"Holistic Admissions"... translation: we'll do whatever we feel like and...

[Anonymous]

I wish they would remove the aspects that a kid can never change..race, gender, zip code, rural, parents education etc. These new categories are all driven by social mobility points in the ranking systems.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's means if you are not hooked, you are not getting in.

1000+

[Anonymous]

It means institutional priorities take front seat, as do students who can craft compelling (somewhat fabricated) essays for T25. For the rest, its a lottery.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's standardless admissions. And a double whammy when you add in Test Optional.

Huh?
Some schools have always been test optional.

Standardless?
No - they aren’t just looking for kids who test well. That’s boring.

Yep. Standardless.

[Anonymous]

There are plenty of colleges that admit just based on numbers. Apply to those if you’re so upset by selective admissions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I wish they would remove the aspects that a kid can never change..race, gender, zip code, rural, parents education etc. These new categories are all driven by social mobility points in the ranking systems.

SAT score is something a kid can easily change / improve by working hard. But a high stats kid will often be mocked on DCUM. DCUMers will tell you that 1590 is no different from 1490. TO kids are better than strivers, blah blah.

It’s surreal yet it’s the reality.

[Anonymous]

Why is everyone so bitter?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why is everyone so bitter?

There are no clear "rules" or standards for admission. Two seemingly identical applicants can have two very different outcomes, leading to very logical feelings of unfairness.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There are plenty of colleges that admit just based on numbers. Apply to those if you’re so upset by selective admissions.

Yep. Alternatively, OP may go to China where admissions are dependent on a single gaokao exam. But you'd have to suffer a primary educational system that teaches for test-performance and endure the incredible stress of having your fate decided in a high-stakes nine-hour test.

Just because you don't understand the decision-making process behind holistic admissions generally or with respect to particular applicants doesn't mean that AOs aren't making considerate determinations. There are few students at top schools who aren't immensely qualified.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why is everyone so bitter?

There are no clear "rules" or standards for admission. Two seemingly identical applicants can have two very different outcomes, leading to very logical feelings of unfairness.

So. That’s how job interviews work too.
You need a baseline. Then everything else is vibes.
This is life.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why is everyone so bitter?

There are no clear "rules" or standards for admission. Two seemingly identical applicants can have two very different outcomes, leading to very logical feelings of unfairness.

So. That’s how job interviews work too.
You need a baseline. Then everything else is vibes.
This is life.

+1. Life has a high degree of randomness. You can either process that as unfairness and stew about it or not, but nothing you can do can change that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wish they would remove the aspects that a kid can never change..race, gender, zip code, rural, parents education etc. These new categories are all driven by social mobility points in the ranking systems.

SAT score is something a kid can easily change / improve by working hard. But a high stats kid will often be mocked on DCUM. DCUMers will tell you that 1590 is no different from 1490. TO kids are better than strivers, blah blah.

It’s surreal yet it’s the reality.

You are being disingenuous. People will tell you that a 1490 by a student from a remote rural title I school with a 980 SAT average that sends 20% of their students to local and community colleges is a considerably more significant accomplishment than a 1540 from a top prep school with a 1520 SAT average who was raised by parents with advanced degrees. And in context it is a bigger accomplishment. It's not surreal and it is the reality.

We will also tell you that there is no significant difference between a 1540 and a 1590 because there isn't. Both scores show complete mastery of the material and it is highly probable that the difference in score was a simple mistake and not meaningful....because it wasn't.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I wish they would remove the aspects that a kid can never change..race, gender, zip code, rural, parents education etc. These new categories are all driven by social mobility points in the ranking systems.

All removing them would do is eliminate the ability to look at students within the context of their environment. If you do not believe that contextual environment is an important factor in assessing performance you would want this. If you are ok with the idea that top schools are more like finishing schools for the wealthy and the elite you would want this. I am fine with this because I am now one of the wealthy elite but I'm pretty sure that this exact type of self-interest is how we ended up in our current political situation.

[Anonymous]

SAT score is something that can be fairly easily changed and without money, but most won’t. It’s easier to complain about race, rural, gender, etc.

[Anonymous]

People need to understand, colleges are businesses, colleges have needs, applicants are interviewing for those needs. Same thing, absent a trust fund they will be doing for the rest of their lives.

That said some schools are more numerically oriented and others care more about social optics. They don’t hide these tendencies, applying accordingly based on individual strengths.