<p>“In your case, wouldn’t it have been easier to match your daughter with a college if you knew which colleges valued her particular interests?”</p>
<p>Well, we made good guesses apparently. But I think more importantly, that’s not the way we proceeded. She had already decided that rigorous academics were her priority, a very selective U was her priority, a “smallish” U was her priority, a college or U near a culturally rich metropolitan area but hopefully east of the Mississippi, was her priority, & particular academic programs/strengths were, as well. She also preferred a campus atmosphere to match her personal preferences (not wild, loud, binge-drinking oriented). She also wanted a different cultural milieu than what she had grown up with, & she wanted a rich mix of backgrounds. We proceeded from her choices outward, not the other way around. </p>
<p>I understand your viewpoint, but I honestly don’t think what you envision would occur by such public announcements from colleges, if indeed they had “preferences” for certain e.c.'s. Frankly, I don’t think, overall, they do have distinct preferences as to categories of e.c.'s – except to admit a quota of students who may be interested in their possibly high-profile college newspaper, a well-respected competitive literary club, a nationally known debate team, an annually touring orchestra, and definitely, definitely, certain sports teams. (I know I’ve left lots of campus “needs” out.) Anyone can investigate these campus needs: by visiting campuses, by talking to officials there, by visiting departments, & even by visiting the college websites themselves. That’s not “secret society” stuff.</p>
<p>The frustrations of students & families in college admissions are mostly the result of a huge imbalance in supply & demand (i.e., for certain categories, locations of colleges). For example, going back to sports for a minute. I’ve posted some counter-opinions to the “sports is most important” theme, because I think it’s irresponsible to promote the idea that sports has a predictable edge over all other e.c.'s, as an e.c. There are simply too many high school athletes applying to “top schools” (the phrase in the OP). There are probably more fine athletes than all the Ivies + Georgetown, Swarthmore, Chicago, etc. can admit, if they filled their entire freshman classes with athletes (which they wouldn’t). The same goes for music & other popular e.c.'s. Colleges are looking for a combination of many qualities. E.c’s are only one factor, & they are seen relative to everything else in that applicant’s profile, & relative to everyone else’s application.</p>
<p>Greater transparency will not alter the fundamental economic principle above. No, I’m not for secrecy, but the playing field changes year to year not because of deliberate trickery on the part of colleges, but because the players are different every year. How could my D, or I, predict when she was 5 & 6 yrs old which colleges she would apply to? Her decision for e.c.'s at a young age did not have anything to do with such predictions, nor should it have. In fact, I’ll be honest with you. We were both very concerned by her h.s. soph yr. that she would get into no particularly selective college, for one reason alone: We were told over & over by lay “experts” (ha!) that colleges wanted “leaders.” Well, she was no “leader” by conventional standards of leadership, particularly as that term is often paired with extroversion & displays of enthusiasm. However, I learned that such pairing is a stereotype, & that leadership comes in many forms. She was in fact viewed as an academic leader & a quiet leader (by example, more than by overt displays); she also did take quiet initiative in her school. She’s just not the kind of person to run for office, etc. But as someone posted on another thread, followers are also needed. “Leadership” is a term that should always be surrounded by quotes as it applies to college admissions. My D has met her share of similar introverts in college already. Perhaps the terms enterprise & initiative are more accurate for some applicants.</p>
<p>So there’s no admissions “formula” for any given year, let alone a formula that can be projected & predicted for a subsequent year. And even if one happened to have the right combo of qualities for one yr to please a committee, one could have the bad luck of geography or ethnicity or impacted major among the thousands of similar applicants to that school, which would sink an application into the rejection pile “unjustly.” And if a college “announced” that particular e.c.'s would be favored in the Year _____, or right now, do you not think there would suddenly appear in the admissions offices a gigantic oversupply of applications with those e.c.'s on them? I hardly think that would give an “edge” to students with that e.c.; the effect would be the opposite: that college would increase its reach factor considerably, & the admit rates for those with that e.c. would plummet. (The colleges want balance, not a domination of one e.c.)</p>
<p>Finally, subjectivity is always an element, for which there is no predictability. Even for the U.C.'s, a human being is reading that essay, not a computer or calculator. A perspective, a bias, a life experience is brought to that reading.</p>
<p>No, I hardly think the system is perfect, but I do not think that greater transparency will result in predictability, let alone perfection.</p>