Anyone else thinks the whole college admission process is a total farse?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yep. 100%

The amount of lying and marketing oneself and trying to show you have some trauma or special adversity or belong to some outlier group so you can curry favor to Admin officers. It's gross.

And the fake non-profits and the no standards at times with overinflated gpas and no test results.

It's really gotten so out of hand given the sheer volume of applicants universities now face.

I swear it should be changed to this:

Everyone that meets certain requirements all get put in the hat and then they pull out admits like a lottery. At some point it's just too much.

All of these actions are based on heresy, mostly from parents who are just as clueless as the next person. I've never heard an AO say they want trauma or non-profits. Stop believing random strangers for something this important.

“Farse?” “Heresy?” Are you Russian troll(s)?

[Anonymous]

I’m not sure “farce” is the word I would choose, but certainly there is a lot more complexities involved and questions on how things are viewed by AOs. I only have a sophomore but from what I gather from these boards and others:

- rigorous course load taking as many AP as possible (but this is evaluated in the context of what the school offers and the actual AP score matters less than the course)
- good grades (but if student can get a B in an AP that is better than an A in a regular course)
- good letters of recommendation
- good test courses are helpful to show even if school os TO (and expected if student is UMC)
- extracurriculars that demonstrate leadership and “passion”. LT/multi year activities are best
- apply with a less popular major (CS and engineering most in demand currently)
- “passion project” of raising $$ for a cause, publishing a book (can be self published haha), independent research project (where paper at end can be self published on a student website) is needed for T20/30s
- essays that tell a student’s “story” and connects their interests, with the extracurriculars they did, with their choice of intended major.

Then the “lottery” elements: AO also look at race/ethnicity and normally want to stay within same percents as prior years (same with gender and geographic diversity) Legacy and any kids of that university’s professors, anyone Dean of Admissions indicates is special, enough full pay to cover scholarships/merit.

So I wouldn’t use the word “farce” but maybe the word “ridiculous”

I have great kids, decently smart but not robots, involved in activities but coming out of COVID and less social interaction, I’m happy they are involved again so not pushing leadership (nor are they). Really very puzzled where they will wind up and if a private counselor / consultant to help them “find their passion” is worth it. Honestly, IMO high schoolers should not find their passion. That’s what’s college and early adulthood is for. Heck, I’m 50 and in the midst of a career switch for which I have only found my passion. But I would not have traded my prior career bc that taught me a lot too.

But, I do want them to attend a college with an amazing and well connected career services office.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I will admit we are not happy with the results of the early rounds. And I hope anyone reading understand it is not coming from a place of bitterness but from a place of helplessness. It is hard to digest how the most venerable institutions of this country peddle and getaway with blatant lies year after year and demolish the spirits of a vast majority of kids.

I am trying to understand how any of their claims add up?

"Application are reviewed holistically & We also like receiving 50,000 applications


They never explain how they manage to read 50k+ apps and how spending 2-5 min per app allows holistic evaluation is beyond me. This is total crap!

There's got to be a better way. I don't know why no journalists have covered this. We are fighting about diversity/discrimination but the issues with college admission is more basic. The college admission first need to stop lying to the kids, period!

They love the 50k+ application fees. Lying is profitable.

Spend 5 minutes and do the math in your head and tell me how colleges make a profit on applications.

And before you respond think it though because I promise you they don't and yes I can show my work.

There's no data on how many are given fee waivers. Some colleges give them out like candy.

[Anonymous]

The Atlantic article from the last admission cycle covering exactly this.

The College-Admissions Process Is Completely Broken

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/03/change-college-acceptance-application-process/627581/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I totally agree. Although it seems rough, I think countries that base it all on one exam have a system that makes more sense. Set a lower threshold for kids from below a certain income level to ensure parity.

Except in those countries cheating is rampant and the wealthy get to skip the test entirely.

Don't fool yourself that anyone has really figured it out.

But it is much much worse than it was 15 or 20 years ago. There was a semblance of merit and college decisions made sense. It was never surprising who got into Harvard. Now it feels completely random and out of control. Our universities are shooting themselves in the foot. Their prestige and credibility are suffering.

Yes, because they were primarily well-connected, wealthy white males. Is that your definition of prestige and credibility? That is a poor basis. On the contrary, students that can offer diverse talents, skills and experiences are going to enhance the academic quality more than a narrow scope of candidates. Let's remember that there are far more highly qualified students applying than there are spaces, and a 1600 scorer is no more qualified than a 1550 scorer, and these indices are really limited to begin with. There are some brilliant students who don't test well. So, you your bitter ramble is really just some QAnon level bunkum.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I totally agree. Although it seems rough, I think countries that base it all on one exam have a system that makes more sense. Set a lower threshold for kids from below a certain income level to ensure parity.

Except in those countries cheating is rampant and the wealthy get to skip the test entirely.

Don't fool yourself that anyone has really figured it out.

But it is much much worse than it was 15 or 20 years ago. There was a semblance of merit and college decisions made sense. It was never surprising who got into Harvard. Now it feels completely random and out of control. Our universities are shooting themselves in the foot. Their prestige and credibility are suffering.

It's no more surprising today who gets into Harvard. It's just more surprising who DOESN'T get in.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the process is easier if you have a medium-achieving student with medium goals. So, instead of a 4.0UW GPA with 10 AP tests with all 5s (and that's before senior year), varsity sport captain, etc, etc, you have a regular kid with a 3.5 GPA, a couple AP classes, a regular sport or EC or job. That first kid is qualified to go to any college or university but could get shut out, and the second kid knows they're aiming lower, probably picking schools with 70+% acceptance rates, and getting in most places.

+1. My kid was in the second pot and has been accepted everywhere they applied.

These are really first world problems.

+1 my kid was the second pot and is in a great situation - accepted everywhere applied with good merit scholarships.

Would both of you guys mind sharing some of the schools your DC’s applied to? My daughter seems to be in that second pot, and we’re starting to look at colleges now.

My kid is in the second group, and has always wanted to stay in state in MD. She's deciding between UMBC (with a small amount of merit) and Towson. UMD is also in the mix as a spring admit, which was a surprise to us, and I'm sure her stats were right on the edge there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’m not sure “farce” is the word I would choose, but certainly there is a lot more complexities involved and questions on how things are viewed by AOs. I only have a sophomore but from what I gather from these boards and others:

- rigorous course load taking as many AP as possible (but this is evaluated in the context of what the school offers and the actual AP score matters less than the course)
- good grades (but if student can get a B in an AP that is better than an A in a regular course)
- good letters of recommendation
- good test courses are helpful to show even if school os TO (and expected if student is UMC)
- extracurriculars that demonstrate leadership and “passion”. LT/multi year activities are best
- apply with a less popular major (CS and engineering most in demand currently)
- “passion project” of raising $$ for a cause, publishing a book (can be self published haha), independent research project (where paper at end can be self published on a student website) is needed for T20/30s
- essays that tell a student’s “story” and connects their interests, with the extracurriculars they did, with their choice of intended major.

Then the “lottery” elements: AO also look at race/ethnicity and normally want to stay within same percents as prior years (same with gender and geographic diversity) Legacy and any kids of that university’s professors, anyone Dean of Admissions indicates is special, enough full pay to cover scholarships/merit.

So I wouldn’t use the word “farce” but maybe the word “ridiculous”

I have great kids, decently smart but not robots, involved in activities but coming out of COVID and less social interaction, I’m happy they are involved again so not pushing leadership (nor are they). Really very puzzled where they will wind up and if a private counselor / consultant to help them “find their passion” is worth it. Honestly, IMO high schoolers should not find their passion. That’s what’s college and early adulthood is for. Heck, I’m 50 and in the midst of a career switch for which I have only found my passion. But I would not have traded my prior career bc that taught me a lot too.

But, I do want them to attend a college with an amazing and well connected career services office.

The "career services" office will be lacking for the type of high flying careers always discussed on these boards. For those you need connections or solid advanced degrees.

[Anonymous]

Why as parents are you conveying to your children that they are failures if they don't essentially win Powerball? Even with a "holistic" approach how do you know that your child would be one of the chosen? For them - their extras will top other kids scores, but your child should be ahead of all kids w/ scores beneath them? This is not rational and doesn't help your kids. People in this area need to stop using their kids schools as their own prestige and take that pressure off of their kids. My dad wouldn't put my high SLAC school's sign on his car because I didnt' get into an IVY (despite the scores but clueless to the college game 1st gen american parents) and only put on my ivy grad school and it bothers me to this day. Your relationship with your kids is more important than saying they went to a fancy school at cocktail parties

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I totally agree. Although it seems rough, I think countries that base it all on one exam have a system that makes more sense. Set a lower threshold for kids from below a certain income level to ensure parity.

Except in those countries cheating is rampant and the wealthy get to skip the test entirely.

Don't fool yourself that anyone has really figured it out.

But it is much much worse than it was 15 or 20 years ago. There was a semblance of merit and college decisions made sense. It was never surprising who got into Harvard. Now it feels completely random and out of control. Our universities are shooting themselves in the foot. Their prestige and credibility are suffering.

Yes, because they were primarily well-connected, wealthy white males. Is that your definition of prestige and credibility? That is a poor basis. On the contrary, students that can offer diverse talents, skills and experiences are going to enhance the academic quality more than a narrow scope of candidates. Let's remember that there are far more highly qualified students applying than there are spaces, and a 1600 scorer is no more qualified than a 1550 scorer, and these indices are really limited to begin with. There are some brilliant students who don't test well. So, you your bitter ramble is really just some QAnon level bunkum.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the process is easier if you have a medium-achieving student with medium goals. So, instead of a 4.0UW GPA with 10 AP tests with all 5s (and that's before senior year), varsity sport captain, etc, etc, you have a regular kid with a 3.5 GPA, a couple AP classes, a regular sport or EC or job. That first kid is qualified to go to any college or university but could get shut out, and the second kid knows they're aiming lower, probably picking schools with 70+% acceptance rates, and getting in most places.

+1. My kid was in the second pot and has been accepted everywhere they applied.

These are really first world problems.

+1 my kid was the second pot and is in a great situation - accepted everywhere applied with good merit scholarships.

Would both of you guys mind sharing some of the schools your DC’s applied to? My daughter seems to be in that second pot, and we’re starting to look at colleges now.

My kid is in the second group, and has always wanted to stay in state in MD. She's deciding between UMBC (with a small amount of merit) and Towson. UMD is also in the mix as a spring admit, which was a surprise to us, and I'm sure her stats were right on the edge there.

I'd say my kids fall between the two groups -- more APs, unweighted GPAs 3.7-3.8, moderate to light ECs. One applied to UDel, JMU, VT and is going to VT (not engineering). The other doesn't want to go in-state but I required one in-state for a financial safety so she applied to UMW + several LACs ranked in the 70-80 range. Got merit at all of those to fit our budget and is going to one of the LACs. They each also applied to one reach that I knew they were very unlikely to get into (UVA for the big school kid, W&M for the small school kid). She picked the LACs based on location (reasonable drive from home), what they offered for her particular major, and availability of her favorite EC.

[Anonymous]

Despite this thread seeming a little whiny, I think it is fair for middle-class parents who don't have legacy status or generational wealth to feel like the system doesn't work for them. Their kids may be second or third generation Americans, just one generation removed from poverty. Perhaps they'll be 2nd gen college students. Maybe a minority, but not the under-represented kind. Family makes too much for lots of aid, but not enough to pay for private or out-of-state flagships. They have no hooks -- just families working really hard to try to move up the ladder. Parents did their best to provide stability and their kids sacrificed to excel in and out of the classroom. Parents hope that instead of a commuter college like the one they attended, their kids can have a richer college experience. But then their kid is rejected from UMCP and they didn't get aid from the SLAC on their list. Yes, those kids will be fine, but it is okay to have wanted something a little more. Especially since the marketing brochures (and most of culture up until a few years ago) made it seem possible. You can insult these parents by calling them strivers, but it reads a bit like you're telling them to know their station. Only Buffy and Bif get to go to the top schools, just like Granddaddy!

Colleges are businesses, yes. But many of them are like Gucci and other exclusive luxury brands. They are not meritocracies and they don't focus on social mobility. We need to help kids see them for what they are. Rejecting the bulk of the qualified middle class is how they build their brands.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I will admit we are not happy with the results of the early rounds. And I hope anyone reading understand it is not coming from a place of bitterness but from a place of helplessness. It is hard to digest how the most venerable institutions of this country peddle and getaway with blatant lies year after year and demolish the spirits of a vast majority of kids.

I am trying to understand how any of their claims add up?

"Application are reviewed holistically & We also like receiving 50,000 applications


They never explain how they manage to read 50k+ apps and how spending 2-5 min per app allows holistic evaluation is beyond me. This is total crap!

There's got to be a better way. I don't know why no journalists have covered this. We are fighting about diversity/discrimination but the issues with college admission is more basic. The college admission first need to stop lying to the kids, period!

It definitely is a complete farse. Don’t make your kid graduate with debt. And you don’t spend your retirement money.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Despite this thread seeming a little whiny, I think it is fair for middle-class parents who don't have legacy status or generational wealth to feel like the system doesn't work for them. Their kids may be second or third generation Americans, just one generation removed from poverty. Perhaps they'll be 2nd gen college students. Maybe a minority, but not the under-represented kind. Family makes too much for lots of aid, but not enough to pay for private or out-of-state flagships. They have no hooks -- just families working really hard to try to move up the ladder. Parents did their best to provide stability and their kids sacrificed to excel in and out of the classroom. Parents hope that instead of a commuter college like the one they attended, their kids can have a richer college experience. But then their kid is rejected from UMCP and they didn't get aid from the SLAC on their list. Yes, those kids will be fine, but it is okay to have wanted something a little more. Especially since the marketing brochures (and most of culture up until a few years ago) made it seem possible. You can insult these parents by calling them strivers, but it reads a bit like you're telling them to know their station. Only Buffy and Bif get to go to the top schools, just like Granddaddy!

Colleges are businesses, yes. But many of them are like Gucci and other exclusive luxury brands. They are not meritocracies and they don't focus on social mobility. We need to help kids see them for what they are. Rejecting the bulk of the qualified middle class is how they build their brands.

+10.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I totally agree. Although it seems rough, I think countries that base it all on one exam have a system that makes more sense. Set a lower threshold for kids from below a certain income level to ensure parity.

Except in those countries cheating is rampant and the wealthy get to skip the test entirely.

Don't fool yourself that anyone has really figured it out.

But it is much much worse than it was 15 or 20 years ago. There was a semblance of merit and college decisions made sense. It was never surprising who got into Harvard. Now it feels completely random and out of control. Our universities are shooting themselves in the foot. Their prestige and credibility are suffering.

How? Harvard still has the class of freshman they want. They just get to pick from double the number of applicants