Insider Perspectives from a Highly Selective Admissions Office

[Anonymous]

Thank you for this, OP! Really interesting stuff. Does your school claim to have holistic admissions? Thinking to your point 1 there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thank you for your post. Is an LD an asset or a liability? If you have two applicants that are similar, both have the stellar grades, ECs, top 10% from rigorous HS, excellent recommendations - the student with the LD has slightly lower SAT in the area of their LD but still in the middle 50% of accepted students....... would you ding the one with an LD or would they have an edge since they overcame a hurdle the other did not?

By the ADA, we are trained to never hold a LD as a liability. Actually, we want students with LDs to tell us they have one, so that if they are admitted, we can start preparing for their consideration process by sending them targeted resources about what their experience will be like and what the college has to help accommodate them. Given the scenario you present, it will absolutely give an edge in our office. We believe all forms of diversity are important- not just socioeconomic and racial. We want our students to meet a great variety of people in their class from all walks of life. The reality is that there are many with LDs. To not include them in our campus would be perpetuating the invisibility many of them face in our society. However, all students have to meet the academic standards. We want our students to graduate on time and contribute to the academic and social vitality of the campus.

Also, feel free to ask questions even if they were not mentioned by the initial post. I know a lot of it is common knowledge, and I could have missed something.

Thank you, this gives me hope. We are now in the waiting game and two of the ones DC applied are "crapshoot" schools and one is "most selective" but he should get in based on his stats. His LDs are fairly profound and does well with technology in addition to years of hard work to get to the level he currently is. He has stated that one of the crapshoot schools and the "most selective" are his top two choices (finally, he would not differentiate from 6 in the fall).

My main worry is being able to get electronic/ PDF versions of textbooks in a timely manner. That is something his HS has had difficulty -even though they know in February what books they need in September. (But that is not your expertise).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, what do you (and those in your office) think about the higher standards being placed on Asian American applicants?

It's a difficult topic. We receive thousands of applications from Asian Americans who score a 2200+ and who have a 4.0 UW or close to it. We know these students have worked immeasurably hard to achieve these goals. The reality is that our purpose is to bring people from all walks of life, and unfortunately, when Asians are already over-represented at campus, it's hard to admit more students without compromising the diversity we aim for. Our white % is already noticeably lower than the US Census; the Hispanic and African-American numbers are a little lower or around the same, but the Asian American number is much higher than the US Census. Most of our international students are Asians as well. I know that sounds hypocritical when our campus is so privileged socioeconomically, but our admit pool is ultimately a microcosm of the larger applicant pool- no matter how many adjustments we try to make- we receive a lot (and I mean a lot) more applications from rich students, we receive more applications from Asians than Blacks or Hispanics and just a few more Caucasian applications than Asian applications.

I see the value of a meritocracy similar to the UC system- admitting students on the basis of their objective measures. My personal stance is that subjectives are as key to bringing the best and brightest. Were we to rely on just numbers, we'd exclude the student who graduated summa cum laude in our college but had only a 1750 SAT from her inner city background (real story, just happened last May). We'd exclude the valedictorian who had to work full time to support their family, and thus didn't have the ability to do test prep. Relying on objectives alone means eliminating the richness and complexity that is part of these students' lived backgrounds and experiences, and we just don't want to do that. We also want to make sure the students ARE capable of handling the work, hence the minimum expectations for GPA, test scores, etc. and a heavy consideration of academic potential by LORs.

Isn't it a little silly to aim for diversity as measured by the census while at the same time claiming to admit the strongest students?

Not OP, but no, it isn't silly when you've got an abundance of highly qualified students and when there are a variety of ways of being a strong student.

One of which is having the correct race..

[Anonymous]

Isn't it a little silly to aim for diversity as measured by the census while at the same time claiming to admit the strongest students?

Yes, I see how it can be perceived as such. None of us think the admissions process is perfect. There are many flaws, and that's why we work together with our peers to find better ways in making the process equitable.

My DD has struggled for many years with anxiety and depression. She is also extremely bright, a terrific writer, and gets excellent grades. She is thriving now, and has written essays on her experience, and I suspect that she may want to write about her anxiety experience in her application essays. Is this a bad idea? Would an admissions office conclude that a student with anxiety & depression would be a poor fit for a rigorous college program? Or would she be viewed favorably as someone who has learned to manage her condition?

Tough question. I think the answer to this really depends on the person reading the application. In my personal situation, I know what depression and anxiety are like (was a psychology major), so I feel a level of sympathy. But I do know many people who perceive anyone with a mental illness as being weak or unfit for a rigorous college education. Unfortunately, despite all the training we get, we are built with different worldviews and will react to certain things differently. My encouragement would be to avoid the topic. I know it's likely an important one and one that highlights how much she has overcome, but I feel it would be better addressed by a letter of recommendation than by her directly.

Interesting. There are many colleges who provide alumni "interviews" but very few who've ever used the alumni feedback towards admissions. You're saying that at this college the admissions office did use this information in previous years?

Yes, we read all the interviews we receive from our official sources from the applicants who're not pre-rejected.

How old are you, OP?

Very young for an admissions officer. I do know that there was a SAT on a 1600 scale before the old SAT; I may have misread the comment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thanks OP. Helpful.

For the SAT requirement, isn't 1600 a perfect score?

Yes, I was referring to old standards as mentioned in the post. We are still in the process of figuring out the new number for the SAT; it was a 1150 this year. But SAT's concordance tables don't seem very accurate. The New SAT scores we've gotten are noticeably lower than the Old SAT scores.

OP - the issues with the concordance tables have been a frequent topic of discussion. There are some people who theorize that the lower new SAT scores can be explained by all the "top" students opting to take the old SAT or the ACT, and diluting the talent pool of students who took the new SAT. Is there anything you've seen in the data that would lend credence to this theory? Can you comment on the relative numbers of students who submitted old SAT vs new SAT vs ACT?

[Anonymous]

Thank you, OP. The SAT chart is very interesting. Do you happen to know where we could find one for the ACT?

[Anonymous]

OP I know you don't want to reveal the college but given the stats you mention in your opener, I'd say it was a bit of a crappy school, maybe 3rd or 4th tier.

I don't know that the admissions office practices of such a place are as helpful as knowing the practices of the more competitive schools, in that you should always aim high and fall on a lower branch, not aim low and fall on the ground.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP I know you don't want to reveal the college but given the stats you mention in your opener, I'd say it was a bit of a crappy school, maybe 3rd or 4th tier.

I don't know that the admissions office practices of such a place are as helpful as knowing the practices of the more competitive schools, in that you should always aim high and fall on a lower branch, not aim low and fall on the ground.

How it really work is you get binned

you get 5 Asians who play the violin
you get 5 innercity kids
you get 5 people from Chicago suburbs
you get 5 people from rural America

Yes there are thousands of people with near perfect scores and gpas. you could easily fill the class with them. you can't you bin them all and then randomly take 5 people who are great test takers

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thanks OP. Helpful.

For the SAT requirement, isn't 1600 a perfect score?

Yes, I was referring to old standards as mentioned in the post. We are still in the process of figuring out the new number for the SAT; it was a 1150 this year. But SAT's concordance tables don't seem very accurate. The New SAT scores we've gotten are noticeably lower than the Old SAT scores.

OP - the issues with the concordance tables have been a frequent topic of discussion. There are some people who theorize that the lower new SAT scores can be explained by all the "top" students opting to take the old SAT or the ACT, and diluting the talent pool of students who took the new SAT. Is there anything you've seen in the data that would lend credence to this theory? Can you comment on the relative numbers of students who submitted old SAT vs new SAT vs ACT?

Or a new test is harder to cram and prep - so the preppers are not in the mix yet.

[Anonymous]

56 with a 16 year old DD. Older mom to say the least. I took the SATs in 1978.

Can someone please give me a quick rundown on current SATs? I thought there were 3 separate tests of 800 points each, totaling 2400 but maybe I am wrong.

DD got an 1150 on her PSATs. Not really sure what that means.

Anyone help an old lady out?

Thanks

I'm new to the new SAT too, so anyone should feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

The test you took had two sections, verbal and math. Max score was a 1600; it was also a noticeably difficult test. The verbal section had these things called analogies in addition to the standard passages and vocab questions.

The next version of the SAT added a writing portion, changed verbal to critical reading, and removed analogies. On each section, you could score a 800; for a maximum of a 2400. Essays were read by two people and assigned a score of 1-6: 12 being the maximum.

The newest SAT has combined writing and reading into one section called Evidence Based Reading and Writing; math is now split into a calculator and non-calculator section. The max score is a 1600. Passages and questions are more focused on data interpretation, and you get a number of subscores on your performance in science/math tasks, grammar tasks, etc. The vocab section from reading is gone. The essay is more like an AP Lang FRQ, 50 minutes in length, and you get scores of 1-4 across three dimensions from 2 readers for a maximum score of a 24.

The PSAT is scored out of 760 on each section instead of 800 and supposedly a direct measure of the score you should expect on the newest SAT.

[Anonymous]

Practices are so different by school that an experienced admissions person would never put out that original post without cautioning that this was only how they did things at ONE school.

You don't mention recalculating GPAs at all. That's insane if you are getting apps from DMV.


Are you feeling marginalized at work? Is they why you've come here to invited these people to worship at your alter of knowledge?

[Anonymous]

Does your school claim to have holistic admissions?

I checked our admissions language and see no explicit claim of holistic admissions; I don't use the terminology myself, but I do mention that we consider a wide variety of factors beyond SAT and GPA.

OP - the issues with the concordance tables have been a frequent topic of discussion. There are some people who theorize that the lower new SAT scores can be explained by all the "top" students opting to take the old SAT or the ACT, and diluting the talent pool of students who took the new SAT. Is there anything you've seen in the data that would lend credence to this theory? Can you comment on the relative numbers of students who submitted old SAT vs new SAT vs ACT?

It's all up in the air given how new the SAT is. I think these tests can be coached and there simply isn't that much material for the new SAT compared to the old one, and it does feel like a much difference test, so scores seem to be lower. There is a huge database of released old SATs. One thing we have noticed is that most applicants from boarding schools are submitting ACTs or old SATs, so there could be a socioeconomic factor too. Difficult to draw many conclusions. We have noticed across peer schools that new SAT scores tend to be lower than old SAT scores in our admit pools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Thank you, OP. The SAT chart is very interesting. Do you happen to know where we could find one for the ACT?

A bit more difficult to find. We have a tabulated source at the office that I can't disclose. Here's one for African Americans: https://forms.act.org/newsroom/data/2013/pdf/profile/AfricanAmerican.pdf

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Practices are so different by school that an experienced admissions person would never put out that original post without cautioning that this was only how they did things at ONE school.

You don't mention recalculating GPAs at all. That's insane if you are getting apps from DMV.


Are you feeling marginalized at work? Is they why you've come here to invited these people to worship at your alter of knowledge?

OP describes what I have heard about several schools in the upper tiers. It is very detailed and fairly accurate and logical. All schools make the GAP adjustment; the OP was obviously talking about GPA after the equalizations. In later posts she said she is probably forgetting something that is so commonplace and usual - the GPA equalization is probably one of those.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, regarding your point #6, what's the benchmark that you use for students who are bi-racial or multi-racial? For example, if the kid is white and Asian (many in this area), is the kid going to be subject to the benchmark for whites or Asians? BTW, your post is very informative and helpful!

Benchmarks are just benchmarks; we're not going to say no to a multiracial Asian student for having a 1400 on the new SAT. They give a sense of where applicants are within the rest of the nation. Our standards are a little higher than the 95% on average, but of course we admit students who score lower than that (often much lower, given how a 750 is already at the highest end of the score). The Asian and white benchmark are within range to each other.

They become particularly telling when a student is doing much worse or better than the benchmark. Being an Asian student with an 1800 can hurt, but that could be mitigated if you were low-income or an underrepresented Asian minority. We notice when Black students get above a 32 on the ACT. Less than 500 of them do so each year.

Just curious, because we're years away--how would you treat an adopted Asian child? Her name would not suggest she's Asian, but presumably you ask for a picture. (And I have no idea what she'll choose to put down as her race when she's ready to apply.) We are, to put it mildly, not tiger parents, and I worry this will hurt her!