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

[Anonymous]

And yet, with all 3 of my kids and their friends and classmates, my nieces and nephews, my friends kids and neighbors kids, they all wound up just about where you would have expected them to go. Maybe the brightest kids didn’t get into Harvard or Stanford and had to “settle” for Bowdoin or USC but overall, the top performing kids all got into really good schools, the bright, good students who maybe took fewer APs or whatever ended up at strong schools like VA Tech or Lehigh or whatever, the weaker students who still put in good efforts went to known but lower ranked schools, and the kids who everyone knew screwed around in high school, and the kids who hit bumps in the road for some reason (health, drugs, family issues, etc) and the kids with real financial constraints went to community college. Then there are the kids who went to “lesser” colleges but got huge merit scholarships, and everyone understands that too.

There were very few surprises. So it all somehow seems to work out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:And yet, with all 3 of my kids and their friends and classmates, my nieces and nephews, my friends kids and neighbors kids, they all wound up just about where you would have expected them to go. Maybe the brightest kids didn’t get into Harvard or Stanford and had to “settle” for Bowdoin or USC but overall, the top performing kids all got into really good schools, the bright, good students who maybe took fewer APs or whatever ended up at strong schools like VA Tech or Lehigh or whatever, the weaker students who still put in good efforts went to known but lower ranked schools, and the kids who everyone knew screwed around in high school, and the kids who hit bumps in the road for some reason (health, drugs, family issues, etc) and the kids with real financial constraints went to community college. Then there are the kids who went to “lesser” colleges but got huge merit scholarships, and everyone understands that too.

There were very few surprises. So it all somehow seems to work out.

Sure. In the aggregate, people get what they deserve but if you are the one that screwed over..

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And yet, with all 3 of my kids and their friends and classmates, my nieces and nephews, my friends kids and neighbors kids, they all wound up just about where you would have expected them to go. Maybe the brightest kids didn’t get into Harvard or Stanford and had to “settle” for Bowdoin or USC but overall, the top performing kids all got into really good schools, the bright, good students who maybe took fewer APs or whatever ended up at strong schools like VA Tech or Lehigh or whatever, the weaker students who still put in good efforts went to known but lower ranked schools, and the kids who everyone knew screwed around in high school, and the kids who hit bumps in the road for some reason (health, drugs, family issues, etc) and the kids with real financial constraints went to community college. Then there are the kids who went to “lesser” colleges but got huge merit scholarships, and everyone understands that too.

There were very few surprises. So it all somehow seems to work out.

Sure. In the aggregate, people get what they deserve but if you are the one that screwed over..

How so? What is the harm done?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Excellent description of how to be admitted to a T10 school five years ago.

It's also a great summary of how to be admitted to a public flagship (at various levels) today.

However, students and parents aiming for a T10 school now need to begin thinking more creatively.

For the "academic spike" applicant, don't ask "will lack of rigor in a foreign language hurt me?" Ask, "can I take four college courses at an Ivy during high school and get As in all of them while graduating from high school a year early?"

For the "inspirational story" applicant, don't ask "can I scale my passion-project nonprofit internationally before junior fall?" Ask, "can I move back to my grandparents' war-torn village in Africa and enroll in the local school there before applying to Stanford?" or "can I get myself moved into foster care and commit some petty crimes that will send me to a juvenile detention center early enough so that I have time to turn my life around by the summer before senior year?"

For the URM applicant, don't ask "should my application reflect that my great-great-grandmother was born in Mexico?" Ask, "how willing am I to lie as blatantly as half the URM students at Brown and just say I myself was born in an armadillo-infested shack outside of Ciudad Juarez?" (even though you grew up in Great Falls).

We get hung up on the idea of extracurriculars that "show" leadership, but it's more important to think about how even someone whose parents both got doctorates from the top university in China and are famous scientists can still qualify as "first-gen."

It is a farce. The farce that we make it.

Funny thing is, the majority of the rest of the world follows a much simpler admissions process - grades or ultimate subject tests (e.g. AP), entrance tests (similar to SATs) and maybe an interview. Far easier to provide free resources to underprivileged kids in that model that this convoluted, cumbersome nonsense that is American higher ed. It's more of a scammy system that encourages corruption, starting with 'fake' ECs, expensive tutoring to get higher grades, etc. none of which a poor kid has access to.
The government can easily set up free resources along the lines of Khan Academy and free online tutoring services with taxpayer dollars to coach kids on AP and SAT. How do you do that for a poor kid to start a non-profit? or BS 'leadership' role for, say, science olympiad, when the kid has to work?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Excellent description of how to be admitted to a T10 school five years ago.

It's also a great summary of how to be admitted to a public flagship (at various levels) today.

However, students and parents aiming for a T10 school now need to begin thinking more creatively.

For the "academic spike" applicant, don't ask "will lack of rigor in a foreign language hurt me?" Ask, "can I take four college courses at an Ivy during high school and get As in all of them while graduating from high school a year early?"

For the "inspirational story" applicant, don't ask "can I scale my passion-project nonprofit internationally before junior fall?" Ask, "can I move back to my grandparents' war-torn village in Africa and enroll in the local school there before applying to Stanford?" or "can I get myself moved into foster care and commit some petty crimes that will send me to a juvenile detention center early enough so that I have time to turn my life around by the summer before senior year?"

For the URM applicant, don't ask "should my application reflect that my great-great-grandmother was born in Mexico?" Ask, "how willing am I to lie as blatantly as half the URM students at Brown and just say I myself was born in an armadillo-infested shack outside of Ciudad Juarez?" (even though you grew up in Great Falls).

We get hung up on the idea of extracurriculars that "show" leadership, but it's more important to think about how even someone whose parents both got doctorates from the top university in China and are famous scientists can still qualify as "first-gen."

It is a farce. The farce that we make it.

Funny thing is, the majority of the rest of the world follows a much simpler admissions process - grades or ultimate subject tests (e.g. AP), entrance tests (similar to SATs) and maybe an interview. Far easier to provide free resources to underprivileged kids in that model that this convoluted, cumbersome nonsense that is American higher ed. It's more of a scammy system that encourages corruption, starting with 'fake' ECs, expensive tutoring to get higher grades, etc. none of which a poor kid has access to.
The government can easily set up free resources along the lines of Khan Academy and free online tutoring services with taxpayer dollars to coach kids on AP and SAT. How do you do that for a poor kid to start a non-profit? or BS 'leadership' role for, say, science olympiad, when the kid has to work?

Kids without resources are not expected to start nonprofits or do Science Olympiad. They may show leadership in very different ways. That is the point of holistic admissions. I’m not opposed to tests being an element but be serious. Kids with poor teachers and schools may not have access to AP classes because the school may not have enough students to fill and AP class or it simply may not be a priority for the school, which may be dealing with safety, hunger, homelessness and other more pressing issues. I understand where you are coming from but it comes across as very naive to think the solutions are that simple.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And yet, with all 3 of my kids and their friends and classmates, my nieces and nephews, my friends kids and neighbors kids, they all wound up just about where you would have expected them to go. Maybe the brightest kids didn’t get into Harvard or Stanford and had to “settle” for Bowdoin or USC but overall, the top performing kids all got into really good schools, the bright, good students who maybe took fewer APs or whatever ended up at strong schools like VA Tech or Lehigh or whatever, the weaker students who still put in good efforts went to known but lower ranked schools, and the kids who everyone knew screwed around in high school, and the kids who hit bumps in the road for some reason (health, drugs, family issues, etc) and the kids with real financial constraints went to community college. Then there are the kids who went to “lesser” colleges but got huge merit scholarships, and everyone understands that too.

There were very few surprises. So it all somehow seems to work out.

Sure. In the aggregate, people get what they deserve but if you are the one that screwed over..

1) Define screwed over
2) People don't always get what they (or their parents) want or think they deserve. Is that screwed over?

[Anonymous]

It’s a mummer’s farce.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They dont read 50k applications. They have criteria based on which they eliminate 3/4.

Simply not true. At many of the most prestigious colleges and universities, they readily admit about 2/3 or applicants are academically qualified. And the apps do get read.

Some review notes on meetings with top school admissions:
"80% of applicants are considered academically qualified to attend (so about 25K of the 37K applications.
99% are in the top ten % of their high school class.

THE PROCESS
There is a regional reader (in this case she covered three states plus NYC) who does initial processing of about 100 to 120 applications per week. (Other colleges the reader may be reviewing hundreds per day!)
She sends most to a 2nd reader, unless the student is unusually weak; examples are simple one sentence answers to questions, no specific U interest. (But this didn't seem to weed out a huge percentage)
After 2nd reader, returns to the regional reader.
Then goes to committee, which usually consists of 5 to 12 people, including (usually) the dean of admisions.
Each reader gives about a 30 second summary of the student.
The final say is the dean; it's not a democracy!"

In a book that people often tout on here . . . I can't remember the name ("Who gets into college" or something like that) I recall that it is said about 8 min. are spent on the first round of applications. After the months of writing, assembling information, etc. on top of getting recs, taking tests . . . then to spend MINUTES on them. It's insulting.

[Anonymous]

So far, the college admission process seems fair based on our experience.
My daughter had 3.65 weight GPA, 1550 SAT got into PSU many years ago. She was also admitted by VT and George Washington U back then.
My son, 4.27 weighted GAP, 1520 SAT, 11 APs as most other kids, is accepted by Purdue engineering and UMCP. He is rejected by Georgia tech and deferred by UIUC. All decisions align with our expectations.
He did not do things specific for college admission. Focused on each course, played one sport for 11 years, nothing else special.

My friends' kids who have better GPAs got into schools that ranked higher, as expected. Kids with lower GPAs got into PSU and Pitts.

I think the main things are GPA and course Rigor. The rest are not determining factors.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They dont read 50k applications. They have criteria based on which they eliminate 3/4.

Simply not true. At many of the most prestigious colleges and universities, they readily admit about 2/3 or applicants are academically qualified. And the apps do get read.

Some review notes on meetings with top school admissions:
"80% of applicants are considered academically qualified to attend (so about 25K of the 37K applications.
99% are in the top ten % of their high school class.

THE PROCESS
There is a regional reader (in this case she covered three states plus NYC) who does initial processing of about 100 to 120 applications per week. (Other colleges the reader may be reviewing hundreds per day!)
She sends most to a 2nd reader, unless the student is unusually weak; examples are simple one sentence answers to questions, no specific U interest. (But this didn't seem to weed out a huge percentage)
After 2nd reader, returns to the regional reader.
Then goes to committee, which usually consists of 5 to 12 people, including (usually) the dean of admisions.
Each reader gives about a 30 second summary of the student.
The final say is the dean; it's not a democracy!"

In a book that people often tout on here . . . I can't remember the name ("Who gets into college" or something like that) I recall that it is said about 8 min. are spent on the first round of applications. After the months of writing, assembling information, etc. on top of getting recs, taking tests . . . then to spend MINUTES on them. It's insulting.

Wait till you hear who the reviewers are. Many of them are 23 year olds who graduated at the bottom of the class from the particular institution they’re reviewing apps for.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They dont read 50k applications. They have criteria based on which they eliminate 3/4.

Simply not true. At many of the most prestigious colleges and universities, they readily admit about 2/3 or applicants are academically qualified. And the apps do get read.

Some review notes on meetings with top school admissions:
"80% of applicants are considered academically qualified to attend (so about 25K of the 37K applications.
99% are in the top ten % of their high school class.

THE PROCESS
There is a regional reader (in this case she covered three states plus NYC) who does initial processing of about 100 to 120 applications per week. (Other colleges the reader may be reviewing hundreds per day!)
She sends most to a 2nd reader, unless the student is unusually weak; examples are simple one sentence answers to questions, no specific U interest. (But this didn't seem to weed out a huge percentage)
After 2nd reader, returns to the regional reader.
Then goes to committee, which usually consists of 5 to 12 people, including (usually) the dean of admisions.
Each reader gives about a 30 second summary of the student.
The final say is the dean; it's not a democracy!"

In a book that people often tout on here . . . I can't remember the name ("Who gets into college" or something like that) I recall that it is said about 8 min. are spent on the first round of applications. After the months of writing, assembling information, etc. on top of getting recs, taking tests . . . then to spend MINUTES on them. It's insulting.

What would you regard as a "non-insulting" amount of time? How many more people would they need to hire to read tens of thousands of apps in that longer time?

The fact of the matter is that most American high school kids really aren't all that different from each other. A short read is probably all that's necessary.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Excellent description of how to be admitted to a T10 school five years ago.

It's also a great summary of how to be admitted to a public flagship (at various levels) today.

However, students and parents aiming for a T10 school now need to begin thinking more creatively.

For the "academic spike" applicant, don't ask "will lack of rigor in a foreign language hurt me?" Ask, "can I take four college courses at an Ivy during high school and get As in all of them while graduating from high school a year early?"

For the "inspirational story" applicant, don't ask "can I scale my passion-project nonprofit internationally before junior fall?" Ask, "can I move back to my grandparents' war-torn village in Africa and enroll in the local school there before applying to Stanford?" or "can I get myself moved into foster care and commit some petty crimes that will send me to a juvenile detention center early enough so that I have time to turn my life around by the summer before senior year?"

For the URM applicant, don't ask "should my application reflect that my great-great-grandmother was born in Mexico?" Ask, "how willing am I to lie as blatantly as half the URM students at Brown and just say I myself was born in an armadillo-infested shack outside of Ciudad Juarez?" (even though you grew up in Great Falls).

We get hung up on the idea of extracurriculars that "show" leadership, but it's more important to think about how even someone whose parents both got doctorates from the top university in China and are famous scientists can still qualify as "first-gen."

It is a farce. The farce that we make it.

Funny thing is, the majority of the rest of the world follows a much simpler admissions process - grades or ultimate subject tests (e.g. AP), entrance tests (similar to SATs) and maybe an interview. Far easier to provide free resources to underprivileged kids in that model that this convoluted, cumbersome nonsense that is American higher ed. It's more of a scammy system that encourages corruption, starting with 'fake' ECs, expensive tutoring to get higher grades, etc. none of which a poor kid has access to.
The government can easily set up free resources along the lines of Khan Academy and free online tutoring services with taxpayer dollars to coach kids on AP and SAT. How do you do that for a poor kid to start a non-profit? or BS 'leadership' role for, say, science olympiad, when the kid has to work?

The majority of the rest of the world (in fact, possibly all of the rest of the world) has a much lower college attendance rate than the US. Many of the people here complaining about the complexity and cost of the US process don’t understand that their kid probably wouldn’t have a chance at university at all in those other countries. Why do you think students from these other countries flock to US for the privilege of paying full tuition here. They couldn’t get into university in their home country.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They dont read 50k applications. They have criteria based on which they eliminate 3/4.

Simply not true. At many of the most prestigious colleges and universities, they readily admit about 2/3 or applicants are academically qualified. And the apps do get read.

Some review notes on meetings with top school admissions:
"80% of applicants are considered academically qualified to attend (so about 25K of the 37K applications.
99% are in the top ten % of their high school class.

THE PROCESS
There is a regional reader (in this case she covered three states plus NYC) who does initial processing of about 100 to 120 applications per week. (Other colleges the reader may be reviewing hundreds per day!)
She sends most to a 2nd reader, unless the student is unusually weak; examples are simple one sentence answers to questions, no specific U interest. (But this didn't seem to weed out a huge percentage)
After 2nd reader, returns to the regional reader.
Then goes to committee, which usually consists of 5 to 12 people, including (usually) the dean of admisions.
Each reader gives about a 30 second summary of the student.
The final say is the dean; it's not a democracy!"

In a book that people often tout on here . . . I can't remember the name ("Who gets into college" or something like that) I recall that it is said about 8 min. are spent on the first round of applications. After the months of writing, assembling information, etc. on top of getting recs, taking tests . . . then to spend MINUTES on them. It's insulting.

Wait till you hear who the reviewers are. Many of them are 23 year olds who graduated at the bottom of the class from the particular institution they’re reviewing apps for.

You made this up, have no data to support your claim, and don't know any reviewers personally. Your comment is worthless to the forum.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:And yet, with all 3 of my kids and their friends and classmates, my nieces and nephews, my friends kids and neighbors kids, they all wound up just about where you would have expected them to go. Maybe the brightest kids didn’t get into Harvard or Stanford and had to “settle” for Bowdoin or USC but overall, the top performing kids all got into really good schools, the bright, good students who maybe took fewer APs or whatever ended up at strong schools like VA Tech or Lehigh or whatever, the weaker students who still put in good efforts went to known but lower ranked schools, and the kids who everyone knew screwed around in high school, and the kids who hit bumps in the road for some reason (health, drugs, family issues, etc) and the kids with real financial constraints went to community college. Then there are the kids who went to “lesser” colleges but got huge merit scholarships, and everyone understands that too.

There were very few surprises. So it all somehow seems to work out.

Not in my circle. Some very strange ones that didn’t match up at all. I’m convinced one must have lied about his race.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And yet, with all 3 of my kids and their friends and classmates, my nieces and nephews, my friends kids and neighbors kids, they all wound up just about where you would have expected them to go. Maybe the brightest kids didn’t get into Harvard or Stanford and had to “settle” for Bowdoin or USC but overall, the top performing kids all got into really good schools, the bright, good students who maybe took fewer APs or whatever ended up at strong schools like VA Tech or Lehigh or whatever, the weaker students who still put in good efforts went to known but lower ranked schools, and the kids who everyone knew screwed around in high school, and the kids who hit bumps in the road for some reason (health, drugs, family issues, etc) and the kids with real financial constraints went to community college. Then there are the kids who went to “lesser” colleges but got huge merit scholarships, and everyone understands that too.

There were very few surprises. So it all somehow seems to work out.

Not in my circle. Some very strange ones that didn’t match up at all. I’m convinced one must have lied about his race.

More kids had problems getting into Va Tech than I've ever heard of.