Should admissions be more transparent?

[Anonymous]

Transparency doesn't have to mean fair. And not being merit-based is also ok. But colleges should be transparent about their true process and methodology. If its not about grades, then dont tell kids they look for highest rigor/grades when they take so many kids without (when they have something else they want). Otherwise, it's just a bunch of in-the-know private counselors and those who pay for that info- who know the ranking/value system of individual schools. The whole point system for certain schools is known by only a few. For ex, if harvard values leadership/class president's and duke values high impact EC, and Georgetown values service - then schools should be more explicit about their preferences of particular 'holistic' elements. Kids should know the rules of the game before they play. Then kids can self select and make more informed choices of where to apply. It would be more empowering for students and more efficient for schools. The current system can be gamed which is sad. I am done and my kid is going to an ivy. After doing a ton of research about admission commitee evaluations and hours of brainstorming, we figured out a strategy and plan that made sense, targeted schools that would value his narrative and accomplishments, and it worked. We didn't follow any of the generic and unhelpful AO advice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Transparency doesn't have to mean fair. And not being merit-based is also ok. But colleges should be transparent about their true process and methodology. If its not about grades, then dont tell kids they look for highest rigor/grades when they take so many kids without (when they have something else they want). Otherwise, it's just a bunch of in-the-know private counselors and those who pay for that info- who know the ranking/value system of individual schools. The whole point system for certain schools is known by only a few. For ex, if harvard values leadership/class president's and duke values high impact EC, and Georgetown values service - then schools should be more explicit about their preferences of particular 'holistic' elements. Kids should know the rules of the game before they play. Then kids can self select and make more informed choices of where to apply. It would be more empowering for students and more efficient for schools. The current system can be gamed which is sad. I am done and my kid is going to an ivy. After doing a ton of research about admission commitee evaluations and hours of brainstorming, we figured out a strategy and plan that made sense, targeted schools that would value his narrative and accomplishments, and it worked. We didn't follow any of the generic and unhelpful AO advice.

What resources did you use? Any tips?

[Anonymous]

Yes

[Anonymous]

You can use the data to calculate gender based admission rates, see if your kid needed to take a foreign language in high school and if so how many years are preferred. Same for number of years of lab sciences, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:ids should know the rules of the game before they play.

This is where you sound either naive or willfully obtuse. College admissions is not a "game." It's a business that happens to have some game-like elements. You may think that mastering these game-like elements entitles you to a result, but that's just not the case. The schools are always making some kind of business decision when admitting Larlo A. over Larla B, whose applications are largely indistinguishable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Transparency doesn't have to mean fair. And not being merit-based is also ok. But colleges should be transparent about their true process and methodology. If its not about grades, then dont tell kids they look for highest rigor/grades when they take so many kids without (when they have something else they want). Otherwise, it's just a bunch of in-the-know private counselors and those who pay for that info- who know the ranking/value system of individual schools. The whole point system for certain schools is known by only a few. For ex, if harvard values leadership/class president's and duke values high impact EC, and Georgetown values service - then schools should be more explicit about their preferences of particular 'holistic' elements. Kids should know the rules of the game before they play. Then kids can self select and make more informed choices of where to apply. It would be more empowering for students and more efficient for schools. The current system can be gamed which is sad. I am done and my kid is going to an ivy. After doing a ton of research about admission commitee evaluations and hours of brainstorming, we figured out a strategy and plan that made sense, targeted schools that would value his narrative and accomplishments, and it worked. We didn't follow any of the generic and unhelpful AO advice.

Where did you do the research on admit committee evaluations? Can you provide a link to give us an idea?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Transparency doesn't have to mean fair. And not being merit-based is also ok. But colleges should be transparent about their true process and methodology. If its not about grades, then dont tell kids they look for highest rigor/grades when they take so many kids without (when they have something else they want). Otherwise, it's just a bunch of in-the-know private counselors and those who pay for that info- who know the ranking/value system of individual schools. The whole point system for certain schools is known by only a few. For ex, if harvard values leadership/class president's and duke values high impact EC, and Georgetown values service - then schools should be more explicit about their preferences of particular 'holistic' elements. Kids should know the rules of the game before they play. Then kids can self select and make more informed choices of where to apply. It would be more empowering for students and more efficient for schools. The current system can be gamed which is sad. I am done and my kid is going to an ivy. After doing a ton of research about admission commitee evaluations and hours of brainstorming, we figured out a strategy and plan that made sense, targeted schools that would value his narrative and accomplishments, and it worked. We didn't follow any of the generic and unhelpful AO advice.

Can you be more specific as to how you targeted schools that valued his narrative and accomplishments?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The entire US educational system in this country is broken. It is no longer about helping a student reach their potential, but instead painting a mosaic of how some school administrators believe America should look.

I get that universities are businesses and need slots for athletes and other needs to create a school community but some percentage of each class should be set aside for pure merit based admission. I know it won’t happen, so more and more Americans will go to school in the UK where admission is merit based, get a degree in 3 or 4 years from a quality university for less than one would pay for a mid-level SLAC.

For those that choose to stay in the US just understand that admissions are random, and based on the “needs/whims” of the university and not a reflection of the quality of the applicant.

Pure merit by your definition I presume.


Understand that top colleges do admit on merit. The issue that you have is that their definition of merit isn’t your definition of merit.

DP

Even they admit it is not based on merit. AOs are open about this and, in fact, emphasize this point.

Their priorities are to be diverse as in being able to represent all 50 states, x number of countries, male/female balance, represent different races, etc.

None of these are wrong, but it is not pure merit, when you also have these additional constraints.

At MIT, women have a far lower bar compared to men. At SLAC's with some majors, men have a lower bar compared to women. Does not mean the people being admitted are not qualified, but at the margins a slightly weaker candidate is admitted over a stronger candidate to achieve the balance they were seeking.

Every kid picked deserves admission in the schools view. The criteria might differ from what you believe to be the correct one (solely ranked by academic strength and nothing else) but they all are seen as meriting admission by the institution.

[Anonymous]

Saw this, and instantly realized why this kid wasn't getting in:

https://www.reddit.com/r/collegeresults/comments/1kqry8y/was_i_screwed_over/

Anyone else see the glaring problems?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Saw this, and instantly realized why this kid wasn't getting in:

https://www.reddit.com/r/collegeresults/comments/1kqry8y/was_i_screwed_over/

Anyone else see the glaring problems?

No, other than the limited out of school ECs

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Saw this, and instantly realized why this kid wasn't getting in:

https://www.reddit.com/r/collegeresults/comments/1kqry8y/was_i_screwed_over/

Anyone else see the glaring problems?

No, other than the limited out of school ECs

Too many sports hours; shady mission trip and no evidence for major other than one internship.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Saw this, and instantly realized why this kid wasn't getting in:

https://www.reddit.com/r/collegeresults/comments/1kqry8y/was_i_screwed_over/

Anyone else see the glaring problems?

No, other than the limited out of school ECs

Too many sports hours; shady mission trip and no evidence for major other than one internship.

But it’s a competitive major. I just don’t get why the “evidence” piece matters (or should matter) if a kid is not picking like Medevial Lit so AOs are wondering if the kid will actually stick with that major that they need to fill seats for. My kid wants to do CS but does not do school stuff for fun outside of school. She is super focused on her classes and then uses ECs to have fun and stretch her development a different direction.

But I’m a mom who did college in the 90s and went in undecided so what do I know.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Saw this, and instantly realized why this kid wasn't getting in:

https://www.reddit.com/r/collegeresults/comments/1kqry8y/was_i_screwed_over/

Anyone else see the glaring problems?

No, other than the limited out of school ECs

Too many sports hours; shady mission trip and no evidence for major other than one internship.

But it’s a competitive major. I just don’t get why the “evidence” piece matters (or should matter) if a kid is not picking like Medevial Lit so AOs are wondering if the kid will actually stick with that major that they need to fill seats for. My kid wants to do CS but does not do school stuff for fun outside of school. She is super focused on her classes and then uses ECs to have fun and stretch her development a different direction.

But I’m a mom who did college in the 90s and went in undecided so what do I know.

Without evidence, you have no proof. Nothing to support your “case”. Maybe a class? That’s not enough to make your candidacy compelling. You don’t need all of them to support your academic interests, but at least a few.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Saw this, and instantly realized why this kid wasn't getting in:

https://www.reddit.com/r/collegeresults/comments/1kqry8y/was_i_screwed_over/

Anyone else see the glaring problems?

No, other than the limited out of school ECs

Too many sports hours; shady mission trip and no evidence for major other than one internship.

But it’s a competitive major. I just don’t get why the “evidence” piece matters (or should matter) if a kid is not picking like Medevial Lit so AOs are wondering if the kid will actually stick with that major that they need to fill seats for. My kid wants to do CS but does not do school stuff for fun outside of school. She is super focused on her classes and then uses ECs to have fun and stretch her development a different direction.

But I’m a mom who did college in the 90s and went in undecided so what do I know.

Hope your kid isn’t applying to truly competitive schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Saw this, and instantly realized why this kid wasn't getting in:

https://www.reddit.com/r/collegeresults/comments/1kqry8y/was_i_screwed_over/

Anyone else see the glaring problems?

He's just like nearly every boy in our private school with nothing distinguishing.