The Admissions Gap (Washington Post)

[tk21769]

<p>In my opinion, Adofficer (post 239) is confused about what the mission of a leading university ought to be. The mission is not to correct social injustices. It is, basically, to create and disseminate knowledge. The mission is to push the envelope of what we know about the natural and social world, and to teach students to engage themselves in that process in a disciplined, energetic way. All this emphasis on “hooks” not only corrupts the admissions process, it diverts attention from the kind of diversity and vitality that really matters.</p>

<p>He is right that grades and scores alone don’t tell the whole story of how well prepared an applicant might be. Good universities should be looking for evidence of curiosity, independence, creativity and persistence. They do need to look past GPAs and scores to find those qualities. One way to do that is by using the interview to do more than just exchange information. Good recommendations can expose those qualities, too.</p>

<p>Here’s how one university tries to do it in the essay questions they pose to applicants:</p>

<p>[University</a> of Chicago College Admissions | Essay Questions](<a href=“http://collegeadmissions.uchicago.edu/admissions/essays.shtml]University”>http://collegeadmissions.uchicago.edu/admissions/essays.shtml)</p>

<p>Not every school strives for a rarefied intellectual atmosphere. Every school should, however, be looking for good independent problem solvers, whether they are solving engineering, social or artistic problems. They can and should seek these qualities in ways that do not give undue advantage to the wealthy and the well-connected.</p>

[cptofthehouse]

<p>Clyde, if you are out of state, applying to Michigan, you have to get that app in early. I know many kids who got into Michigan with lower stats than your son’s, and who had nothing going for them to support holistic admissions. But they applied early which is something our sons’ highschool says is a must for flagship oos schools. Michigan got hit hard with penalities for accepting more than its allowable OOS numbers one year, and it makes sure that does not happen. If you don’t get them app in early, you will be waitlisted and accepted only if there is room for you without getting too close to the OOS limits. That is what happened there.</p>

[Clyde10]

<p>Since you all endured my rants, I should share the good news. In my mind, it also points out the fickleness of the whole process. On the very same day my son got waitlisted at Michigan, in the mail from the University of Illinios’ College of Engineering (which I understand is on par with, if not higher ranked than, Michigan’s) comes notice of a merit scholarship that covers about half of the annual OOS tuition.</p>

[Hunt]

<p>That’s most excellent news! (And you can console yourself that there’s no merit aid at Cornell.)</p>

[epiphany]

<p>“Not every school strives for a rarefied intellectual atmosphere. Every school should, however, be looking for good independent problem solvers, whether they are solving engineering, social or artistic problems. They can and should seek these qualities in ways that do not give undue advantage to the wealthy and the well-connected.”</p>

<p>That is exactly what they do. They just try also to aid the concept of opportunity simultaneous with independent problem solving. The two goals are not mutually exclusive within one candidate. It’s unfortunate that only some of the conversation with AdOfficer was cited & is being relied on as the full sum of admissions philosophy. Much more is available, & demonstrates that very concept of two, mutually inclusive “goods” where there is evidence of that.</p>

<p>You can talk about U of Chicago, but up to now they have not had a good track record of financial aid, which limits the interest & of high-achieving candidates who have been & still are affected by income limitations. I’ve met lots of low-income whites & URMS who would otherwise be interested in U of C, but whose price tag is prohibitive.</p>

<p>It is not to the advantage of any high-ranking institution to favor social engineering at the expense of excellence. This is a myth that makes rejected students rationalize their rejection, but in fact much more is at stake than this.</p>

[Modadunn]

<p>

They do need to look past GPAs and scores to find those qualities. One way to do that is by using the interview to do more than just exchange information. Good recommendations can expose those qualities, too.

</p>

<p>What I found strikingly different this time around with S vs in 2002 with D, a lot less schools even engage in the admission’s office interview. And those opponents of them say it is not fair to place a socially savvy kid up against a socially awkward one. That it should be reduced to scores and other subjective, clear cut numbers. I don’t agree with that thinking, I am just saying it’s out there. And the fact that there are fewer and fewer schools that even consider the interview in their admission’s process kinda makes me thinking the schools agree - to some extent anyway.</p>

<p>

It is not to the advantage of any high-ranking institution to favor social engineering at the expense of excellence. This is a myth that makes rejected students rationalize their rejection, but in fact much more is at stake than this.

</p>

<p>Absolutely agree. And at the same time, if an athlete gets into a highly ranked academic institution, we shouldn’t assume their athletic prowess is the ONLY thing that got them there.</p>

[epiphany]

<p>“Absolutely agree. And at the same time, if an athlete gets into a highly ranked academic institution, we shouldn’t assume their athletic prowess is the ONLY thing that got them there.”</p>

<p>This was quite an extended conversation (or several) with AdOfficer at least a year ago. Athletes’ gpa’s have significantly improved over previous standards/assumptions of many years ago. Much more in the 3.6-3.8+ range than before, with respectable scores, and – importantly – remaining academically competitive with peers while in college, while in sports.</p>

[CountingDown]

<p>collegealum, LOL! But you know, that was his attitude about his acceptances – he liked the flagship as much as most of the other schools on his list and more than the Ivies.</p>

<p>Clyde --Illinois engineering is most excellent. If your S is interested in computer engineering, Illinois is much stronger than Michigan.</p>

[tk21769]

<p>

You can talk about U of Chicago, but up to now they have not had a good track record of financial aid, which limits the interest & of high-achieving candidates who have been & still are affected by income limitations. I’ve met lots of low-income whites & URMS who would otherwise be interested in U of C, but whose price tag is prohibitive.

</p>

<p>What’s your evidence (other than anecdotal) of their poor track record? Unfortunately, Chicago apparently does not publish its Common Data Sets. </p>

<p>Chicago, unlike many of its peers, does award a significant number of merit scholarships. These include 30 full tuition scholarships, and approximately 100 more at $10K each. If you assume this money is fungible, then yes, it does detract from the total amount that could be available for need-based aid.</p>

<p>However, Chicago also awarded $49 million in need-based aid in 2007-2008. Across 4901 undergraduates, they are awarding an average of about $10,000 per student per year in need based aid. As far as I can piece together from CDS data, this is about $1000/person more than the amount awarded by the virtuous Quakers at Haverford, about equal to Columbia’s ratio, and about $1000/person less than the ratio at Wesleyan (“diversity university”). So they seem to be doing as well as some of their peers, even if you do not count the merit aid (some of which, presumably, goes to needy students).</p>

<p>Here is some information about their new Odyssey scholarship program:
[The</a> University of Chicago - Odyssey Scholarship Challenge](<a href=“http://odyssey.uchicago.edu/impact/index.html]The”>http://odyssey.uchicago.edu/impact/index.html)
This program appears to represent an increased effort to reduce student debt and make the college even more attractive to low-income families.</p>

[vicariousparent]

<p>U Chicago gives merit scholarships? </p>

<p>Do you mean pure merit scholarships, or the “merit for those who need aid” scholarships?</p>

<p>Never mind…I just saw their website. Yeah, that would be pretty sweet- full tuition at U Chicago.</p>

[tk21769]

<p>Yes, Chicago awards merit scholarships, including full tuition merit scholarships.
As far as I know these are awarded regardless of financial need.</p>

<p>[University</a> of Chicago College Admissions | Merit Scholarships](<a href=“http://collegeadmissions.uchicago.edu/costs/scholarships.shtml]University”>http://collegeadmissions.uchicago.edu/costs/scholarships.shtml)</p>

[Consolation]

<p>The amount available through Odyssey scholarships at the U of C maxes out at about $5,200. Yes, they put “NO LOANS” in big letters on a side bar on their web site, but they had no problem saying that our family ought to borrow a sum equal to 2/3 of our annual income each year.</p>

[epiphany]

<p>Re: the “evidence” of U of C poor track record of FA. </p>

<p>To date, they have an earned reputation of that. Just because they do not publish it on CDS, does not mean that it has not commonly been experienced, on and off CC, that U of C’s aid is a drop in the bucket vs. the need aid of admitted/admittable, excelling low-income students to peer (& above) institutions.</p>

[QuantMech]

<p>When the endowments at Harvard and Yale fell 25%, they each lost about $6 billion dollars. The loss by itself was close to the entire endowment of the University of Chicago (at $6.6 billion). I don’t think U of C is being particularly stingy, they just don’t have as much money.</p>

[epiphany]

<p>^^Not supporting financial need students because you don’t have the money has the exact same effect as holding it back if you do have it. Such distinctions are meaningless to an FA student. Don’t have $ for a student? Unless that student has zero other options, he or she is unlikely, with poor financial support, to become burdened with significant debt for 4 years and will move right along to better (more realistic) options.</p>

[tk21769]

<p>It sounds like a couple of people have a grudge because they did not get as much financial aid as they wanted. Welcome to America, that’s the story of thousands of us struggling to afford a college education. I still don’t see any evidence that this university is any worse in that regard that others with a similarly high cost of attendance.</p>

<p>

… they had no problem saying that our family ought to borrow a sum equal to 2/3 of our annual income each year.

</p>

<p>Nobody can compel you or your family to take out a loan. I gather what you are saying is that, when you got your financial aid letter, the breakdown of aid included a loan that was larger than you want to take, but you had not saved enough money to pay your expenses any other way. That is unfortunate and disappointing. I suspect many other universities are including large loans in their financial aid packages.</p>

[siserune]

<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>Degrees from the top schools are, primarily and for most graduates, insurance against having to take a real job. Productivity is difficult or boring in most professions, and this is especially confining for the high-IQ academic butterflies who make it through the selection process.</p>

<p>That is clear for the stereotyped Ivy League career paths such as law, government, government-lite (nonprofits), investments, MBA… or a PhD in most subjects.</p>

<p>What is more surprising is that it also characterizes MIT and Caltech. A third of MIT graduates go to Wall Street. Subtract an additional percentage heading to law school, MBA or other Ivy-like careers. For the rest, the MIT prestige is advantageous in getting jobs at prestigious unproductive tech companies (Google, Facebook, Twitter, …) leaving the grungy work of improving medical imaging software to the engineers from lower-caliber schools. Caltech graduates head off to science PhD programs where, with a few years more hard work, they can avoid the grind by staying in academia. </p>

<p>Doctors, a fraction of scientists, and a larger fraction of engineers are productive in the ordinary sense. But most graduates are accomplished only in status, not reality. </p>

<p>It’s all about avoiding the Real Job.</p>

[siserune]

<p>

Some of us did an exercise some time back talking about what a “stats-only” college might look like. I think it would lose all kinds of diversity, including ethnic and geographic,

</p>

<p>The study has been done, and found that economic diversity (i.e., the number of low-to-middle income matriculants) would increase. </p>

<p>Specifically, the Espenshade and Chung study of a decade of elite college admissions, found that without admissions preferences for athletes, legacies and minorities, the number of white and rich students at top schools would decrease (due to an increase in poor and Asian students). Minority admission would be cut by half for Hispanics and two thirds for blacks, if I remember correctly. This was the study that quantified the advantage of various preference categories in SAT points, and famously found that Asians are penalized the equivalent of 40-50 SAT points. </p>

<p>There are some people on CC who claim the methodology of the study is flawed, but they have never displayed what the supposed flaws are. We’ll see if they come out of the woodwork again this time.</p>

[dontno]

<p>

the number of white and rich students at top schools would decrease

</p>

<p>No they found the white acceptance rate would increase by about 1.5% and the Asian acceptance rate would increase by about 6.5%.</p>

[tk21769]

<p>

Re: the “evidence” of U of C poor track record of FA.</p>

<p>To date, they have an earned reputation of that. Just because they do not publish it on CDS, does not mean that it has not commonly been experienced, on and off CC, that U of C’s aid is a drop in the bucket vs. the need aid of admitted/admittable, excelling low-income students to peer (& above) institutions.

</p>

<p>If they do have that reputation, on CC or elsewhere, is it deserved? Let’s look at some data.</p>

<p>According to Princeton Review data, Chicago’s Average Freshman Total Need-Based Gift Aid is $33,838. This is higher than the averages for Columbia ($32,035), Haverford ($31,983), Princeton ($31,187 ), Brown ($30,375), Northwestern ($26,100), and Duke ($19,779), to name a few. Now, bear in mind that Chicago also ranks 8th highest for total costs, but most of these schools are within a few thousand per year of each other. </p>

<p>On the other hand, for some reason Chicago graduates also have a very high level of average student loan debt at graduation. The average Chicago grad owes $27,562, which is much more than the averages for Northwestern ($19,908), Brown ($19,390), Haverford ($17,125), Duke ($16,502) or Princeton ($5,955).</p>

<p>So, it appears that Chicago does compare very favorably with peer schools in the amount of need-based aid they grant (it certainly is not a “drop in the bucket”); yet, its students still graduate with a relatively high debt load.</p>

<p>How do we account for the apparent discrepancy? For whatever reason, University of Chicago students apparently are not meeting as much of the “Expected Family Contribution” from savings (or employment) as students at these other schools. </p>

<p>Keep in mind that the “EFC” projects an expected contribution, it does not dictate how a family is required to meet that contribution. Chicago presumably works off the same EFC numbers that all these other schools use, and it appears to be about as generous (or more so) in granting financial aid. That’s no guarantee that families at all schools will be equally adept at saving money (working, or getting funds from outside sources) to meet the expected balances.</p>