<p>Epiphany,</p>
<p>I stated in several comments my favorable opinion of Ivy League colleges. I think frank and open discussions could improve these institutions as well as make the overall system more fair. I don’t understand why it bothers you so much that I disagree with you, nor why you question my motives, nor why you encourage me to go elsewhere and blog on this issue. I’m not sorry for voicing my opinion on this issue, and clearly you aren’t either (nor should you be).</p>
<p>By the way, Epiphany, I did not single out Harvard for special criticism. As I stated the first time I referenced Harvard data, I used Harvard as an example because its website was easy to navigate and I quickly found the relevant admissions information. While my point was to demonstrate how vague the admissions information was, it was easy to find.</p>
<p>GFG wrote:
“The college, however, decides not to let him buy the education. Others are allowed to buy, but the student doesn’t know why he wasn’t permitted to do so. He thought he was a good fit. He wishes he would have known in advance that he wasn’t, so as to save himself the money and effort which could have been better spent applying elsewhere.”</p>
<p>With very selective colleges, here is where I disagree. WAY more students are a good fit and have the requisite qualifications to be admitted than can be admitted. If someone is rejected at a school that has an acceptance rate lower than 20% or so, it doesn’t necessarily follow that he/she was not qualfied or a good enough fit to be admitted. Elite colleges will tell you that they could fill the class a second time with students who are just as good as the first group admitted. It is quite subjective. No amount of X, Y, or Z that they could tell you in advance will change this fact. </p>
<p>If one is going to apply to a school with a very low admit rate, one should make sure to be in the ballpark of published stats for admitted students to that college (easy to obtain from any college directory). Once ya have the “goods”, it is no guarantee of being admitted. You can have the GPA, the HS coursework, grades, test scores, ECs, essays, great interview, specific expression of interest, recs, etc. and still be rejected because there are not enough slots for those who fit the criteria for a school like this. That is why we see time and again, Johnny gets into X elite school but not Y equally elite school but Susie gets into Y but not X and then Joey gets into both X and Y. At this level, there is subjectivity and an element of a crapshoot if one meets a need in the class grouping. It can be unpredictable even if you have every piece of information you crave. It is the reality of the situation. I can’t think of too many who can safely feel guaranteed of admissions to a highly selective school. If one is a very top student with everything going for him/her, then one can expect to get into a selective school but it is very hard to predict just which school will give the nod. A student needs a realistic and reasonable and balanced list. I could not predict if my kids would get into the highly selective schools on their list. I knew they were in range for those schools but not whether they could get in. Their list was reasonable for them and due to that, I felt they’d get in somewhere, but they knew they could not count on the reaches…and not because they were not good enough but because the reality of elite admissions is such that not every qualified person will be admitted. There are not enough slots for those who meet the criteria/qualifications. If one applies to a highly selective school with a low admit rate, one needs to EXPECT that it will be unpredictable and therefore, build a realistic and balanced list because one can’t count on admissions to an elite school (and it isn’t because the elite school doesn’t make selection criteria known but is because too many applicants fit that selection criteria and the school can’t take them all). </p>
<p>Applicants applying to elite colleges need to look over the published stats for that college and if they are in range, they can apply, but need to be realistic that the admissions cannot be counted on. It is necessary to have what is needed to get to the gate of a college but it is hard to predict if one will get in that gate. The difficulty of prediction is due to the odds, not due to not enough information about that school’s admissions criteria.</p>
<p>You mention about the student wishing he knew in advance that he wasn’t a “good fit”. However, my kids knew in advance that they could not predict if they’d get in and the odds were very slim…they knew that going into it, in advance…and they also knew they WERE a good fit, but that that would not guarantee an admission at top schools.</p>
<p>“I don’t understand why it bothers you so much that I disagree with you, nor why you question my motives, nor why you encourage me to go elsewhere and blog on this issue.”</p>
<p>Not at all; it doesn’t bother me so much. It’s just that it’s sounding more & more one-note because so many posters have tried to reply to your repeated complaint or objection in many thorough & varied ways – some of them, not mine, fairly eloquent & at least quite comprehensive. Repliers have offered you many angles on the “why” (and the “why not”!). I don’t know how many other ways it can be said, other than what’s already been said. But the point is (slap my hand – that introductory conjunction!) there are other forums where a similar passionate viewpoint may, in fact will, be better accepted & where the majority of contributors undoubtedly feel much like you do (& therefore you will be less frustrated). I’m not denying that some CC parents & students agree with you: surely many do; but probably many more do not. I’m only going by postings of the last 1.5 years, which demonstrate that, despite misgivings & similar frustrations posted now & then, mostly CC parents at least seem to understand the “why,” although many do not agree with the standards & vicissitudes that place e.c.'s in strong consideration (or in some cases vice-versa – that place test scores in great importance); they nevertheless understand that outcomes vary, are not uniform, are not predictable, cannot be reduced to calculations, & that each college or University’s priorities change year to year (which will affect admissions decisions for any year). A demographic shift, a reduction or expansion of an academic department, the initiation of a new major or program, the doubling of an athletic team, a personnel change in a key player – director of admissions, president of the university, etc. – all these can & do have sudden impact, often quite directly on a new group of applicants.</p>
<p>I applaud anyone’s concern that families have maximum access to whatever sources of information they can & should have: I have the same concern; you & I just differ on where we place the burden for that information, and on how much information is available in a practical sense. What I don’t accept about your widget/store analogy is that the only way to reach the top shelf is to get someone <em>else</em> to help find a ladder. I maintain that the ladders are all over the store, within reach of every customer with the motivation to find them. (The top shelf represents the information about admissions, not the admissions ticket, in my analogy.) Granted, some customers would be more enterprising than others, have better, sharper, swifter eyes to find those ladders; some customers may start much earlier than others (going to other stores first, on other days, to discover where stores are likely to place ladders so that your favorite store, the one with few & the best widgets for sale in your opinion, is the store you are most prepared for, with the best strategy).</p>
<p>We could enter into a 27th hijacking of this thread, as this one’s gone more astray than the Double Depositing one, LOL, but I’ll say that I do not believe there is “equality of opportunity” with regard to the information-gathering for college admissions. The ladders may be plentiful, but, as with other things in life, the race is to the swift (of mind). It is to those eager, bright, clever, extremely motivated, determined, tenacious who will have the advantage in locating ladders. But locating a ladder will not guarantee the outcome, <em>still.</em> That’s because there are 2 models at play, you see. (It is not a straight line.) The consumer may be looking for a prized product, but simultaneously the consumer is being looked at by the store – regarding his or her buying history long before that consumer entered the store. The problem with your analogy is not that it’s about consumption; the problem with it is that it assumes admissions to be a one-way process. Buyer and seller are in a dynamic in college admissions, despite the lopsided supply/demand situation. It’s not just the seats in that University that are prized widgets; the students occupying those seats are also prizes. (And remember that there’s a store, in fact several equally fine stores, just next to the store you mentioned – all trying to sell widgets, competing for the same quality, educated consumers smart enough to figure out where the ladders are & to have several handy.) </p>
<p>LOL – no, no- no one say it. (Climbing the corporate – I mean collegiate – ladder.)</p>
<p>“I understand that many companies advertise for bogus job openings so as to seem vibrant and expanding. So I buy into Epiphany’s comparison between private companies and private universities. In the case of private universities, many (most) do not intentionally seek to deceive (unlike companies posting bogus job ads); instead, they are trying to leave themselves enough wiggleroom to make exceptions to norms.” [Marite]</p>
<p>Wow. I learned something new. I knew of many other motivations to deceive (on the part of employers), but that one is just plain hysterical. (Manipulating public information – Wow. Well I guess if the gov’t does it; it shouldn’t surprise me that companies do, too.) I agree with that opinion that most private universities do not withhold or appear vague for the purpose of deception.</p>
<p>I understand both sides of this issue and agree with your post, as well as with most posters who have expressed similar opinions to yours. But I can also identify with the frustration others feel regarding what they perceive as a little too much uncertainty.</p>
<p>Perhaps, as I suggested in an earlier thread, the reason some folks are persisting rather stubbornly despite your logic is an unprovable nagging suspicion regarding how the admissions pool is sifted.</p>
<p>I’m not as smart as you are, but the best I can do is the following:</p>
<p>None of us have a problem with the system if we imagine a kind of flow chart process. Candidate has SAT I scores within defined acceptable range. Check and continue. Canidate has GPA in acceptable range. Check and continue. Candidate has challenged himself academically to the degree possible at his HS. Check and continue. Candidate has acceptable SAT II scores and likely good AP scores. Check and continue. Candidate has pursued with passion and excellence one or more EC. Check and continue. Candidate has good recommendations which support application. Check and continue. Candidate has produced an interesting and well-written essay. Check and continue.</p>
<p>Now, at this point, the college may start looking at their institutional needs for diversity of geographic region, gender, ethnicity, EC involvement/
leadership experience. This sifting may or may not proceed in flowchart form. Still, if this is more or less how decisions are made, I don’t think any of us could complain much. After this point, the choice indeed becomes luck, chance, the proverbial crapshoot.</p>
<p>But how about if instead there are multiple flow charts with perhaps varying standards? What of claims that colleges have strong relationships to certain prep. schools, for example. Do students of those schools get sent through the sorting flow chart first, thereby gaining some preference to available spots? (Clearly parents our local prep. school think this is true.) Do students who are not applying for FA or for only minimal aid get evaluated differently, or are they given a priority chance at admissions? (If admissions decisions are truly need blind, why does the application even ask whether the student is applying for FA? Couldn’t the student just send in the forms if he’s applying and those forms would be forwarded directly to the Fin. Aid office? People suspect a relationships here and thus parents I know are deliberately not applying for FA despite need to improve their child’s chances.) Do students from certain racial groups get sifted via a completely separate chart with more lenient academic standards? If so, how much more lenient? And is the flowchart for blacks different than for Hispanics, given our national obligations? What of athletes? We’ve pretty much established that lower academic criteria may apply. But how much lower? Is it in proportion to the level of excellence, or is there a some athletic minimum? (Andecdotally, I’ve heard Harvard will go as low as 1250 on the old SAT for a top athlete.) What about legacies? Is their flowchart still different or is this a thing of the past? If it is different, to what degree is it correlated with the size of past contributions from the family? Do celebrities get sent to a special flowchart made just for them, with extremely basic standards?</p>
<p>Perhaps the frustration you’re hearing comes from the sense that the process really isn’t even objective up to a certain point and then chance after that. Maybe people suspect that different flowcharts are being employed for certain students, and they think it’s unfair and undemocratic that this is so. It’s likely that those frustrated parents are pretty sure their children will have to pass through the standard sorting system with no preferential treatment at all. This breeds distrust and resentment.</p>
<p>Epiphany:</p>
<p>When dot.com companies were crashing and laying off right and left, some were taking out big ads advertising for “jobs” I knew a number of people who were being laid off and couldn’t understand why they were in such panic. I was told that the ads were meant to reassure stockholders/suppliers/customers that the company was not going under. Some people I knew applied for jobs they thought they were highly qualified for; were told the position was no longer available, but when checking later, found that it had never been filled; and the company had had no intention of filling that position. I don’t know how prevalent was the practice.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If you want to have diversity, you will need to maintain different flowcharts past a certain point. You cannot fill too many slots from School X, not matter how excellent the pool of students if you want diversity. But you also need to balance this against the knowledge that time and again, applicants from school X have proved to be excellent. If you are from the NE, you cannot fill too many slots from that region–despite the heavy concentration of excellent students who want to stay in the NE-- and still achieve geographical diversity.</p>
<p>You also need to maintain a different flowchart if you want to fill the slots in the orchestra, the football team, the crew team, etc… As I’ve posted many times, someone I know swears she got into Radcliffe because she was willing to be recruited for crew. Maybe next year another student with the same academic profile and same willingness would not be admitted–the crew team having been filled. That is where crapshoot comes in. Do you want colleges to advertise each year:
preference will be given to 1. French horns and bassoons (violins need not apply)
2.track runners (sorry, crew is filled)<br>
3. students from geographic area X but not Y–we’ve got enough of those already?</p>
<p>Would that be transparent enough?</p>
<p>Continued:
This sense does breed those educated consumers you mention. If it was, as you say, merely a question of being swift of mind and talent such that the truly capable student (with perhaps equally swift parents) finds ladders in that store and in comparable stores, again who could complain? After all, the ladder is there for all. </p>
<p>But is the ladder equally available to all? Do some kids get a store map ahead of time (prep school kids)? Does the clerk lead certain desirable children directly to the ladders (intelligent Native Americans living on reservations) and lead others away (male Chinese students interested in science). Do some students have access to materials with which to manufacture a ladder–materials not available to other students (money and legacy, for example)? And lastly, do those students initiated into the art of ladder manufacturing achieve better results with tricks of the trade, such as developing a desirable profile or concealing unfavorable information? (to improve his chances, a friend’s son did not disclose he was Chinese, for example).</p>
<p>This thread would not exist if people didn’t suspect that there were indeed such “tricks of the trade.” These tricks are what some of us object to.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>But how is that the responsibility of the college? In fact, colleges go out of their way to recruit from less obvious schools. That is part of the Harvard Financial Aid Initiative. HYP could probably fill all of their classes from a handful of schools: Exeter, Andover, Harvard-Westlake, Scarsdale… So, in fact, for an excellent student from some of these schools, admission to HYP is more of a crapshoot than for students from some other region or type of school. Because that student is up against dozens of fellow students who are also excellent. Had that student come from some other school, s/he would have had a better chance at admission.</p>
<p>From Xiggi’s post:</p>
<p>When it comes to GPA, there is one motto: MAXIMIZE the GPA at all costs.</p>
<p>My d is a rising sophmore at a very good girl’s boarding school. As a freshman her tough courses are Advanced Algebra2, Honors Physics, Chinese.
She will likely finish the term with B’s in Physics and Chinese and an A in Algebra 2. A’s in everything else.
Next year she is passionate about taking AP Physics as well as the required Chemistry class. She also wants to continue with Chinese although it is quite a struggle for her and she has had to have a peer tutor most of the year.
I am struggling with what is the right advice? Go an easier route with her course selections or follow her passions in her course selctions.</p>
<p>I would advise against taking AP Physics at this stage. It is usually taken concurrently with AP-Calc, so your D should wait until she is ready for AP-Calc. Most students take AP-Physics (that is, the few that do) in their senior year. As well, if she will be taking Chemistry, two lab science classes might be lots of work and also difficult to schedule. </p>
<p>If she is happy continuing with Chinese, I would say to encourage. Many students find the beginning of a foreign language difficult to master but have fewer problems later on (all those declensions! all those strange tones!). Chinese will be very useful later on.</p>
<p>“I am struggling with what is the right advice? Go an easier route with her course selections or follow her passions in her course selctions.”</p>
<p>This thread has been going around in circles for some time now. But as you can see, despite all the talk about kids following their bliss and doing what they’re passionate about, parents are still asking questions, the basis of which is how to weigh what a student wants to do with what he should do to benefit his application. In this case, I think the answer was rather straight-forward because of the prerequisite issue. But what if the student were very passionate about taking that AP Physics class junior year but had gotten B’s in pre-Calc. and honors physics. Then what? When should you maximize GPA, and when should you take the most challenging courses you can? If college admissions were that transparent and obvious, this forum wouldn’t exist.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>A student who got Bs in pre-calc and honors physics is very probably not passionate about physics–or else that student is self-deluded about his/her interests and abilities, and level of preparation. That student needs good advice. A good GC ought to point out that students do not go straight from Algebra 2 to AP-Physics. That’s the function of the GC, not the college.</p>
<p>
And if my Aunt had :eek: she’d be my uncle. ;)</p>
<p>GFG, there are plenty of more transparent schools around. We found that Case and UMiami pretty much followed their admissions and merit aid script.#'s 37 and 55 on the USNWR National Doctoral list may not fit some folks definition of a top school, but it fit ours. But then again, we came to this forum searching for best fit/merit aid schools and not top ten admissions selectivity. But OTOH, I don’t think we were alone either, and in fact I think we make up most of the occasional posters (and almost all of the lurkers, though I have no proof of that). </p>
<p>As with most “products” if we’d stop buying the elite college product they’d change. But Hollywood is going to make MI 4 and then 5 if we flock to the screens to see MI 3. So if your mission is to foment a “revolution by boycott” you have to convince the families to stop applying, and I just don’t see that happening.</p>
<p>marite,
Thanks for the follow-up about the dot com. I did know that, just forgot. Not being a tekkie,I don’t apply for such jobs but know those who have, who have been misled into applying for nonexistent positions. (Um, feeding stock perceptions anyone, against your downward values? i.e., the earlier reference to leading the public to believe your company is thriving) I hadn’t made the connection to non-tech fields & positions; I was being unswift of mind. No reason why other kinds of businesses wouldn’t engage in a similar deception. </p>
<p>“But is the ladder equally available to all? Do some kids get a store map ahead of time (prep school kids)? Does the clerk lead certain desirable children directly to the ladders (intelligent Native Americans living on reservations) and lead others away (male Chinese students interested in science). Do some students have access to materials with which to manufacture a ladder–materials not available to other students (money and legacy, for example)? And lastly, do those students initiated into the art of ladder manufacturing achieve better results with tricks of the trade, such as developing a desirable profile or concealing unfavorable information? (to improve his chances, a friend’s son did not disclose he was Chinese, for example).”</p>
<p>While I don’t necessarily buy into all these examples, let’s take them at face value for a minute. Do you see how even within that paragraph, there are balancing factors? (Plenty of Chinese males interested in science, supposedly detoured in-store, may have a store map ahead of time, as many attend prep schools, and/or have parents very, very single-minded to learn every “trick of the trade.” Or that same male may be like your friends’ son – “did not disclose he was Chinese.”) Also, as marite & others in earlier threads have noted, the advantages of (relative) insider-knowledge born from NE residency are counterbalanced by HYP’s disinclination to fill their classes entirely with these. Hence, from a strictly stastistical viewpoint, one may be <em>disadvantaged</em> to have a NE prep-school education vs. a similar education, similar/identical record, elsewhere in the country. But it’s not that simple. There are still huge numbers of “Chinese males interested in science” (and from the NE!) admitted to HYPM (sticking to East Coast). Also, I don’t know how long your friend’s son was able to maintain his own secrecy. (Interview, anyone? Last names a tiny clue? Yes, some have European or Anglicized last names, but not most.)</p>
<p>Back again to your second paragraph. Buying into your model that the college is engaging in more artful manipulation (of preferences, policies) than I believe it is, let’s accept that for the moment. Do you not see, given just the examples you’ve stated, that the “deception” and the hypothesized “secrecy” is two-way? If a college was transparent in the way marite just mentioned, do you see that one-way transparency would not equal the playing field? Let’s suppose the Chinese male has an Anglo surname, no accent, & there is no face-to-face interview. Then the college would have incomplete & erroneous data to offer the public as a “prediction” of or guide to admissions info. They would not even know what the true nature of the applicant pool was.</p>
<p>Finally, let’s look at a “perfectly” transparent or at least improved model of transparency. I’ll pretend for a moment that <em>applicants,</em> too have suddenly turned fully disclosing & no one is “gaming.” And that the colleges are doing (advertising) something similar to what marite just mentioned. The result, as I mentioned much earlier, would be possibly 3 full Ivy-qualified freshman classes rejected, as opposed to the one or two full classes now rejected. Yes, more people would be in the pool, would have a “shot,” decreasing chances for any one particular person, however many ladders he or she had, to be granted a widget.</p>
<p>The Honors Physics teacher is also the AP Physics teacher and has recommended D for the AP Physics class. Of all of her choices for next year, this is the one she most wants.</p>
<p>One thing the AP-Physics cannot control is the AP exam score. And a student who takes AP-Physics as a sophomore SHOULD take the exam and SHOULD report the score, If the AP teacher can be pretty certain that your D will not struggle in the class and will not bomb the exam, go ahead. Otherwise, be very careful. I don’t think colleges give points for going too fast and falling on your face.</p>
<p>My S began studying Ap-Calc in the second semester of 7th grade. He also took Physics at CTY during the summer. When he took AP-Physics in 8th grade, he was better prepared than the juniors and seniors in the class by virtue of having started AP-Calc one semester ahead of them.</p>
<p>Thanks! She will take the exam, as it is a requirement if you take the class.
This summer she will work with a math teacher family friend to get some coaching. She is also going to Columbia’s program for high school students and will take the upper level Physics class. I’m thinking that if this is at all struggle, she’ll decide to postpone AP Physics.</p>
<p>AP Physics seems odd for tenth grade. Your D will not have even had Pre Cal before then, right? Here it is only possible to take AP Physics in 12th grade and all will have had PreCal before then. My D was at an advantage because she was further accelerated in math and did AP Calculus in junior year (nobody else had here). She was at an advantage because of her knowledge of Calc and was the top AP Physics student. It seems odd to have AP Physics so young and also just after Algebra 2. </p>
<p>Overall, I think a student should take the most challenging classes available if she/he is up to them and also interested in them. I would not take easier classes to “maximize the GPA”. Very selective colleges DO care about the strength of one’s curriculum. Much less selective colleges are more numbers driven (such as GPA) but a more difficult college will care about how demanding the courses were, not just the grades in them. If your D goes to a well regarded girls boarding school, her grades will be looked at in the context of HER school and also within the context of the difficulty of the course load. In that respect, I’d have her stay the course (oops, pun, sorry) of taking challenging courses that interest her. However, she shouldn’t overly challenge herself, as Marite points out, if she is not yet ready for that level of work. I’d rather see AP PHysics later in her HS career with a better grade than earlier with a lesser grade. The colleges aren’t going to care which year she took it. If your school feels she is ready for this course and can do well, then go by that. But generally speaking, having at least Pre Cal first would help with AP Physics. I guess she is in an introductory first year Physics course now…and she had a B…so I am not sure her readiness for AP Physics but trust that the teachers in your school must know which is the best placement for her in this subject. I’d have her take Chemistry next and then AP Physics junior year. If she takes both as as soph, what is left to take in science at your school for two more years after next year? At our HS, she’d be maxing out by tenth grade in science pretty much. Also at our HS, the Honors Chem class that 11th graders take (cannot take Chem until 11th here) was a VERy difficult course and so is the AP Physics that 12th graders take and I cannot imagine both at the same time. Each school is different of course.</p>
<p>"With very selective colleges, here is where I disagree. WAY more students are a good fit and have the requisite qualifications to be admitted than can be admitted. If someone is rejected at a school that has an acceptance rate lower than 20% or so, it doesn’t necessarily follow that he/she was not qualfied or a good enough fit to be admitted. …</p>
<p>If one is going to apply to a school with a very low admit rate, one should make sure to be in the ballpark of published stats for admitted students to that college (easy to obtain from any college directory). Once ya have the “goods”, it is no guarantee of being admitted. "</p>
<p>True. To me, the best comparison is perhaps what happens when coaches select players for a team like in football. Just because a player is the very best in the country doesn’t mean he or he will get picked by a particular team. In selecting players, the coach is selecting people who’ll fit in best with the team. That may not be the person who’s best in the country.</p>
<p>Certainly one needs to have certain abilities to be considered for a team, but in order to make the cut, other factors will come into consideration, too including the strengths and weaknesses of the other players who are being considered as well as the strengths and weaknesses of the players already on the team.</p>