Where CC advice got it wrong for getting into top colleges

Applying to College Admission Stories
61

It’s important to remember that admissions is like casting a play or movie. There are dozens of talented actors for each role. The school is trying to find its class or “cast” each year. There are many roles they are tying to find to build out the mosaic.

And a perfectly terrific actor might be a bad fit for the role available. Or there is someone they think fits that role a bit better. And like acting, much is subjective as to who is a better fit for the spot in the cast. The one person you’re auditioning for is the admin reader. They’re the casting director. Maybe they’re having a bad day or already casted the athletic preppy kid from the private school in your area already, as an example.

It doesn’t mean that the actors that were not selected aren’t equally as talented.

However too many students don’t show themselves in a way that lets them see you fit the role you could play.

They think it’s all about how many oscars you’ve won compared to another and that’s not how it works once everyone is assumed to be incredibly gifted.

It’s more like the finals of “the voice” (where everyone considered at that point is great) than a a foot race where the times are all that matters.

So much about what someone hears and prefers in that given moment in time.

62

I know a kid that got into Cornell ED. He was a mediocre B-student, with little-to-no advanced coursework, no interesting ECs, 1250 SAT, not an athlete. But, he declared the “Wine” (there’s an official name for it but I forgot it) major, parents are both Cornell alums, and own a successful winery. So sometimes it is just that type of fit vs needing top scores/grades/national awards.

There were other kids from same highly regarded prep school that also applied to Cornell with 1550 SAT’s, 4+ GPAs, talented varsity athletes, president of clubs, strong community service, Those kids followed most of the rules in the OP here, but did not get into Ivies. But unfortunately, they did not have the connections of the “wine applicant” or anything similar…those kids just have to put forth their best application which may include many components of OP list. And not everyone can afford the college consultants that will “package” applicants (some kids at the prep school were on significant FA).

In the case in this thread, it is pretty obvious it was the “package” that worked, especially the “bucket” the applicant fell into which was a target for Duke.

63

@privatebanker… Like the analogy ?.

64

That major is Viticulture and Enology in the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences division of Cornell University.
https://grapesandwine.cals.cornell.edu/undergraduate/

65

I do see a lot of posts on CC about the factors that can help unhooked applicants get admitted to elite schools, but it does seem that most agree there are no absolutes. A good number of unhooked kids get admitted to these schools each year (giving many more kids hope for themselves) and it seems like key components are “packaging”, and an overall solid applications. But it all seems so unpredictable and we always hear of incredible kids getting shut out.
My unhooked S19 did not have any major awards, did not have a lot of community service experiences, had “ok” AP scores, decent but not stellar SAT 2 scores, had at least one LOR that was pretty average, no test prep other than the ACT book, and no college consultant. He was accepted to 3 top 20 schools, two that had single digit RD acceptance rates. I definitely don’t think it was random, and he had many strengths as an applicant, but given the odds, it would not have been surprising had he been denied or wait listed at these schools. So, top unhooked students do have a chance, even if all the conventional wisdom boxes aren’t checked. But odds are still quite low and kids and parents need to be realistic about college lists.
Even though I might not agree with a lot of advice offered on CC, I do believe that neither of my kids would be at their colleges without the knowledge I have gained (and they way I have been able to guide them) over the past few years on this site.

66

I think there area few misconceptions on CC, mainly with new folks, but don’t necessarily see all those specific points.

I think people need to understand that admission to elite schools is not based on academics alone. People post stats that make them meet a benchmark.

I think people need to understand this is not about a hierarchy in terms of individual quality, but instead an effort by schools to assemble an interesting mix.

Authenticity and “character” count.

Best, as I have written before, not to try to fit a school but find a school that fits you.

67

Most CC posters are not current college admissions officers at one of these colleges, have never been college admissions officers.

They can read published information regarding admissions statistics.
They can look at Naviance results for their high schools, and listen to results from their friends and neighbors. They can read about what these colleges state that they require, And can make extrapolations from this limited information. With various degrees of accuracy.

Who is it that thinks such opinions, based on anecdotes and incomplete information, should be relied upon as fact ??

68

I agree with this. My unhooked, non-URM kid had great success with her applications to her reach schools (T20). She only applied RD and EA, since she was chasing merit. We did not hire a college counselor (well, unless you count me). She had no national awards and no community service (she did some limited peer tutoring). She did have high rigor, excellent stats, and research internships, along with extremely strong leadership in her EC’s.

All I can do is speculate on what the tipping factor was for DD. Without seeing her LOR’s and counselor rec, it is impossible for me to guess on how they may have impacted her applications, if at all. I did know enough to advise her to highlight in her application, the facets of her background that told a story that aligned with her prospective college major and ultimate career goal. Having been through the college application process prior with my older child and having done a lot of research here on CC, I felt very confident that I could guide her appropriately.

She had a very carefully thought out application list which included safeties, targets, and reaches. She got in to all of her reach schools (some single digit admits) with the exception of one, with wonderful merit offers from those colleges that offered merit (the exceptions were Johns Hopkins, UMICH, Georgia Tech, and Purdue, where she was offered admission, but no merit–we knew she would not likely get merit from these four schools, so we were not surprised).

The one head-scratcher for us was that although she got in to Lehigh and her stats put her in the top tier of its applicant pool, she was not offered any merit. She showed a TON of very sincere interest in Lehigh, including two visits, an interview, checking her portal very frequently, asking her AO meaningful questions, attending a college visit at her high school, etc. As a high stat female pursuing engineering, with a genuine desire to attend, she was hopeful that she would get some money from Lehigh as it was one of her three top choices and she would have happily attended had they offered her money. My only conclusion from this was that my DD did not have whatever “extra” Lehigh was seeking at the time that would have yielded her merit. Maybe her “Why Lehigh” essay was not strong enough? Who knows.

I have read lots of comments over the years here on CC where posters opine that an applicant needs to apply ED, or needs lots of community service, or needs a hook or whatever, in order to have a meaningful chance at gaining admission and/or to receive merit at the schools at which my kid was offered admission. I think that people try to make sense of why their kid was wait listed or rejected and make assumptions as to why it happened based on whatever they think their kid’s application may have lacked. However, when dealing with holistic admissions, I do not see how any of us can know for certain why our kids was or was not admitted.

The point is that there will always be outliers to the general predictions and not every comment you read here is accurate, including those from more prolific posters. There is a treasure trove of information here on CC and it is a fantastic resource, one that DD has benefitted from for sure. Having said that, none of us can know exactly why an applicant was admitted or denied, without hearing the reasons first hand from the AO. We can only speculate based on our own experience.

So, I don’t look at it as “CC got it wrong”. I look at it for what it is. CC consists of people who give their opinions, some based on fact and some based on speculation, or a combo of the two. I read the advice but made my own decisions based upon my gut and what I thought was best for my kid.

69

Assuming the stats are there, perhaps “full-pay ED” should be considered a hook in and of itself.

70

Probably not for top colleges as most are “need-blind” (at least according to their marketing literature).

71

Although many schools are need blind, many (most?) of the app readers are able to see whether an applicant applied for financial aid. No financial aid app=full pay.

Some schools don’t allow the AOs to see whether an applicant applied for fin aid, but based on HS, zip code, parent occupations, and other data points, AOs have a good idea which applicants are unlikely to need FA.

72

But it was stated this is a “hook” which I don’t believe is the case for need-blind colleges.

However, what I believe is an important factor is full pay applicants (vs merit chasing) have a better chance of admission since they can apply ED which at some colleges can be the difference maker in higher applicant acceptance rates even for unhooked applicants.

What we don’t know is how do “need blind” colleges seem to always find a way to have half the class “full pay”. I agree there must be some thought of ability to pay in the criteria for admissions at “need blind” colleges. What that algorithm is, one can only guess?

73

The broader admission criteria is set up to favor wealthier applicants, starting with test scores, which are highly correlated to family income level. High value is also placed on ECs that are also more accessible to families with discretionary income. And of course high tuition private high schools, and public high schools located in wealthier areas tend to offer more of the type and level of coursework that is impressive for college admissions.

It’s just not a level playing field. That’s why colleges actually need to have additional outreach tools like Questbridge to draw in more low income apps.

74

I agree that is no coincidence…and the only place a school has certainty that the students will attend is in the ED round(s)…as RD offers come with a lower probability of attendance (obviously) whether full pay or needs FA.

Based on this, I do think full pay ED is a hook at many schools…it gives the school a relatively high baseline of revenue from the ED round if they accept many full pays…giving the school additional latitude in the RD round to accept more students who need aid.

Lots of ways to do this, and they are all ‘known’.

1)Many (most?) coaches ask if potential recruited athletes will be applying for FA. For D3 schools in particular, this means that AOs know the FA status of 50-75 students (an estimate) in the ED round, which can be a significant percentage of those offered admission. My D was asked if she were applying for FA by 100% of the coaches (DI and D3) she spoke with and every. single. one. said something like ‘that’s good’ when she said she wouldn’t need FA.

2)Some predictive analytic models have built in FA variables. You can search for case studies that discuss these models on the websites of the various enrollment management consultancies. Some have webinars posted on youtube as well.

3)As mentioned above, AOs who don’t see whether the applicant applied for FA still can use a number of variables to get a sense for an applicant’s financial status.

4)Some need-blind schools may be less than forthright…and may only be need-blind thru the first read, or until they have identified X% of the applicants they wish to make an offer of admission to.

75

@PurplePlum - totally agree with your thoughts about advice and information on CC, and S had similar experiences with admissions as an unhooked applicant. I think our kids may have ended up at the same school!

76

Stats 101: Correlation does not imply causation.

There is a very good reason why test scores rise with household income and the reason has nothing to do with test prep (which has marginal effects).

  1. Parental intelligence correlates with parental income. Simply put, smarter people tend to make more.
  2. Intelligence is significantly hereditary. Smart people tend to have children that are smarter than average.
  3. Given 1 and 2, it is expected that test scores will correlate with parental income even though it is not causative.
1 Like
77

There are plenty of proxy measures that can be used in admissions to tip the overall admissions class toward a desired FA-need distribution (e.g. half paying list price at many of these most selective private colleges) while being need-blind for individual applicants. For example:

  • Fill up a greater percentage of the class with ED (more ED => moves distribution toward more non-FA students).
  • Require non-custodial parent information for FA (screens out most of the half of FA-needy students whose parents are divorced).
  • Require more application items (e.g. recommendations, SAT subject tests, CSS Profile) so that students in lower SES schools are more likely not to have heard about them until it is too late.
  • Have greater emphasis on test scores over HS record, since discrepent applicants with higher test scores tend to skew wealthier.
  • Have greater emphasis on recommendations, because recommendation quality is likely better from prep schools and high SES schools where counselors and teachers are well practiced and coached in writing good ones.
  • Use interviews, where higher SES students will easily match upper and upper middle class behavior naturally, while lower SES students may not connect as well with typically higher SES alumni interviewers.
  • Emphasize extracurriculars that are correlated with higher SES (e.g. expensive travel sports) over those correlated with lower SES (e.g. working to help support the family or caring for very young, elderly, or disabled family members).

Of course, if the admission profile is too high SES, then some of the above can be backed off or reversed to increase the admissions of lower SES applicants.

1 Like
78

Correlation is all that matters in the context of tweaking admission policies to keep the requisite number of full pay enrollees, while maintaining a “need blind” policy. It’s not about individuals – it’s about the overall class. They don’t care whether it turns out that some of the kids they admit with 35 ACT’s turn out to be financially needy.

79

But I think that is looking at it backwards. Higher test scores are believed to reflect higher talent. They also just happen to have the nice benefit of skewing wealthier.

80

@elena13 : Yes, they are indeed at the same school! :smile: