Holistic admissions is BS

[Anonymous]

I agree it's dog crap. Schools use it to social-engineer the class makeup they want, the most egregious example being Harvard's longstanding practice, as revealed in the lawsuit against them, of reducing the number of Asian admits by scoring them low on esoteric "likeability" metrics.

[Anonymous]

Colleges want athletes, NMSFs and full pay. That's about it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I agree it's dog crap. Schools use it to social-engineer the class makeup they want, the most egregious example being Harvard's longstanding practice, as revealed in the lawsuit against them, of reducing the number of Asian admits by scoring them low on esoteric "likeability" metrics.

You get half of your college education from the people around you. If you object to a college's admissions practices, you are essentially objecting to the college. Why would you want your kid there?

Harvard and Berkeley wouldn't be Harvard and Berkeley without holistic admissions. They would be like the boilerplate universities in other countries that any family with the means to send their kids to the US is desperate to avoid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:First comes grades and then holistic admissions

Right that’s how it works. Grades/transcript are the first and most important hoop to get through for consideration. If you make it through that step then the other components are all brought into the equation but what weighs most heavily will look different across applicant pool

Absolutely right.

If application is rejected, means that it didn't cross this step of grades / transcript / test score. If waitlisted, means it crossed this step and someone spent 10 15 min on the app.

This is not true at all. The most selective schools reject a ton of applicants who meet their academic criteria. If you were not admitted, you may have either not met their criteria or met it but didn't get picked.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I agree it's dog crap. Schools use it to social-engineer the class makeup they want, the most egregious example being Harvard's longstanding practice, as revealed in the lawsuit against them, of reducing the number of Asian admits by scoring them low on esoteric "likeability" metrics.

You get half of your college education from the people around you. If you object to a college's admissions practices, you are essentially objecting to the college. Why would you want your kid there?

Harvard and Berkeley wouldn't be Harvard and Berkeley without holistic admissions. They would be like the boilerplate universities in other countries that any family with the means to send their kids to the US is desperate to avoid.

+1000

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I agree it's dog crap. Schools use it to social-engineer the class makeup they want, the most egregious example being Harvard's longstanding practice, as revealed in the lawsuit against them, of reducing the number of Asian admits by scoring them low on esoteric "likeability" metrics.

-1

Nonsense.

Sorry your kid got rejected- post affirmative action ruling.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Happy Ivy Day to you too.

Bazinga!

[Anonymous]

So bitter
So very very bitter.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:First comes grades and then holistic admissions

That's how it works. The more selective the school, the more kids that have the basics (grades, rigor and SATs) so those schools use other soft factors to differentiate - ECs, recommendations, fuzzy/opaque criteria - and can get away with it given their 'pedigree'.

Most of DCUM prattles on about ECs, LOCs and Test Optional but for the vast majority of colleges grades, rigor and SAT matter way, way more than the noise levels here would indicate.

What do you mean by “get away with it”, as if it’s something sinister? Many of these schools get many more 4.0/1500+ applicants than they have seats. How would you have them differentiate? I’d personally favor a lottery and get rid of this pressure to curate kids’ lives from pre-K on, but that’s never happening.

[Anonymous]

OP here - Restating the statement. I think holistic admissions is there and is fine but colleges should also say that, if you don't have a very high GPA (basically nothing less than A's), please dont apply. They would want you to think you have a chance, so they can show their selectiveness.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Colleges want athletes, NMSFs and full pay. That's about it.

Someone who can promote the brand.
Someone who can do the work.
Someone who can pay the bills.

Sounds like a good business model to me. You're kidding yourself if you think Higher Ed is anything else, even for "public" institutions. At least at the collegiate level, they're forced to really compete with private enterprise and so they play that game too.

[Anonymous]

Class makeups are KEY, from public/private school, race, part of country, athlete, legacy, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP here - Restating the statement. I think holistic admissions is there and is fine but colleges should also say that, if you don't have a very high GPA (basically nothing less than A's), please dont apply. They would want you to think you have a chance, so they can show their selectiveness.

Colleges don't need to say anything. Your complain is that more straight-A students are choosing to apply on their own, despite knowing the low acceptance rate.

[Anonymous]

I would agree that GPA is everything in today's test optional world. I'm not sure if I really think they read the supplements the kids spend so much time writing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP here - Restating the statement. I think holistic admissions is there and is fine but colleges should also say that, if you don't have a very high GPA (basically nothing less than A's), please dont apply. They would want you to think you have a chance, so they can show their selectiveness.

Friend’s child was admitted to Cornell and Yale with all As and a C+ yesterday. Waitlisted at Duke and Harvard.