Should admissions be more transparent?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We tell applicants every year why they get rejected. There’s a lot of other applicants, the applicant pool was strong, and your application wasn’t at the top. Learning to take no for an answer is an important skill.

That doesn’t help current juniors choose which schools to put on their college list. The “advice” seems to be, “apply to as many schools as humanly possible, because you have no right to get into any, no matter how well you did in high school! And there’s no way to predict in advance which might accept you!”

The advice is to apply to 2 or so safety schools, mostly apply to schools your stats align with, and have a couple reach schools. Any "pressure" to get into a top college is self inflicted.

“Any pressure to get into a top college is self inflicted” they say, in the same breath that they tell high-stats kids they should “mostly apply to colleges their stats align with.” This idea that high stats kids should go top colleges, where could it possibly be coming from?

Anybody advising solely based on stats is an idiot. Stats means nothing in holistic review. High stat kids with average activities and essays are boring, deal with it.

We don't even know who really wrote the essays LOL
Now we have ChatGPT, too.

Who is we? AO’s know and are smarter than you. LOL

AO's are low paid mediocre workforce dumber than the applicants LOL

^^ This right here shows the kind of disrespectful upbringing which explains why this angry poster's kid didn't get in.

Agree. A lot of people don't understand that the AO is curating a class. It's actually not about your kid. It's whether or not they need more "prototypes" like your kid inside the larger class. chances are they don't, especially if CS, math, Eng, with no other special talent.....

Curation doesn't need to be a secret.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We tell applicants every year why they get rejected. There’s a lot of other applicants, the applicant pool was strong, and your application wasn’t at the top. Learning to take no for an answer is an important skill.

That doesn’t help current juniors choose which schools to put on their college list. The “advice” seems to be, “apply to as many schools as humanly possible, because you have no right to get into any, no matter how well you did in high school! And there’s no way to predict in advance which might accept you!”

The advice is to apply to 2 or so safety schools, mostly apply to schools your stats align with, and have a couple reach schools. Any "pressure" to get into a top college is self inflicted.

+1 if the schools you crave made it easier to get in, you wouldn't want them anymore. You WANT the low admit rate, you just want it to be your kid who made the cut.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We tell applicants every year why they get rejected. There’s a lot of other applicants, the applicant pool was strong, and your application wasn’t at the top. Learning to take no for an answer is an important skill.

That doesn’t help current juniors choose which schools to put on their college list. The “advice” seems to be, “apply to as many schools as humanly possible, because you have no right to get into any, no matter how well you did in high school! And there’s no way to predict in advance which might accept you!”

The advice is to apply to 2 or so safety schools, mostly apply to schools your stats align with, and have a couple reach schools. Any "pressure" to get into a top college is self inflicted.

“Any pressure to get into a top college is self inflicted” they say, in the same breath that they tell high-stats kids they should “mostly apply to colleges their stats align with.” This idea that high stats kids should go top colleges, where could it possibly be coming from?

Anybody advising solely based on stats is an idiot. Stats means nothing in holistic review. High stat kids with average activities and essays are boring, deal with it.

Exactly. I think there is one poster (OP) keeping this thread alive. They gave regrets. Probably thought the stars were enough, didn’t educate themselves.

Advice-the competition doesn’t end at admissions. It moves on to clubs, internships, jobs. Start focusing your kid in that. Many freshman need help securing the first internship. Your guidance your kid is better channeled there than in this thread.

For junior parents: use all the resources that are out there to get smart. And it’s a crap shoot even after that….

Yes, and the writing style of this poster seems suspiciously similar to a rabid and active poster from the private school forum, who not long ago, also demanded transparency with private school admissions. This post ended very badly as everyone disagreed with them and tried patiently to explain how private schools work, and they ended up spouting a bunch of similar populist slogans about private schools being "greedy corporations" and that they should be taxed for holistic admissions policies and admitting unqualified minorities and as well as the children of oligarchs. At first they claimed to have a child in private school, but by the end it was clear they did not and were just trolling, unless their vitriol against private schools and private school parents was hypocritical.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We tell applicants every year why they get rejected. There’s a lot of other applicants, the applicant pool was strong, and your application wasn’t at the top. Learning to take no for an answer is an important skill.

That doesn’t help current juniors choose which schools to put on their college list. The “advice” seems to be, “apply to as many schools as humanly possible, because you have no right to get into any, no matter how well you did in high school! And there’s no way to predict in advance which might accept you!”

The advice is to apply to 2 or so safety schools, mostly apply to schools your stats align with, and have a couple reach schools. Any "pressure" to get into a top college is self inflicted.

“Any pressure to get into a top college is self inflicted” they say, in the same breath that they tell high-stats kids they should “mostly apply to colleges their stats align with.” This idea that high stats kids should go top colleges, where could it possibly be coming from?

Anybody advising solely based on stats is an idiot. Stats means nothing in holistic review. High stat kids with average activities and essays are boring, deal with it.

We don't even know who really wrote the essays LOL
Now we have ChatGPT, too.

Who is we? AO’s know and are smarter than you. LOL

AO's are low paid mediocre workforce dumber than the applicants LOL

^^ This right here shows the kind of disrespectful upbringing which explains why this angry poster's kid didn't get in.

Agree. A lot of people don't understand that the AO is curating a class. It's actually not about your kid. It's whether or not they need more "prototypes" like your kid inside the larger class. chances are they don't, especially if CS, math, Eng, with no other special talent.....

Curation doesn't need to be a secret.

You want to know how many violin players they need, how many water polo players/equestrians, and Chicano studies majors in the fall for the coming year? It will change from year to year.....It's fluid.
It's entirely subjective. And so different for every school.

It's why kids who get into Dartmouth don't always get into a school like Penn....also, what if they fill those spots in REA/ED....then they have to tell you? What if you spent your whole life trying to get your violin player into either Princeton or Dartmouth, but now that D spot is filled in ED (and your kid applied REA to Princeton but was rejected). Are they supposed to tell you that that spot is gone in December and then you pivot in RD (well, too bad, too late for your kid to pivot)? What kind of crappy Asian style robotic system is that?

Weird that you don't understand why this entire framework is unattractive to Americans.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We tell applicants every year why they get rejected. There’s a lot of other applicants, the applicant pool was strong, and your application wasn’t at the top. Learning to take no for an answer is an important skill.

That doesn’t help current juniors choose which schools to put on their college list. The “advice” seems to be, “apply to as many schools as humanly possible, because you have no right to get into any, no matter how well you did in high school! And there’s no way to predict in advance which might accept you!”

The advice is to apply to 2 or so safety schools, mostly apply to schools your stats align with, and have a couple reach schools. Any "pressure" to get into a top college is self inflicted.

“Any pressure to get into a top college is self inflicted” they say, in the same breath that they tell high-stats kids they should “mostly apply to colleges their stats align with.” This idea that high stats kids should go top colleges, where could it possibly be coming from?

Anybody advising solely based on stats is an idiot. Stats means nothing in holistic review. High stat kids with average activities and essays are boring, deal with it.

Exactly. I think there is one poster (OP) keeping this thread alive. They gave regrets. Probably thought the stars were enough, didn’t educate themselves.

Advice-the competition doesn’t end at admissions. It moves on to clubs, internships, jobs. Start focusing your kid in that. Many freshman need help securing the first internship. Your guidance your kid is better channeled there than in this thread.

For junior parents: use all the resources that are out there to get smart. And it’s a crap shoot even after that….

Yes, and the writing style of this poster seems suspiciously similar to a rabid and active poster from the private school forum, who not long ago, also demanded transparency with private school admissions. This post ended very badly as everyone disagreed with them and tried patiently to explain how private schools work, and they ended up spouting a bunch of similar populist slogans about private schools being "greedy corporations" and that they should be taxed for holistic admissions policies and admitting unqualified minorities and as well as the children of oligarchs. At first they claimed to have a child in private school, but by the end it was clear they did not and were just trolling, unless their vitriol against private schools and private school parents was hypocritical.

ok will start tagging "report" for all of their threads.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We tell applicants every year why they get rejected. There’s a lot of other applicants, the applicant pool was strong, and your application wasn’t at the top. Learning to take no for an answer is an important skill.

That doesn’t help current juniors choose which schools to put on their college list. The “advice” seems to be, “apply to as many schools as humanly possible, because you have no right to get into any, no matter how well you did in high school! And there’s no way to predict in advance which might accept you!”

The advice is to apply to 2 or so safety schools, mostly apply to schools your stats align with, and have a couple reach schools. Any "pressure" to get into a top college is self inflicted.

“Any pressure to get into a top college is self inflicted” they say, in the same breath that they tell high-stats kids they should “mostly apply to colleges their stats align with.” This idea that high stats kids should go top colleges, where could it possibly be coming from?

Anybody advising solely based on stats is an idiot. Stats means nothing in holistic review. High stat kids with average activities and essays are boring, deal with it.

We don't even know who really wrote the essays LOL
Now we have ChatGPT, too.

Who is we? AO’s know and are smarter than you. LOL

AO's are low paid mediocre workforce dumber than the applicants LOL

^^ This right here shows the kind of disrespectful upbringing which explains why this angry poster's kid didn't get in.

Agree. A lot of people don't understand that the AO is curating a class. It's actually not about your kid. It's whether or not they need more "prototypes" like your kid inside the larger class. chances are they don't, especially if CS, math, Eng, with no other special talent.....

Curation doesn't need to be a secret.

Read the scoring RUBRICS. It's not a secret. Did you just wake up? The link earlier is a great eye-opener to how they score the application.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I remember about 10 years ago there was a big kerfluffle when UC students found out they could see their application file. Universities fought this in court but lost due to Ferpa. In subsequent years universities stopped keeping the notes.

A bunch of kids reported being shocked and relieved they got in because the readers misrepresented their GPA, labeled top things average etc. many also noticed the time stamps. 8 minutes on the first reader, 2 minutes on the second etc. The lack of time spent on the application was eye opening as well as the errors. These were kids that were accepted.

It made me wonder whether the UCs care at all and that the whole holistic review is performative theater. The UCs only cares that an admit meets a bar that will graduate, sprinkle in a few shining stars and the rest is solely demographic , financial and geographic.

8 minutes is an average timespan for reviewing an admissions file. 2 minutes could be completely fine if there's certain things they need to look at (e.g. a gap in coursework). They get 100,000 applications, they can't spend an infinite amount of time reviewing the file.

They have algorithms and point systems that is also shown in the Harvard case.
As you said they get 50K-100K apps, there's no other way.
Tax paying public should have the information.

Maybe the tax paying public should bug off. They're currently stripping funding from a lot of these institutions and making life in academia miserable, because they want to fund their culture projects on the southern border. Maybe universities should start monetizing their healthcare and community services. Good luck with your next disease when the universities decide to charge you up the a$$ for using their services.

The American public is filled with absolute idiots.

WTF college admission should be secrecy.
There are 3000+ 4 year colleges in the US.
Fund can go to the good schools.

If you you choose to keep your secrecy, then do that with your own funding.

What exactly are the “good schools”? Everyone on this forum wants to go to the same 20 Universities and 10 SLACs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We tell applicants every year why they get rejected. There’s a lot of other applicants, the applicant pool was strong, and your application wasn’t at the top. Learning to take no for an answer is an important skill.

That doesn’t help current juniors choose which schools to put on their college list. The “advice” seems to be, “apply to as many schools as humanly possible, because you have no right to get into any, no matter how well you did in high school! And there’s no way to predict in advance which might accept you!”

The advice is to apply to 2 or so safety schools, mostly apply to schools your stats align with, and have a couple reach schools. Any "pressure" to get into a top college is self inflicted.

“Any pressure to get into a top college is self inflicted” they say, in the same breath that they tell high-stats kids they should “mostly apply to colleges their stats align with.” This idea that high stats kids should go top colleges, where could it possibly be coming from?

Anybody advising solely based on stats is an idiot. Stats means nothing in holistic review. High stat kids with average activities and essays are boring, deal with it.

We don't even know who really wrote the essays LOL
Now we have ChatGPT, too.

Who is we? AO’s know and are smarter than you. LOL

AO's are low paid mediocre workforce dumber than the applicants LOL

^^ This right here shows the kind of disrespectful upbringing which explains why this angry poster's kid didn't get in.

Agree. A lot of people don't understand that the AO is curating a class. It's actually not about your kid. It's whether or not they need more "prototypes" like your kid inside the larger class. chances are they don't, especially if CS, math, Eng, with no other special talent.....

Curation doesn't need to be a secret.

You want to know how many violin players they need, how many water polo players/equestrians, and Chicano studies majors in the fall for the coming year? It will change from year to year.....It's fluid.
It's entirely subjective. And so different for every school.

It's why kids who get into Dartmouth don't always get into a school like Penn....also, what if they fill those spots in REA/ED....then they have to tell you? What if you spent your whole life trying to get your violin player into either Princeton or Dartmouth, but now that D spot is filled in ED (and your kid applied REA to Princeton but was rejected). Are they supposed to tell you that that spot is gone in December and then you pivot in RD (well, too bad, too late for your kid to pivot)? What kind of crappy Asian style robotic system is that?

Weird that you don't understand why this entire framework is unattractive to Americans.

Yes, they should indicate how many violin players or water polo players they pick for the year, so that applicats have information before applying and compete for the spots. No reason what so ever applicants should be blinded. This has nothing to do with Asian style. Most of other advanced Western countries are not different than the Asian countries.
You are very weird bringing in Asian to this.

Holistic BS was invented to suppress Jews in the first place.
Last year, colleges lost in the Supreme court for discriminating Asians.
These are very un-American.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We tell applicants every year why they get rejected. There’s a lot of other applicants, the applicant pool was strong, and your application wasn’t at the top. Learning to take no for an answer is an important skill.

That doesn’t help current juniors choose which schools to put on their college list. The “advice” seems to be, “apply to as many schools as humanly possible, because you have no right to get into any, no matter how well you did in high school! And there’s no way to predict in advance which might accept you!”

The advice is to apply to 2 or so safety schools, mostly apply to schools your stats align with, and have a couple reach schools. Any "pressure" to get into a top college is self inflicted.

“Any pressure to get into a top college is self inflicted” they say, in the same breath that they tell high-stats kids they should “mostly apply to colleges their stats align with.” This idea that high stats kids should go top colleges, where could it possibly be coming from?

Anybody advising solely based on stats is an idiot. Stats means nothing in holistic review. High stat kids with average activities and essays are boring, deal with it.

We don't even know who really wrote the essays LOL
Now we have ChatGPT, too.

Who is we? AO’s know and are smarter than you. LOL

AO's are low paid mediocre workforce dumber than the applicants LOL

^^ This right here shows the kind of disrespectful upbringing which explains why this angry poster's kid didn't get in.

Agree. A lot of people don't understand that the AO is curating a class. It's actually not about your kid. It's whether or not they need more "prototypes" like your kid inside the larger class. chances are they don't, especially if CS, math, Eng, with no other special talent.....

Curation doesn't need to be a secret.

Read the scoring RUBRICS. It's not a secret. Did you just wake up? The link earlier is a great eye-opener to how they score the application.

My kid didn't get the score.

[Anonymous]

With all this cry over college admissions you’d think it’s some huge issue. Until you realize 90% of college students go to their local state school or community college and do just fine. Self-inflicted issue the UMC put upon themself thinking they’re upper class and when they don’t get into the selective club they think they rightfully belong to they throw a tantrum because DC has to go to VT or UMD with common folk. DCUM reeks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We tell applicants every year why they get rejected. There’s a lot of other applicants, the applicant pool was strong, and your application wasn’t at the top. Learning to take no for an answer is an important skill.

That doesn’t help current juniors choose which schools to put on their college list. The “advice” seems to be, “apply to as many schools as humanly possible, because you have no right to get into any, no matter how well you did in high school! And there’s no way to predict in advance which might accept you!”

The advice is to apply to 2 or so safety schools, mostly apply to schools your stats align with, and have a couple reach schools. Any "pressure" to get into a top college is self inflicted.

“Any pressure to get into a top college is self inflicted” they say, in the same breath that they tell high-stats kids they should “mostly apply to colleges their stats align with.” This idea that high stats kids should go top colleges, where could it possibly be coming from?

Anybody advising solely based on stats is an idiot. Stats means nothing in holistic review. High stat kids with average activities and essays are boring, deal with it.

We don't even know who really wrote the essays LOL
Now we have ChatGPT, too.

Who is we? AO’s know and are smarter than you. LOL

AO's are low paid mediocre workforce dumber than the applicants LOL

^^ This right here shows the kind of disrespectful upbringing which explains why this angry poster's kid didn't get in.

Agree. A lot of people don't understand that the AO is curating a class. It's actually not about your kid. It's whether or not they need more "prototypes" like your kid inside the larger class. chances are they don't, especially if CS, math, Eng, with no other special talent.....

Curation doesn't need to be a secret.

Read the scoring RUBRICS. It's not a secret. Did you just wake up? The link earlier is a great eye-opener to how they score the application.

My kid didn't get the score.

Right - your kid didn't get points? Is that what you are saying?
Your English is hard to follow.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We tell applicants every year why they get rejected. There’s a lot of other applicants, the applicant pool was strong, and your application wasn’t at the top. Learning to take no for an answer is an important skill.

That doesn’t help current juniors choose which schools to put on their college list. The “advice” seems to be, “apply to as many schools as humanly possible, because you have no right to get into any, no matter how well you did in high school! And there’s no way to predict in advance which might accept you!”

The advice is to apply to 2 or so safety schools, mostly apply to schools your stats align with, and have a couple reach schools. Any "pressure" to get into a top college is self inflicted.

“Any pressure to get into a top college is self inflicted” they say, in the same breath that they tell high-stats kids they should “mostly apply to colleges their stats align with.” This idea that high stats kids should go top colleges, where could it possibly be coming from?

Anybody advising solely based on stats is an idiot. Stats means nothing in holistic review. High stat kids with average activities and essays are boring, deal with it.

We don't even know who really wrote the essays LOL
Now we have ChatGPT, too.

Who is we? AO’s know and are smarter than you. LOL

AO's are low paid mediocre workforce dumber than the applicants LOL

^^ This right here shows the kind of disrespectful upbringing which explains why this angry poster's kid didn't get in.

Agree. A lot of people don't understand that the AO is curating a class. It's actually not about your kid. It's whether or not they need more "prototypes" like your kid inside the larger class. chances are they don't, especially if CS, math, Eng, with no other special talent.....

Curation doesn't need to be a secret.

You want to know how many violin players they need, how many water polo players/equestrians, and Chicano studies majors in the fall for the coming year? It will change from year to year.....It's fluid.
It's entirely subjective. And so different for every school.

It's why kids who get into Dartmouth don't always get into a school like Penn....also, what if they fill those spots in REA/ED....then they have to tell you? What if you spent your whole life trying to get your violin player into either Princeton or Dartmouth, but now that D spot is filled in ED (and your kid applied REA to Princeton but was rejected). Are they supposed to tell you that that spot is gone in December and then you pivot in RD (well, too bad, too late for your kid to pivot)? What kind of crappy Asian style robotic system is that?

Weird that you don't understand why this entire framework is unattractive to Americans.

Yes, they should indicate how many violin players or water polo players they pick for the year, so that applicats have information before applying and compete for the spots. No reason what so ever applicants should be blinded. This has nothing to do with Asian style. Most of other advanced Western countries are not different than the Asian countries.
You are very weird bringing in Asian to this.

Holistic BS was invented to suppress Jews in the first place.
Last year, colleges lost in the Supreme court for discriminating Asians.
These are very un-American.

Yeah, dream on. The school may not even know how many. They just know they need "more" equestrians because the team died during Covid, and they now need more equestrians to resurrect the team (and rich ones to fund it). Do you now see how this works?

Do you have younger kids? If so, create a new thread asking for resources. I think you should get smart on the process, so you don't spiral and ruin your other children's chances.

GL to you. I hope you get the help you need.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We tell applicants every year why they get rejected. There’s a lot of other applicants, the applicant pool was strong, and your application wasn’t at the top. Learning to take no for an answer is an important skill.

That doesn’t help current juniors choose which schools to put on their college list. The “advice” seems to be, “apply to as many schools as humanly possible, because you have no right to get into any, no matter how well you did in high school! And there’s no way to predict in advance which might accept you!”

The advice is to apply to 2 or so safety schools, mostly apply to schools your stats align with, and have a couple reach schools. Any "pressure" to get into a top college is self inflicted.

“Any pressure to get into a top college is self inflicted” they say, in the same breath that they tell high-stats kids they should “mostly apply to colleges their stats align with.” This idea that high stats kids should go top colleges, where could it possibly be coming from?

Anybody advising solely based on stats is an idiot. Stats means nothing in holistic review. High stat kids with average activities and essays are boring, deal with it.

We don't even know who really wrote the essays LOL
Now we have ChatGPT, too.

Who is we? AO’s know and are smarter than you. LOL

AO's are low paid mediocre workforce dumber than the applicants LOL

^^ This right here shows the kind of disrespectful upbringing which explains why this angry poster's kid didn't get in.

Agree. A lot of people don't understand that the AO is curating a class. It's actually not about your kid. It's whether or not they need more "prototypes" like your kid inside the larger class. chances are they don't, especially if CS, math, Eng, with no other special talent.....

Curation doesn't need to be a secret.

You want to know how many violin players they need, how many water polo players/equestrians, and Chicano studies majors in the fall for the coming year? It will change from year to year.....It's fluid.
It's entirely subjective. And so different for every school.

It's why kids who get into Dartmouth don't always get into a school like Penn....also, what if they fill those spots in REA/ED....then they have to tell you? What if you spent your whole life trying to get your violin player into either Princeton or Dartmouth, but now that D spot is filled in ED (and your kid applied REA to Princeton but was rejected). Are they supposed to tell you that that spot is gone in December and then you pivot in RD (well, too bad, too late for your kid to pivot)? What kind of crappy Asian style robotic system is that?

Weird that you don't understand why this entire framework is unattractive to Americans.

Yes, they should indicate how many violin players or water polo players they pick for the year, so that applicats have information before applying and compete for the spots. No reason what so ever applicants should be blinded. This has nothing to do with Asian style. Most of other advanced Western countries are not different than the Asian countries.
You are very weird bringing in Asian to this.

Holistic BS was invented to suppress Jews in the first place.
Last year, colleges lost in the Supreme court for discriminating Asians.
These are very un-American.

Actually Harvard won that case. People believe that they were found to discriminate against Asians but that’s false.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We tell applicants every year why they get rejected. There’s a lot of other applicants, the applicant pool was strong, and your application wasn’t at the top. Learning to take no for an answer is an important skill.

That doesn’t help current juniors choose which schools to put on their college list. The “advice” seems to be, “apply to as many schools as humanly possible, because you have no right to get into any, no matter how well you did in high school! And there’s no way to predict in advance which might accept you!”

The advice is to apply to 2 or so safety schools, mostly apply to schools your stats align with, and have a couple reach schools. Any "pressure" to get into a top college is self inflicted.

“Any pressure to get into a top college is self inflicted” they say, in the same breath that they tell high-stats kids they should “mostly apply to colleges their stats align with.” This idea that high stats kids should go top colleges, where could it possibly be coming from?

Anybody advising solely based on stats is an idiot. Stats means nothing in holistic review. High stat kids with average activities and essays are boring, deal with it.

We don't even know who really wrote the essays LOL
Now we have ChatGPT, too.

Who is we? AO’s know and are smarter than you. LOL

AO's are low paid mediocre workforce dumber than the applicants LOL

^^ This right here shows the kind of disrespectful upbringing which explains why this angry poster's kid didn't get in.

Agree. A lot of people don't understand that the AO is curating a class. It's actually not about your kid. It's whether or not they need more "prototypes" like your kid inside the larger class. chances are they don't, especially if CS, math, Eng, with no other special talent.....

Curation doesn't need to be a secret.

You want to know how many violin players they need, how many water polo players/equestrians, and Chicano studies majors in the fall for the coming year? It will change from year to year.....It's fluid.
It's entirely subjective. And so different for every school.

It's why kids who get into Dartmouth don't always get into a school like Penn....also, what if they fill those spots in REA/ED....then they have to tell you? What if you spent your whole life trying to get your violin player into either Princeton or Dartmouth, but now that D spot is filled in ED (and your kid applied REA to Princeton but was rejected). Are they supposed to tell you that that spot is gone in December and then you pivot in RD (well, too bad, too late for your kid to pivot)? What kind of crappy Asian style robotic system is that?

Weird that you don't understand why this entire framework is unattractive to Americans.

Yes, they should indicate how many violin players or water polo players they pick for the year, so that applicats have information before applying and compete for the spots. No reason what so ever applicants should be blinded. This has nothing to do with Asian style. Most of other advanced Western countries are not different than the Asian countries.
You are very weird bringing in Asian to this.

Holistic BS was invented to suppress Jews in the first place.
Last year, colleges lost in the Supreme court for discriminating Asians.
These are very un-American.

Actually Harvard won that case. People believe that they were found to discriminate against Asians but that’s false.

LOL

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We tell applicants every year why they get rejected. There’s a lot of other applicants, the applicant pool was strong, and your application wasn’t at the top. Learning to take no for an answer is an important skill.

That doesn’t help current juniors choose which schools to put on their college list. The “advice” seems to be, “apply to as many schools as humanly possible, because you have no right to get into any, no matter how well you did in high school! And there’s no way to predict in advance which might accept you!”

The advice is to apply to 2 or so safety schools, mostly apply to schools your stats align with, and have a couple reach schools. Any "pressure" to get into a top college is self inflicted.

“Any pressure to get into a top college is self inflicted” they say, in the same breath that they tell high-stats kids they should “mostly apply to colleges their stats align with.” This idea that high stats kids should go top colleges, where could it possibly be coming from?

Anybody advising solely based on stats is an idiot. Stats means nothing in holistic review. High stat kids with average activities and essays are boring, deal with it.

We don't even know who really wrote the essays LOL
Now we have ChatGPT, too.

Who is we? AO’s know and are smarter than you. LOL

AO's are low paid mediocre workforce dumber than the applicants LOL

^^ This right here shows the kind of disrespectful upbringing which explains why this angry poster's kid didn't get in.

Agree. A lot of people don't understand that the AO is curating a class. It's actually not about your kid. It's whether or not they need more "prototypes" like your kid inside the larger class. chances are they don't, especially if CS, math, Eng, with no other special talent.....

Curation doesn't need to be a secret.

Read the scoring RUBRICS. It's not a secret. Did you just wake up? The link earlier is a great eye-opener to how they score the application.

My kid didn't get the score.

Right - your kid didn't get points? Is that what you are saying?
Your English is hard to follow.

You MAGA?