pool to meet what they consider their institutional needs and wants. If folks would just understand this , maybe some of this pain can go away. I’m sorry that this wasn’t explained to y’all and I know it hurts a parent to have a disappointed kid. I’ve been there in other areas …and it sucks. Good luck to you and your kids.</p>
<p>At selective schools, interestingness (including URM status, legacy, athletics, etc.) will only get you so much, and your stats will still have to be within a certain zone. I think very rich development cases may be more interesting than the others, but even they have to meet some academic standards.</p>
<p>Just a couple of university-specific comments:</p>
<p>Out-of-state enrollment at the University of Michigan is capped by the legislature. As a result, out-of-state admissions and in-state admissions are played in different ballparks. Nevertheless, Clyde10’s son should have been admitted, even if OOS, in my opinion. If your son or daughter is interested in U of M and is out of state, it is vital to apply early. They have rolling admissions, which means rolling standards also–there are (unadvertised) dates after which the Archangel Gabriel couldn’t get in. By early, I mean as soon as applications are accepted–October? September? August?</p>
<p>Re: Oxbridge admissions. It would be advantageous for an American applicant to be highly knowledgeable and articulate. My all-time favorite Oxford interview question:
“How would you get a horse on board a trireme?” (asked of an applicant in “Greats,” i.e., classics) . . . advantage to curmudgeon’s D, having grown up on a ranch–although she might not have had much experience with sea-faring horses. A close runner-up, among interview questions: “Who would have worn a four-in-hand, Mr. Gladstone or Mr. Disraeli?” (for modern history–which, incidentally, starts about 1300 A.D.)</p>
<p>The fundamental problem with the “holistic” or “interestingness” approach is that it makes it damn near impossible to make intelligent decisions about where to apply. I can look at objective criteria and judge my chances of getting in to school A versus school B. There’s no “interesting-meter” that I can plug my profile into and judge my chances. It makes the whole process seem utterly capricious.</p>
<p>It makes the whole process seem utterly capricious. </p>
<p>On our side of the fence, it is. On their side they know what they are building… a class. We are just interested in our one brick.</p>
<p>
Yes, it is a great way of putting it.</p>
<p>Why is a student’s color so interesting? </p>
<p>And why don’t more colleges publish the SAT score ranges of different races? I’ve seen that data a few times, and there truly are different standards for different races.</p>
<p>I think colleges put applications in more piles than in state or out of state. I think there are piles for gender and race, also, at the very least.</p>
<p>
Sure there is, and you’re looking at it! You can get some pretty good idea by looking at the results threads on the boards for particular selective schools. You have to read a lot of them, but they will start to gel after a while.</p>
<p>I say this only half in gest – the take away from these boards is, for the best chances to get in, you should (1) get good grades and test scores; and be (2) not white (3) not a heterosexual male; (4) live someplace unusual (i.e., rural montana or guatemala); and (5) be a member of some unique demographic group - preferably one that applies only to you (home schooled palestinian refugees living on a kibbutz in rural montana, for example). Unfortunately, the only one most kids can control is number 1 and it clearly is not enough.</p>
<p>So, Clyde, where did you get in? (BTW, I have a family member with good grades and scores and outstanding ECs who is wealthy, white, and OOS who applied to Mich and got in. But the application was made in September.)</p>
<p>Clyde, if those are your takeaways, I think you need to read more on the boards. I think it’s obviously true that URMs get an advantage, and that being from rural Montana helps, but a heck of a lot of white and Asian males (and females) get into top schools, and my observation is that most of the ones who do have some significant (or at least interesting) achievement outside of school. So, for example, they are not just the President of the Science Club, but have done interesting research, done an internship, or have won a prize. Indeed, it’s my observation that most of the URMs admitted at the top schools also have such achievements–although they do have somewhat lower scores and, sometimes, lower grades.</p>
<p>curmudgeon says it best, i.m.o. </p>
<p>Also, those of us in education who’ve actually looked pretty thoroughly at comparative profiles when we have access to those, are in a position to see both those sides of the fence. A group of candidates in question (say, from a given school, applying to the same higher school) may look on paper similar/identical from a surface. It may even be that one candidate has a quantitative edge with a slightly higher score, or a 3.999 instead of a 3.995. (Competition at our h.s. is so tight that a third decimal place is almost always necessary to select the Val.) However, when one of those candidates has ten points less on one score but three times the creative accomplishment of the other 3 or 4 candidates, the college is choosing substance, not “qualification” and not even “interest.” They may also be choosing interest, but only if there’s demonstrated intellectual promise in that interest.</p>
<p>It may also look from one side of the fence as if there’s an “unfair” advantage for a URM or a low-income candidate, but generally that’s not a stand-alone asset. The candidate first has to catch the attention of the committee, and that’s on substance, not on externals. I’m sure there’s an occasional exception, but overall there’s an excess of goods from which to choose. Lots of parents and students forget that when push comes to shove, the pubic perception of the institution’s quality is the bottom line. This is not a superficial game for them. </p>
<p>Above all, colleges, like high schools, love to brag about their graduates. They choose with potential in mind – in college (which is why the privates like qualitative recommendations along with quantitative scores), in careers (which is why they like to see how a candidate has applied his or her knowledge, creatively), and in society (which is why they like at least a significant handful of promising leaders and those with a service vision). </p>
<p>One can never “judge chances” against an invisible (national & international) competition. One can somewhat judge chances from one’s own school but only if all those submitted elements are visible, too (which is not possible for simply a parent or student: you don’t see the recs; you don’t read the actually submitted essays and application responses; you’re not there at the interviews). However, unless you have your head buried in the sand, believe it that an Ivy, comparing 2 statistically “identical” candidates, may or may not see them as identically valuable. And when they do see them as identically valuable on all measures (possibly including income & race & geography), they’ll make an arbitrary (unpredictable) decision.</p>
<p>There used to be no testprep at all for the PSAT, and the test was early enough in the fall of junior year that no one would have begun a test prep course yet for the SAT. From talking to my friends, people got similarly high scores on the SAT as the PSAT.
(And no one took the PSAT in freshman year in those days.)</p>
<p>Okay, tell me what’s missing, Hunt (and this is my last rant, I promise):
ACT 34
3.9 unweighted GPA; 4.3 weighted. AP US and European History, AP Physics, AP German and AP Calculus. Calculus AB as a junior, College calculus as a senior. (Total of two years of calculus.)
Top 10%
National Honor Society
National Merit commendation
Musician - Wind Symphony; Jazz Ensemble (Group voted best in nation by DownBeat magazine); Marching Band
Athlete - track and field
EC - Eagle Scout, Summer Counselor at YMCA camp. Unbelievable independence gained through extensive wilderness backpacking experiences - starting with backpacking the Grand Canyon when he was 7.</p>
<p>^^Are you in-state for U. of Michigan? If so, what you have listed definitely should be enough for a school that probably admits like 15,000 people per year. (understatement of the year)</p>
<p>The only solution is for professors to take control of the admissions process and make it more driven by academics.</p>
<p>IMO, grades and test scores alone should be enough to merit admission to a state school (for in-state people.) You are going to get a variety of people with different experiences anyway if you’ve got like 8-10 thousand people per class!</p>
<p>Even if you take out special cases (URMs, athletes, music majors) who won’t account for much in a huge school, for the rest of the people the process should be numbers-driven.</p>
<p>Out of state. He applied December 15. Okay, I thought venting would help. Its not, its just making me angrier. So, I need to move on. Boy, am I going to approach this process differentely with my two younger kids.</p>
<p>
These are excellent credentials, and I have to believe they would have resulted in admission at many very selective schools, unless there is something bad in the paperwork, too. It does seem very odd that this student wouldn’t get into Michigan, at least if you are in-state.
But assuming that this is a white male, what is missing at the Ivies–or at least at the most selective ones–is unusual achievement outside the school setting. While I think Eagle Scout is a top achievement (and my son is one), it’s not an academic achievement, and it’s not highly unusual.</p>
<p>I checked out of this post too soon. I can’t wait for all these college presidents to start calling my URM son, whose stats sound a lot like clyde’s ds.</p>
<p>I am reminded of the old saying “I’d rather be rich and guilty than poor and innocent.” In college admissions, I’d rather be rich and white than poor and a minority.</p>