I guess it’s a human tendancy to seek the easiest path. I googled it for Dart earlier and can find several bullets in there that can guide a bright kid. It’s just not all about stats, high school glory, some titles.
You really have to get behind the obvious in the CDS or any resource. Read the school from various perspectives. Not wait for someone to tell you.
And Idon’t think the H lawsuit is revealing the sort of info epiphany, others, and I refer to.
people are really over complicating the thread. Schools use all kinds of hooks to accept students, we all know what they are there (but I learned a new term from the Harvard lawsuit, “sparse country” - those from Idaho/wyoming etc… that on average for each racial group are accepted at lower test scores). If the schools simply released the data for subgroups it would likely lead to fewer apps from “average excellent” kids - a term no one outside of CC has heard - and realize T30 schools are mostly lottery tickets for average excellent kids. However, the schools (1) want maximum application numbers so they don’t give out subgroup data that would be most discouraging for average excellent kids (2) don’t want to get sued more so hide behind “holistic” (3) or threatened by congress for denial of federal funds if the public got mad and (4) have no interest in publicly defending these policies.
I’m surprised that you were unaware of the benefits of geographic diversity until the Harvard lawsuit. Most schools, especially the top, brag about having students from all quarters. It’s in the stats they release every admission cycle. It’s not uncommon to see maps in admissions buildings. That info is out there and made clear. It is no secret.
people in the real world outside CC who don’t have 19,699 posts on CC aren’t in tune to things like where you go to school means you need higher or lower test scores. Most North Carolina parents also don’t know private schools don’t rank their kids but publics (except charters) must, etc… Again this is part of the point, average people don’t know these things. The schools don’t say “hey if you come from Idaho your test scores can be 10% lower than Massachusetts”
The lower test scores still fall in range.
You’re too certain colleges manipulate. They get enough great apps to do their work.
And knowing how many in other categories got admitted with what presentations does nothing to improve your kid’s app. He applies as what he is. If the number of white kid apps goes down, I promise the void will be filled by other wannabes- kids who think it’s a crapshoot so why not shotgun. Kids who lok no farther than their stats and some titles.
That’s not how you achieve an elite admit.
Don’t assume the H lawsuit is some biblical revelation. That would be a mistake. It is no more than some insight.
Some public universities publish their admission thresholds after finishing the admissions process, so that any applicant can see how far above or below the threshold s/he (or any other applicant s/he has information on) was. These schools, like SJSU and CSUN, are stats only moderately selective schools, not elite admission schools that posters here obsess about.
@roycroftmom the author’s of the article state: “This would not be transparency for transparency’s sake.”
“We know it’s not a purely stats driven procedure, the colleges tell us this, yet most lead with stats.”
Interesting, because most colleges also lead with stats, here is Yale’s things they look for, their number one thing is academics:
"What we look for:
Academic Ability
Yale is above all an academic institution. This means academic strength is our first consideration in evaluating any candidate."
Then Yale leads with their SAT and ACT averages, just like the students on the chance me threads, I know a big surprise. Also I think admins created a template for the chance me threads that started off with stats.
I’m pretty close to Stanford campus, there’s very few low stats people there, they don’t have people with a 20 ACT or 1200 floating around the campus trying to change the world. It is as is Yale, a high stats school, a stem class there has mainly 35s and 36s or 1590s/800s on subject tests, and many APs taken.
“Even among top stats kids. They can’t answer Why Us? They speak of passions not pursued, and many other bullets.”
You keep denigrating top stats kids that don’t get it, and almost imply that low stats kids can show the thinking the adcoms want, can show the passions. But that is not the case, the data clearly show that these schools love high stats kids, they really do. Maybe Stanford will prefer the 1550 kids who thinks differently to the 1600 one, but they’re not comparing a 1550 to a 1200, good luck getting in if you don’t have a 1500. That’s the table stakes for unhooked anyway.
The article mentions Senator Kennedy advocates that colleges receiving federal funding should be required to disclose the number in various boost categories, but the reason is not improving his kid’s app There are a variety of good reasons for transparency in college admissions besides improving your kid’s app.
Ignoring that, being transparent about the admission process allows a kid who has good critical thinking to make better informed decisions about college admission. He can better decide which colleges he has a decent shot of admission, and which colleges he has little chance. This allows him to focus his time and effort on the former and save application fees on the latter. In many cases,such information would allow him to take steps to improve his chance of admission. As an example of the latter, suppose a student is trying to decide whether he should apply ED/EA and if so at which college? There are a variety of important factors in such a decision, but one important one is whether applying ED/EA provides an advantage in chance of admission for a similarly qualified applicant, and if so the degree of that advantage at a particular college.
He could visit the relevant section of Harvard’s website and see a statement, “Harvard does not offer an advantage to students who apply early.” and conclude it applying REA will not make much difference. Many selective colleges have a similar statement. However, in Harvard’s case, he could use the additional information from the lawsuit and see the lawsuit analysis found that students who applied earlier were expected to have a 4x higher admit rate than applicants who applied RD with the same hook status, same reader ratings, same proposed concentration, etc. This fits with the unhooked (“baseline”) students who applied early having a 5x higher admit rate than those who applied RD in the lawsuit sample, rather than the ~1.3x higher admit rate that would be expected by differences in applicant quality. If more colleges offered similar information, he could better decide at which colleges applying ED/EA would be most likely to increase chance of admission for a similarly qualified applicant, and at which colleges applying ED/EA would be least likely to offer an advantage.
You’ve mentioned that admission is about more than just “stats and some titles.” Being more transparent about how admissions decisions are made would make this more clear. Yes, a kid could visit Harvard’s what we look for page and see an ironic picture of an stoic Asian kid clinging to the opposite side of a fence and see vague qualities Harvard looks for like “How open are you to new ideas and people?” and " What sort of human being are you now? " . However, I doubt that such questions will offer much help to the typical applicant, nor will they show how the importance of this criteria. They certainly wouldn’t offer much help in estimating whether a college is a “match”, “reach”, or little hope. Instead I’d expect most students reading such a page who thought admission emphasized “stats and some titles” would still be focused on “stats and some titles” rather than trying to improve "What sort of human being are you now? "
Seeing the Harvard lawsuit documentation about the specific categories in which readers rate applicants and how the combination of these criteria and others are used in the decisions would offer far more useful information, as well as specific information about admit rate for different combinations of those criteria. A kid could really see that a kid who has top stats and doesn’t do well in the other criteria has little chance of admission, or see whether it’s worthwhile to focus on getting that ACT score up a point, or see what type of stats would suggest a waste of application fee for an unhooked RD kid, or countless other scenarios that are common questions on this forum. With enough transparency, one could find the answer to the majority of questions in the College Admissions section of this forum, rather than make educated guesses.
However, I don’t expect any of this to happen, as it’s not to a typical college’s advantage to provide this degree of information. It’s possible that there may be new laws requiring greater disclosure for colleges receiving federal funding, as response to the recent college admission scandal or the Harvard/UNC lawsuit. However, such laws would primarily relate to accountability — showing that a college does what they say in regards to special admit categories and racial preferences, providing more limited value.
Thelonius. I’m not denigrating them. In contrast, when the field perspective is so stats oriented, I point out that being a top hs performer is no guarantee this kid can master the app and supp. Of course, a lower stats kid could offer a better app package. In no case is hitting the holistic mark a given. In the end, of course adcoms cherry pick. In a given area like SF, of course they may pick the 1500 over the 1400. But that’s in the smaller pool after passing holistic muster. Not in place of it.
And Data10, my point is that too many of the kids who do have the stats are not exercising critical thinking. An example of how a kid might use addl info doesn’t mean they are properly approaching the process, informing themselves, in the first place.
There’s no addl info a college can provide that makes up for not being able to answer a Why Us. No extra point on the ACT that resolves this. But it’s critical.
And what the H lawsuit offers, so far, is not the secret sauce recipe. What do you want disclosed that would make Johnny a better candidate?
Yes, many applicants do not use all the information available to them. I’ve interviewed kids for a HYPSM college who said they were planning to a major in a field that was not offered at the college. However, there are also kids and others who do take advantage of existing information and would take advantage of additional information. A portion of kids not properly approaching the process is not a good reason for lack of transparency.
Additional information does not mean telling an applicant why he is interested in the college, so he can answer a “why us” type essay or interview question. However, additional specific details about how admissions decisions are made could help applicants better understand the importance of this criteria and others, as well as show how this type of holistic criteria is often more important than an extra point on the ACT. In my earlier post, I listed examples of useful additional information that could help students make better informed decisions, and how making better informed decisions can help a student better choose which colleges to apply to and improve a student’s chances of admission at desired colleges.
Data10, first, believe me that I like the age group, especially the bright lights and strivers. But from my perspective, it’s that too many kids don’t make use of existing info. Some, you get a pm and drop a hint and they’re off running. It’s a great thing to see. Others think applying to an elite is like applying for NHS, just list your details and if you have the stats, the number of service hours or whatever, bang, that’s it. All around them swirls misinfo, which they gobble up. Meanwhile, they somehow miss looking into what the colleges’ web pages do show.
Look at how many are desperate for MIT, but didn’t even find the blogs.
Yes, knowing your shot at ED or RD may help you make an informed decision. But it doesn’t make up for a weak app, overall. (I mean, stats in range but the rest off.) But you’re judged on what you present. The whole of it.
There’s too much competition to just amble through the process. It’s not a crapshoot, it’s a sieve. A progressive reduction in kids, to make final comittee manageable.
But first you need to be the sort who does dig deeper.
The issue isn’t that more data should be released to help applicants, the issue is one of public policy.
One of the underlying foundations of public support and subsidy for a nonprofit is the idea that the nonprofit exists to serve either underprivileged members of society or all members of society equally. Nonprofit status is not granted to (or is removed from) organizations that are engaged in “self-dealing”, which is benefiting members of the organization or a disproportionately privileged group.
The general public believes (erroneously) that colleges funded with public money are at least nominally open to all “qualified” applicants. They fail to understand that according to many of these selective colleges, “qualified” doesn’t mean academics or personal qualities that are the best, they mean academics and personal qualities that are the best for the general public applicants and academics and personal qualities that are good enough for the privileged and connected - a different set of standards depending on who you are. Which is counter to American public policy and how the general public would want their tax funds spent in most cases.
To understand why the preferences are a big deal in regards to public policy, let’s compare how selective colleges operate compared to say, a nonprofit that provides low cost housing. Most housing nonprofits have income and similar requirements. If they were to operate like the selective colleges, here’s how those requirements might appear:
All those applicants would be deemed “qualified” by the housing nonprofit, just like all the students admitted to a selective college are deemed “qualified” by that college. But I wonder how the public would feel were they to be made aware of the friends, family and famous being admitted or served under different levels of qualification?
If these colleges want to operate as businesses and maintain certain ‘competitive’ secrets including which ‘customers’ receive different service, then they should not be receiving public funding.
I don’t think people on this thread are looking to make better apps. They are looking for a bit of extra help deciding whether to apply at all and whether and how to use ED/SCEA. The argument seems to be that if people knew the admit rate for their particular group was 2% vs. 5% it would change their strategy. I don’t believe this is true. I think the published stats are already so low that people know what they are getting into applying to these elites.
Your advice has been invaluable to many families including ours. But, I still stress that the application is only the final act of a process that had to have begun years earlier. You have to actually be the kind of person the elites want and then make sure you present yourself well. That isn’t something you can manufacture at the application stage. Stats and club titles aren’t enough. The elites get far too many kids with those basic qualifications. I am going to bet that every one of the admits to Harvard, Yale and Princeton had something else in addition to the stats. Outsiders looking in can’t know what that “something else” is because it doesn’t always show in titles and awards. It may come out in LOR’s or essays, but its there. The schools have no reason to choose randomly when they can hand pick the kids they want.
@gallentjill yes the main point is whether or not to waste time and money to schools that are lottery events for unhooked kids. (the folks on CC know the secret sauce even though the general public doesn’t really). I generally agree with your post but I’d add it seems like the acceptance rates have been crashing over the last few years so that now they are getting to single digits, but there’s a lag effect for the general public to get it. each year they are hitting record low acceptance rates but not that long ago all these schools were in double digit acceptances.
@Data10 Fabulous posts, as always. You are a gem.
@lookingforward You cite the example of some kids not even reading the MIT blog before applying, and while it may be true in some cases, the blog has enough views that many applicants must have indeed found it. It’s ironic that you use MIT as an example - they are among the most transparent Admissions Offices out there, I believe because they want make it easier for regular kids to see what the process really is without having to hire an expert team to help. Kudos to MIT for being more open than most and for being closer to the spirit of this thread than most.
@lookingforward “No bright, inquisitive, activated kid with strong thinking and processing skills should think “his perfect scores/grades push him up to maybe 15-20 % chance…” Not in holistic for tippy tops. It’s incomplete, misses the point.”
Where did you get this data? This is exactly the data we are looking for - can you share it? A few years ago Brown published data that they rejected 68% of the applicants with perfect ACT scores. My math degree was a long time ago, but that seems to imply that they accepted 32% of their perfect ACT scorers, much higher than the general admit rate. I think that a “bright, inquisitive kid with strong thinking and processing skills” will correctly conclude that the existing data implies at least a 15-20% chance of admission at Tippy tops. The problem is that the existing data is incomplete and misleading, which is the point of this thread.
@gallentjill Exactly. “…the application is only the final act of a process that had to have begun years earlier. You have to actually be the kind of person the elites want and then make sure you present yourself well.”
Those are words to live by, on CC, and should stand with expressions like “average excellent.”
And you don’t get there with eyes closed. You don’t call it a crapshoot (including, to lessen your own responsbilities.) You don’t find targets for your insecurity. You deal with what is, the info that is presented, and do so holistically.
The original link, our thread-starter, said, “Make the details of the policy public, and be prepared to defend it in the arena of public discussion.”
But no discussion of intricacies can be separated from the central issues of “personal interest.” And that takes us right back to one’s interest in…admission.
Sorry, but one either plays it well or not. Eyes wide open. We’re a couple of decades past admissions rates that allow a kid to just throw her hat in the ring and cross her fingers.
The number of applications at many schools has more than doubled over the past 10 years, so not surprising that acceptance rates are impacted. More information will not change that trend.
RockySoil. MIT does not reveal the process. They discuss relevant points. And they say so. Somewhere, I have bookmarked similar from Duke and Wesleyan. Just because, as I found these, I took heed. I can easily bet there are more. (There’s also a great video of a former Stanford Dean roundly dismissing the idea of “passions.”)
But the problem starts, imo, with the high school theme of things, where a mostly pre-formed set of standards is what allows certain kids to rise to the top (academically and in social respect from admins.) Play by their rules. Then kids come to the process of choosing where to apply to college, looking for that same set of rules. Be good, contribute, don’t disturb (more or less.) Get more check marks than minuses. But this is not an app process for applying to another, better high school. It’s the college leap.
I don’t see the Brown detail now (link it, if you can.) But in the past, yes, they presented admit stats. Princeton, Stanford, and Dart are 3 other elites that do (or have.) Look at Princeton. Only 7.4% in the whole range of ACT 32-36 were admitted. The 92.6% rejected aren’t flukes or some campaign against some ethncity. (Some are geo diversity or for balance in gender, among majors, etc.) But many of those kids could have improved their own chances with attention to detail.
It’s superficial, counterintuitive, and a misunderstanding of holistic, to try to claim stats alone can improve chances.
No matter your ACT or SAT, if you, personally, blow the app (or made one of a hundred other mistakes,) you chance is essentially zero.
Harsh. But the competition is that fierce. My observations come from experience with apps, on the college side. My advice to kids is in the hopes that light bulb goes on for a few more deserving kids.