Insider Perspectives from a Highly Selective Admissions Office

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Chicago changed

But for other reasons, it's not a UofC person describing their process.

[Anonymous]

Thanks OP. Helpful.

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

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

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?

[Anonymous]

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!

[Anonymous]

Thank you OP, for your candor. This is extremely interesting.

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?

[Anonymous]

Not OP, but another problem with ranking people by SAT score (vs. having a threshold) is that the SAT doesn't do a good job of differentiating among top students. It maxes out well below what such students are capable of. Best scores don't equal best students -- they indicate which student are, for whatever reason, best at taking the SAT. APs have similar problems (as well as others).

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I find No. 15 interesting:

"What do you mean about your institution changing over the last few years? I can't think of a top college that has changed that much in the last few years that the experience of alums who graduated in, say, 2000, are no longer relevant? Or am I out of the loop? I ask because I used to do alumni interviewing and the school keeps asking me to volunteer again (I stopped due to a combination of time scarcity and the feeling that the interviews were a waste of time as no one I interviewed ever got accepted).

OP here. First point of clarification by "very recent graduate" would be someone who graduated within the last 8-10 years or earlier. Most institutions today are more diverse (more international students, URMs, low-income students, students from out of state), much more endowed and resourced (lots of new programs that started only a few years ago), and are changing in other ways (more STEM students than humanities students, a rise in pre-professionalism than before). We encourage our on-campus interviewers to ask students what diversity means to them, given the heavy interactions students from all walks of life have with each other at our college; the campus was more divided in past years. Academic standards are higher than ever before- our median SAT was around a 680 on each section 20 years back and is now around a 750; many alums interpret a current 680 to mean top of the applicant pool when it's actually near the bottom 25%. Also, the majority of alums would not be admitted today; our standards have gotten to the point where just having good test scores and grades isn't enough to get in, and a good number of alums use that as the only basis to judge the students they interview, which doesn't bring much new info to what we already have. The majority of them say that this applicant is one of the best they've seen, and when you see that nearly 50%+ of the time, it doesn't help.

We value our alums greatly and want to incorporate them in our admissions process. We don't remove the program because some applicants really do want an interview (even though it's honestly inconsequential) and we simply can't reach everyone with our on-campus programs. Furthermore, alumni are really fond of the program, so we don't want to discontinue it- it also gives us a way to connect them with the current situations of our college. There are many alums who do keep in touch with the changes at our college, and can put down genuine, well-thought out perspectives about the nuances of our candidates; we recognize and value that. It's just hard to hold everyone to the same standard when people are so far away. The point is a larger one, but of course we know who within each group (on-campus and off-campus) does a good or mediocre job. That helps us adjust the level of consideration we give to them.

The reason you're probably not seeing many of your own students getting admitted is because the strongest students have the resources to travel to top colleges and conduct on-campus interviews. It's unfortunate, because it makes alums think we're out to reject the students who they take the time to interview (which we're very grateful of, no matter what), but that's the reality. Our mission is to recruit the strongest students, and many of them don't go through alumni interviews.

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?

[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.

The old old test had a top score of 1600.

How old are you, OP?

[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.

The old old test had a top score of 1600.

How old are you, OP?

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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The old old test had a top score of 1600.

How old are you, OP?

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 was actually asking OP because she sounds....young.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

Right, sorry about that. Need more coffee.