<p>
</p>
<p>There are a whole lot of people, from journalists to guidance counselors, who simply do not realize how competitive elite admissions has gotten in the last 10 years. A decade ago, Suzy might well have gotten in; today she’s nothing special. Therefore, it must be due to discrimination. Because the opposite conclusion would be intolerable: the peer competition has gotten tougher and many of the current alumni of decades past would not even make it onto today’s wait-lists.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Then they are stupid (and if they are paid to offer advice to students, they shouldn’t be). Sorry, but it’s true. I don’t care how high someone’s SAT score is or how many math or science competitions they might have won. This information is READILY AVAILABLE to anyone with a computer and a brain and enough fingers to conduct an internet search. There is no excuse for “smart” people to come up empty-handed when the admissions letters come out. It’s simply a matter of understanding basic supply and demand, developing a workable strategy and executing a plan.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That might be a bit harsh. Once most people “know” something, they generally don’t take the time to do the research to see if their “facts” are out-of-date.</p>
<p>Going back to what TheGFG said, I will concur. Many people I knew told their kids something like --Boston to DC (four hour drive or so) for college apps. I don’t believe it was any idea of superiority (at least for the kinds of people I know, most weren’t looking at highly selective schools) as much as practicality–why go through the whole airport songanddance, plus the expense, when so many schools were in an easy drive?</p>
<p>I never heard this as an absolute–if there was a program, or a particular reason for the farther school, it would be considered (we had a UMich exception in my house. :)) But absent that, it was just practical and eminently doable, to stay in the region.</p>
<p>There is so much assuming about motivation on this thread!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>One additional factor in Suzy Weiss’ admission results is also she’s from the most overrepresented demographic for most college admissions except hardcore engineering/tech colleges. </p>
<p>She’s White, female, and from a higher SES considering her upbringing and her family’s connection to the WSJ. </p>
<p>This factor reminds me of the conversation I had with an Ivy Prof who did service volunteering to look over applications in her university’s undergrad admissions office within the last decade. From her observations, she remarked if they didn’t provide extra boosts for male applicants, the main college’s F:M ratio could have easily swung as high as 70:30 or in their adcom’s views…worse at 80:20.</p>
<p>They didn’t want their main undergraduate college to become an effective quasi-all-woman’s college.</p>
<p>Cobrat, I am afraid some would disagree with your analysis of the overrepresented subgroups. At least if you were to use race and gender in our demographics.</p>
<p>A large group does NOT automatically equate to overrepresentation over the baseline distribution.</p>
<p>As far as the other anecdote, it would help to offer more details about the school and role played by that prof to dismiss the obvious question about the veracity of the story. Perhaps an Espenshade cousin?</p>
<p>In fairness, I don’t think people truly grasp what 20,000 kids vying for 2000 seats means. 14000 4.0 or better applied to H last year. And the family can focus on how junior is in great position at his hs, his teachers think he’s great…so what’s to worry, cream rises, right? Instead of seeing him as one of a horde, they think ordinary chances don’t apply.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>People DO NOT generally say hi to you walking down the street in Chicago, Boston, or any other large city, no mater where it is. (They <em>may</em> in a residential neighborhood.) People DO say hi to you walking down the street in small towns everywhere. This whole thing of people assuming that a couple of cities represent the norms of the entire northeast gets very, very old.</p>
<p>Can you see the holes in: she didn’t get in because she’s an ordinary white girl — as if an ordinary white girl is special.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>True. My point is that one reason why White female applicants from higher SES face higher odds is precisely because most non-engineering/tech colleges are trying to prevent them becoming overrepresented as if they didn’t use gender balancing as an admission factor, they could easily become quasi-all-women’s colleges.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m not sure that Suzy’s stats were good enough to get accepted even if she had been a URM.</p>
<p>Consolation–yes. Exactly. People say hi in my North Jersey suburb. No region has cornered the market on friendliness.</p>
<p>Moderator’s Note: Please ensure you do not post links to blogs. I have deleted the same link twice already.</p>
<p>She should’ve applied to Cornell.</p>
<p>Do we know her.major? If not, we could have fun speculating</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Going for the MRS degree? Did she apply to Princeton? ;)</p>
<p>mythmom, I appreciate your presence on this thread and on others, but understand why you might want a hiatus.</p>
<p>Inspired by the character of Pig (well, many aspects of the character of Pig, anyway) from the comic Pearls before Swine, I decided to set up a thread in the Cafe, called “QuantMech’s Happy Box.” Everyone who needs to hide away (for a while) from the world’s various ills–the large and extremely serious ills, but also the small and insignificant problems that can hardly even be termed “ills”–would be welcome. There would be continuous celebrations of Our Common Humanity, which might annoy some. </p>
<p>In light of the tags that this thread would surely attract, however, I will be leaving the “Happy Box” thread purely virtual . . . which is not to say that I have not acquired and labeled a large cardboard box.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It’s almost certainly not engineering/CS or other fields where she’d actually get a slight boost/tip for being female as such fields still have an overwhelming male-majority in most schools.</p>
<p>Same reasons as why males tend to get a boost/tip for applying to arts & sciences centered universities or moreso…LACs where more women tend to apply with higher stats than their male counterparts.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Cobrat, I challenged your statement that “One additional factor in Suzy Weiss’ admission results is also she’s from the most overrepresented demographic for most college admissions except hardcore engineering/tech colleges.”</p>
<p>Doesn’t the gender distribution follow our demographics in general terms, safe and except at the specialized STEM schools? The point you raised was about current overrepresentation --and apparently not with a Clintonesque “IS.” As far as I know, there are just a couple of overrepresented groups at the schools we love to discuss on CC. One is based on race, and the other on SES. Perhaps, I should look at your statement and remove the White and Female part to indulge you. </p>
<p>And, if I was not clear before, allow me to share that I do not buy the position stated by that Ivy professor. Highly selective schools are not about to overwhelmed by women to the degree that drastic measures need to be implemented. The higher GPA are one component among a myriad of others, including standardized test scores. Take a closer look at the enrolled student body at the non-coed schools for some enlightment.</p>
<p>And rest assured that there is no misogyny in my “explanation” as I am humbled on a daily basis by the brilliance and work ethics of the ladies in my life.</p>
<p>Garland, GFG, et al- I think there is a substantive difference between telling your kid that between Boston and DC (or Chicago and St. Louis; or LA to SF) he or she ought to be able to find a college that fits. And if they can’t- you will consider colleges outside that area on a case by case basis. No quarrel from me.</p>
<p>But if your unemployed college grad tells you that he/she won’t consider a banking job in Charlotte, or a performance role in Orlando, or a theatrical lighting job in Minneapolis, or a television production job in Louisville or a Tech job in Austin or a job as a Classics professor anywhere-- I respectfully disagree with that logic. Nobody’s 20’s last forever. Nobody is telling your NYC wannabee or your “gotta live in SF or bust” kid that they are going to be living wherever that first job is forever. But that’s what it is- a first job. And companies like Dell or Disney or the Guthrie theater or Bank of America or Procter & Gamble are considered “academy companies” or foundational career experiences, or whatever else you want to call them, because regardless of how awful your snowflake may consider the location of that first job, when they are 42 and interviewing for a senior role in their field, nobody is going to ask the, “Gee, why did you go there?” And if that job at 30 Rock producing the 11 o’clock news doesn’t pan out, so you end up at a public access TV station in Memphis-- guess what, you will be better situated to apply for that job in two or three years when you actually know something about the television business.</p>
<p>18 year old wants to stay local or regional? Hey, have at it. But in a tight job market, the “too picky” class of 2009 ends up throwing their resumes into the same pile as the class of 2010 and the class of 2011 and the class of 2012, and it gets harder and harder the older a kid gets to explain the serial internships or the part-time survival jobs which have not yet led to a real career track role. Is living in Hartford and being an entry level property/casualty insurance analyst so demeaning to a 24 year old who graduated two years ago and still hasn’t launched?</p>