College Admissions Doesn't Need to Be So Competitive: Super High Stat Kids are not "a dime a dozen."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Isn't being good at basketball or volleyball less nebulous?

Athletics don’t count. Don’t you know all athletes are dumb dumbs? Being a CS superstar is what’ll get you into college. /s

People put down student athletes so much on this forum, but fail to recognize the team building and other soft skills one learns instead of doing math problems all day. One is not better than the other.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Isn't being good at basketball or volleyball less nebulous?

no, they are too competitive. You have to use your wealth and have your kid do sailing or Equestrian

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The College board needs to release raw scores for the AP tests. That way MIT and Cornell can see whether your 5 on Physics EM was a 98% or a 61%.

We throw away a lot of information that could be useful for everyone in the process.

Sure, if the goal is to assemble a class of kids who test well.

Only dishonest or ignorant people say that standardized tests only measures the ability to take standardized tests

Standardized tests are the best measure we have of cognitive ability. It predicts pretty much everything you would want to predict.

Sure.

It's the best test money can buy.

Of course affluence helps. But it's more fair than having people get in because of some far more nebulous criteria.

Like fake testing accommodations?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Agreed. T20 universities and T10 lacs admit too many hooked applicants. If they are admitting over 20% QuestBridge, they should increase their class proportionally.

Nobody is admitt 20% QB. It is under 2% at most schools so just stop now.

It's commonplace now for top colleges admitting over 20% QuestBridge.

[url]https://www.questbridge.org/partners/college-partners/swarthmore-college
[/url]

24% affiliated with QuestBridge (Class of 2028)

That is a mistake on the Questbridge site. Swat took 15 QB kids in the class of 28 and 15 in the class of 27.

Could you please provide a source for this?

Do a bit of work. There is dat for almost every partner school available.

I did , and I provided the link stating 24% Swat admits are QuestBridge.

If you are serious, burden is on you to counter evidence.

Already done upthread. Anway, Swathmore is not in the Ivy League.

Swathmore is a little ivy

Can none of you spell? It's SwaRthmore.[/quote
We call it that now! Just like Gulf of America!! Ha ha, case closed. #owningthelibs

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Wouldn’t it be interesting if a school decided to go to stats only to see what would happen to their rankings and results.

If a good but not tip top school…like let’s say hypothetically Virginia Tech…announced that it would only consider SAT score and nothing else in their admissions decisions next year. Would their applications increase or decrease? What would their incoming class look like compared to the old system?

But then they wouldn’t have obnoxious girls screeching into bullhorns about topics they know nothing about!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Wouldn’t it be interesting if a school decided to go to stats only to see what would happen to their rankings and results.

If a good but not tip top school…like let’s say hypothetically Virginia Tech…announced that it would only consider SAT score and nothing else in their admissions decisions next year. Would their applications increase or decrease? What would their incoming class look like compared to the old system?

People act like the us never uses pure test scores admissions . Breaking... that is how they do it in NYC at Stuyvesant and Bronx tech and other specialized high schools. I don't see their reputations going in the toilet

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:In his Substack post "College Admissions Doesn't Need to Be So Competitive," Arjun Panickssery argues that the intense competition for admission to top U.S. universities is not inevitable.

He suggests that factors like affirmative action, legacy preferences, institutional priorities, and athletic recruitment, rather than a vast oversupply of talent, drive the "rat race."

He notes that the top 20 schools enroll about 49,000 students annually (1.3% of high school graduates), and, the talent pool with high SAT scores (e.g., 1550+) isn’t as large as perceived—there are actually not that many "high stat" kids.

He also compares US admissions to admissions abroad and that the colleges abroad make their stats and requirements clear and limit the number of colleges students can apply to which is way less stressful and is rooted in merit not holistic admissions.

https://arjunpanickssery.substack.com/p/college-admissions-doesnt-need-to

There are qay more than 49k incoming students. Way more.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In his Substack post "College Admissions Doesn't Need to Be So Competitive," Arjun Panickssery argues that the intense competition for admission to top U.S. universities is not inevitable.

He suggests that factors like affirmative action, legacy preferences, institutional priorities, and athletic recruitment, rather than a vast oversupply of talent, drive the "rat race."

He notes that the top 20 schools enroll about 49,000 students annually (1.3% of high school graduates), and, the talent pool with high SAT scores (e.g., 1550+) isn’t as large as perceived—there are actually not that many "high stat" kids.

He also compares US admissions to admissions abroad and that the colleges abroad make their stats and requirements clear and limit the number of colleges students can apply to which is way less stressful and is rooted in merit not holistic admissions.

https://arjunpanickssery.substack.com/p/college-admissions-doesnt-need-to

There are qay more than 49k incoming students. Way more.

Can you show your math for this claim?

[Anonymous]

OP, I highly recommend you read “ A year Inside College Admissions: Who Gets in and Why “ , by Jeffrey Selingo.

https://a.co/d/9B98QsX

The author provides a history about holistic admissions, which started in the first half of the 20th century. Sadly, holistic admissions are darkly rooted in anti-semitism.

Initially, the ivies and the top universities in the North East, only used grades and testing for candidates to get into the school. However, the schools which were predominantly, white and protestant, started realizing that Jewish students were doing very well on those tests. Because they wanted to limit the number of Jews at their schools, they started with this whole concept of holistic admissions: that it’s not just about grades, it’s about athletics, background, and the whole candidate story.
The reason colleges do not want the admissions process to be as straight forward and as transparent, and just about academics, is because every year, each college has different needs, and they want to admit students that meet those needs. One year, they may need more full pay, wealthy students, another year, they may need more athletes, another year, they may have a lot of “ Deans list “ students ( children of big donors , and well connected families) which limit the spots for regular kids … the list goes on and on …
Making the process only about grades would not allow colleges to admit students that match their ever changing, yearly needs. The whole concept of holistic admissions is purely set up to benefit the colleges in making their process less and less transparent.

Unfortunately, students get the short end of the stick here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP, I highly recommend you read “ A year Inside College Admissions: Who Gets in and Why “ , by Jeffrey Selingo.

https://a.co/d/9B98QsX

The author provides a history about holistic admissions, which started in the first half of the 20th century. Sadly, holistic admissions are darkly rooted in anti-semitism.

Initially, the ivies and the top universities in the North East, only used grades and testing for candidates to get into the school. However, the schools which were predominantly, white and protestant, started realizing that Jewish students were doing very well on those tests. Because they wanted to limit the number of Jews at their schools, they started with this whole concept of holistic admissions: that it’s not just about grades, it’s about athletics, background, and the whole candidate story.

People applauding "holistic" admissions ignore the history at their peril

[Anonymous]

Holistic admissions may have been rooted in anti-semitism, but not Jews disproportionally benefit. Jewish students are 25-30% of Ivies

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The College board needs to release raw scores for the AP tests. That way MIT and Cornell can see whether your 5 on Physics EM was a 98% or a 61%.

We throw away a lot of information that could be useful for everyone in the process.

Sure, if the goal is to assemble a class of kids who test well.

Only dishonest or ignorant people say that standardized tests only measures the ability to take standardized tests

Standardized tests are the best measure we have of cognitive ability. It predicts pretty much everything you would want to predict.

Most AO would rather see smart kids, who rather than spending $$$$$$ and 50+ hours prepping to take the SAT/ACT multiple times, have something they are passionate about and focus their efforts on, something that enriches their lives beyond just "studying for the test".

oh give us a break. We all know they are doing "something they are passionate about" and "enriches their lives" because they want to get into a top colleges. No one thinks they will keep doing that when they are selling out on wall street or silicon valley

You guys are so wrong about this one. I attended a top 5 college and have worked on Wall Street, at a top consulting firm and in big tech. The overachievers continue to overachieve and be involved in “EC’s” at all these places- they are the ones organizing speaker events, running the womens’ groups, organizing to help their office kitchen transition from paper cups to sustainable glassware, planning the skit for the office Xmas party, etc. You clearly haven’t been exposed to too many overachievers in your lives!!! There is a certain type that loves to be hyper busy and involved and we can roll our eyes but they do exist and I’d argue make for a better workplace.

[Anonymous]

He’s wrong. Look at the UC system it’s been legacy and race blind for a while though athletic recruitment is still there. The demographics bear out that affirmative action isn’t in place. The top ranked schools are over 45% Asian, under 5% AA, 20% white and the rest are Hispanic or other. A lot of mixed Asian and white kids choose the other category. Affirmative action is NOT taking seats. Anything under an unweighted 4.0 and weighted 4.2 ( UC cap ) puts you squarely in the waitlist category of mid tier UCs. Having perfect GPA stats, great ECs and well written PIQs still puts you into a lottery and you are likely to end up in the lower tier schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I work in higher ed, have lived in Asia, and visit universities and high schools in China, Japan, and Vietnam annually. My opinion is that holistic admissions are imperfect, but they are a hell of a lot better than purely grade- and test-centric admissions, which corrupt not only the colleges that rely on them but also the high schools that teach to them.

the EC centered holistic admissions are more likely to confer advantages on the wealthy

The wealthy have an advantage in nearly everything, including testing and grades. We may never have a complete meritocracy, but most AOs are trained to recognize such disparities. So the kid who does a month of volunteering in Palau on his parent's dime may not have an advantage over the kid who spends 20 hours a week at a parttime job or looking after younger siblings.

We are told that admissions controls for school quality by comparing the student transcript to their school profile and don't expect students to do more than is offered by the school. Why don't they do the same with ECs? No recognition for ECs not offered by the school or that cost more than a de minimus amount?

That E stands for “Extra” as in outside of

don't be daft. Many ECs are school sanctioned clubs

And many aren’t.Annd the posters suggests no credit for ECs. It offers by the school. That is just dim.

it is a good question to ask. If schools only expect students to take the most rigorous classes offered by their school, why don't they apply that to ECs?

Exactly what question are you trying to ask?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:He’s wrong. Look at the UC system it’s been legacy and race blind for a while though athletic recruitment is still there. The demographics bear out that affirmative action isn’t in place. The top ranked schools are over 45% Asian, under 5% AA, 20% white and the rest are Hispanic or other. A lot of mixed Asian and white kids choose the other category. Affirmative action is NOT taking seats. Anything under an unweighted 4.0 and weighted 4.2 ( UC cap ) puts you squarely in the waitlist category of mid tier UCs. Having perfect GPA stats, great ECs and well written PIQs still puts you into a lottery and you are likely to end up in the lower tier schools.

+1

Spot on.