Insider Perspectives from a Highly Selective Admissions Office

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Appreciate all the feedback from folks in the admissions world. I had a couple of questions:

How can you tell whether a child has "grit" vs. being a parent-piloted drone? I'm sure in some cases it's obvious, like fleeing a war torn country and finding success here despite the odds, kids achieving in very low performing schools, etc. But are you going to assume that every child in a wealthy suburb has no grit just because they've been fortunate enough not to have encountered a lot of the worst of life?

PP who's posted earlier.

There are a few things. First, we look at school profiles, which contain a ton of data, including student performance and safety data. I am more impressed with a student who managed to do well on the SAT and got good grades while living in a dangerous city and attending failing schools. Because that student literally had to invent the wheel to the achieve. It requires much, much more initiative than simply attending a good school district that is well funded, performing well in classes and getting a similarly impressive SAT score while doing basic ECs that are just common across the applicant pool. Between these two kids, I am going to take the kid who managed to do well in spite of the obstacles because that kid has shown perseverance.

I do remember a student with a learning disability get into our school. His essay and recommendations demonstrated that the student effectively managed the learning difference in a way where he was able to score over the 95th percentile on the SAT. The essay and recs talked about his experience, tools, and effort he took to get there.

I think when it comes from kids in a wealthyish area, they need to show how they were able to achieve while taking risks, learning from mistakes, and why they think they can grow on our campus and contribute to the community. Many of these kids do the same stuff, the same resume check boxes, the same overseas service trips, the same everything. That's not going to cut it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I worked in admissions at a highly regarded school. I think I can add a few points to the thread.

First, scores matter, like OP said, but there is a floor and 80 percent of the applicants clear it. We don't chase the highest scores because we have enough of a pool of applicants to stay competitive. In my experience, if you are hanging your hat on high scores and grades, that is not going to be enough to make the cut and you will be disappointed to learn that there are a plurality of people with worse grades and scores who will get in.

Why? Because we need to fill a university with a bunch of different kinds of people with different interests. So, an applicant is not competing with the entire pool. They are competing with like-minded and interested students. So, we consult with coaches about sports needs and look at that applicant pool differently than we would a generic applicant with perfect scores and grades. We do the same with programmatic interests. So, for example, we look at science students through a different lens. Same goes for specialty programs. That's why a hook is so important. We look for people who will contribute to the school, who will provide something that adds to the campus community. At another college I worked for, we needed people in the damn marching band. That applicant pool got looked into differently and it was much easier to get an acceptance when the student expressed an interest in joining the band.

And now, the race question. First, almost all of the minority students basically clear that floor that everyone needs to in order to get a spot. If anything, I found myself frustrated by guidance counselors who would not support minority applicants because they either thought it was futile or were basically against AA. That basically kept plenty of qualified minority students from even attempting to apply. The students go through the same process I explained above and basically from there the decisions fall.

We also have something basically called a grit index, which we apply to all of our students. The evidence shows students who preserve through adversity are the most likely to engage and create meaningful impact in their respective fields. So, we look for students who show this potential. Once again, the test scores and grades are not enough to make a showing on this front. This is another reason why we end up rejecting perfect stat students and accepting students with lower stats (of all races, btw). We have seen big problems from students who cannot manage adversity, mainly because they have been cultivated to be academically or athletically successful (basically helicopter parenting). There's a hit for those kinds of kids because they struggle. First, when they arrive and inevitably run into an issue that they don't have the tools to effectively handle. And second, they tend to not push themselves or take risks academically, which basically produces bright but not innovative students. We want innovators and creators.

I think the top colleges, the Ivies and MIT etc can get both - the innovator risk taking creators who also have perfect scores.

PP I suspect you're from a middling college where you get less intake from the top score kids as you're more likely a 2nd choice or a safety.

Sigh. I am not going to out myself. I've worked at a few schools and they were the types of places people are clamoring to get into. I will say this. If you think insulting me will make you sleep better than junior will get that spot at Cal Tech, then have at it. I will just say that admissions over the past 10 years has really changed and the metrics and ideas of what is a successful applicant has changed dramatically, partially due to the extensive research on success.

I didn't write that to "insult" you. You're in the wrong business if you take offense at this kind of observation. It not going to be personal and you shouldn't attempt to attack people personally as a response. I really doubt you are a well behaved professional person and honestly hope to god none of my kids ever have to come across you in the admissions process.

You basically undermined everything you said previously by lowering yourself in that way. Shame on you, and get back to work you slacker.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I worked in admissions at a highly regarded school. I think I can add a few points to the thread.

First, scores matter, like OP said, but there is a floor and 80 percent of the applicants clear it. We don't chase the highest scores because we have enough of a pool of applicants to stay competitive. In my experience, if you are hanging your hat on high scores and grades, that is not going to be enough to make the cut and you will be disappointed to learn that there are a plurality of people with worse grades and scores who will get in.

Why? Because we need to fill a university with a bunch of different kinds of people with different interests. So, an applicant is not competing with the entire pool. They are competing with like-minded and interested students. So, we consult with coaches about sports needs and look at that applicant pool differently than we would a generic applicant with perfect scores and grades. We do the same with programmatic interests. So, for example, we look at science students through a different lens. Same goes for specialty programs. That's why a hook is so important. We look for people who will contribute to the school, who will provide something that adds to the campus community. At another college I worked for, we needed people in the damn marching band. That applicant pool got looked into differently and it was much easier to get an acceptance when the student expressed an interest in joining the band.

And now, the race question. First, almost all of the minority students basically clear that floor that everyone needs to in order to get a spot. If anything, I found myself frustrated by guidance counselors who would not support minority applicants because they either thought it was futile or were basically against AA. That basically kept plenty of qualified minority students from even attempting to apply. The students go through the same process I explained above and basically from there the decisions fall.

We also have something basically called a grit index, which we apply to all of our students. The evidence shows students who preserve through adversity are the most likely to engage and create meaningful impact in their respective fields. So, we look for students who show this potential. Once again, the test scores and grades are not enough to make a showing on this front. This is another reason why we end up rejecting perfect stat students and accepting students with lower stats (of all races, btw). We have seen big problems from students who cannot manage adversity, mainly because they have been cultivated to be academically or athletically successful (basically helicopter parenting). There's a hit for those kinds of kids because they struggle. First, when they arrive and inevitably run into an issue that they don't have the tools to effectively handle. And second, they tend to not push themselves or take risks academically, which basically produces bright but not innovative students. We want innovators and creators.

I think the top colleges, the Ivies and MIT etc can get both - the innovator risk taking creators who also have perfect scores.

PP I suspect you're from a middling college where you get less intake from the top score kids as you're more likely a 2nd choice or a safety.

Sigh. I am not going to out myself. I've worked at a few schools and they were the types of places people are clamoring to get into. I will say this. If you think insulting me will make you sleep better than junior will get that spot at Cal Tech, then have at it. I will just say that admissions over the past 10 years has really changed and the metrics and ideas of what is a successful applicant has changed dramatically, partially due to the extensive research on success.

I didn't write that to "insult" you. You're in the wrong business if you take offense at this kind of observation. It not going to be personal and you shouldn't attempt to attack people personally as a response. I really doubt you are a well behaved professional person and honestly hope to god none of my kids ever have to come across you in the admissions process.

You basically undermined everything you said previously by lowering yourself in that way. Shame on you, and get back to work you slacker.

not PP, but she didn't insult you. You don't work at a selective admissions office. How would you know what the reality looks like? Why are you going to try to be presumptuous when you literally have no experience whatsoever? Also, she did not say that the two- being a risk taker or being a high test performer- were necessarily exclusive. She said they get so many high test scores but not anywhere near as many risk takers, so even if the risk taker has slightly lower SATs, that's more impressive in the pool.

As for grit, it's well known that there aren't that many kids who're low income or URMs who get the 75% SAT for any top school, and that includes MIT and the Ivies. There are only 50 black kids in the nation who're getting 35 or 36 composite on the ACTs. It makes perfect sense to establish a grit measurement or to weigh those factors in context. All of the top colleges do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Appreciate all the feedback from folks in the admissions world. I had a couple of questions:

How can you tell whether a child has "grit" vs. being a parent-piloted drone? I'm sure in some cases it's obvious, like fleeing a war torn country and finding success here despite the odds, kids achieving in very low performing schools, etc. But are you going to assume that every child in a wealthy suburb has no grit just because they've been fortunate enough not to have encountered a lot of the worst of life?

PP who's posted earlier.

There are a few things. First, we look at school profiles, which contain a ton of data, including student performance and safety data. I am more impressed with a student who managed to do well on the SAT and got good grades while living in a dangerous city and attending failing schools. Because that student literally had to invent the wheel to the achieve. It requires much, much more initiative than simply attending a good school district that is well funded, performing well in classes and getting a similarly impressive SAT score while doing basic ECs that are just common across the applicant pool. Between these two kids, I am going to take the kid who managed to do well in spite of the obstacles because that kid has shown perseverance.

I do remember a student with a learning disability get into our school. His essay and recommendations demonstrated that the student effectively managed the learning difference in a way where he was able to score over the 95th percentile on the SAT. The essay and recs talked about his experience, tools, and effort he took to get there.

I think when it comes from kids in a wealthyish area, they need to show how they were able to achieve while taking risks, learning from mistakes, and why they think they can grow on our campus and contribute to the community. Many of these kids do the same stuff, the same resume check boxes, the same overseas service trips, the same everything. That's not going to cut it.

Thanks! I actually know a woman whose family moved from a tony NJ suburb to become goat farmers in the Ozarks in part because they thought it would give their kids a better shot at the Ivies, and it worked (on the Ivy part at least--sounds like they weren't very successful on the goat front). This was many years ago, so people have clearly been trying to game this part of admissions for quite some time.

I had another question: Do you consider parents' occupations beyond considering whether they might be huge financial donors if you accept their child? For example, would you assume that the child of two entrepreneurs might be more likely to change the world and bring honor and big bucks to your school than the child of two government employees, two lawyers, etc.?

Oh, and a couple more: How often do you give an otherwise unremarkable, unhooked kid an offer just because you and the other ad coms were so moved/amused/wowed by their essays? And can you really tell when someone has their application workshopped by a high-priced admissions consultant, as people so often claim on here? If yes, what are the signs?

Have you every come across an essay, recommendation or anything else in a kid's application that is so amazingly awful that you flagged it for the amusement of your fellow committee members?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Appreciate all the feedback from folks in the admissions world. I had a couple of questions:

How can you tell whether a child has "grit" vs. being a parent-piloted drone? I'm sure in some cases it's obvious, like fleeing a war torn country and finding success here despite the odds, kids achieving in very low performing schools, etc. But are you going to assume that every child in a wealthy suburb has no grit just because they've been fortunate enough not to have encountered a lot of the worst of life?

PP who's posted earlier.

There are a few things. First, we look at school profiles, which contain a ton of data, including student performance and safety data. I am more impressed with a student who managed to do well on the SAT and got good grades while living in a dangerous city and attending failing schools. Because that student literally had to invent the wheel to the achieve. It requires much, much more initiative than simply attending a good school district that is well funded, performing well in classes and getting a similarly impressive SAT score while doing basic ECs that are just common across the applicant pool. Between these two kids, I am going to take the kid who managed to do well in spite of the obstacles because that kid has shown perseverance.

I do remember a student with a learning disability get into our school. His essay and recommendations demonstrated that the student effectively managed the learning difference in a way where he was able to score over the 95th percentile on the SAT. The essay and recs talked about his experience, tools, and effort he took to get there.

I think when it comes from kids in a wealthyish area, they need to show how they were able to achieve while taking risks, learning from mistakes, and why they think they can grow on our campus and contribute to the community. Many of these kids do the same stuff, the same resume check boxes, the same overseas service trips, the same everything. That's not going to cut it.

Thanks! I actually know a woman whose family moved from a tony NJ suburb to become goat farmers in the Ozarks in part because they thought it would give their kids a better shot at the Ivies, and it worked (on the Ivy part at least--sounds like they weren't very successful on the goat front). This was many years ago, so people have clearly been trying to game this part of admissions for quite some time.

I had another question: Do you consider parents' occupations beyond considering whether they might be huge financial donors if you accept their child? For example, would you assume that the child of two entrepreneurs might be more likely to change the world and bring honor and big bucks to your school than the child of two government employees, two lawyers, etc.?

Oh, and a couple more: How often do you give an otherwise unremarkable, unhooked kid an offer just because you and the other ad coms were so moved/amused/wowed by their essays? And can you really tell when someone has their application workshopped by a high-priced admissions consultant, as people so often claim on here? If yes, what are the signs?

Have you every come across an essay, recommendation or anything else in a kid's application that is so amazingly awful that you flagged it for the amusement of your fellow committee members?

Ha! Goat farmers. I don't consider the parents' jobs. I do think we all see a lot of the things people do to game the system. I actually think some of the science competitions, for example, do not carry the weight people think they do. I don't think it's impressive to spend 5K to volunteer overseas for the summer. So, don't waste your money.

I can give you an example of someone who was unhooked who got admitted because it stuck in my head. It was a young woman who wanted to study linguistics. She had taken foreign language classes since a young age, worked at camps teaching a foreign language, and volunteered to teach ESL to people who spoke the language she had learned. She had a genuine interest in the field and while her scores were squarely at our bottom 25th percentile, she got in. She was able to explain why her love of language would be an asset to our learning community.

[Anonymous]

Higher Ed admin here: if I were your supervisor and caught you doing this, I might actually fire you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Higher Ed admin here: if I were your supervisor and caught you doing this, I might actually fire you.

Shrug. I am over this whole gig anyway.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Higher Ed admin here: if I were your supervisor and caught you doing this, I might actually fire you.

Why would you want to fire someone who does this? What harm do you see it doing to your organization? Do you prefer to make sure that all the desperate applicants and their families remain in the dark about what actually goes on in the admissions process? If so, why?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Higher Ed admin here: if I were your supervisor and caught you doing this, I might actually fire you.

Why would you want to fire someone who does this? What harm do you see it doing to your organization? Do you prefer to make sure that all the desperate applicants and their families remain in the dark about what actually goes on in the admissions process? If so, why?

PP here. Exactly my point. I honestly don't care and am FINALLY free in terms of this season. Everything is just in processing. I am literally long hair don't care! We have about a month of intense work and then it's down time until late summer.

[Anonymous]

Just curious--if you had to choose the best undergraduate education for your children where would you send them? Can you post a list of schools that you particularly admire? (FWIW, I'm a professor, and I have my own ideas.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Just curious--if you had to choose the best undergraduate education for your children where would you send them? Can you post a list of schools that you particularly admire? (FWIW, I'm a professor, and I have my own ideas.)

What do you think? If money or admissions was no barrier, where would you send your child?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Higher Ed admin here: if I were your supervisor and caught you doing this, I might actually fire you.

LOL. Having gone through the highly selective admissions process last year, this is what's wrong with it in a nutshell. Why does everything have to be shrouded behind some curtain of mystery? I'm very impressed with both UVA and William & Mary for their admissions blogs, which share as much information as they can, as quickly as possible. The better informed applicants and their parents are, the better they can manage their search process. In particular, I wish highly selective schools were far more forthright with extremely detailed information (e.g., "Only 3% of non-URM applicants with SATs below 2100 were accepted and they were all recruited athletes"), instead of this "holistic" stuff, which just inspires kids with no hopes of being accepted to apply.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I worked in admissions at a highly regarded school. I think I can add a few points to the thread.

First, scores matter, like OP said, but there is a floor and 80 percent of the applicants clear it. We don't chase the highest scores because we have enough of a pool of applicants to stay competitive. In my experience, if you are hanging your hat on high scores and grades, that is not going to be enough to make the cut and you will be disappointed to learn that there are a plurality of people with worse grades and scores who will get in.

Why? Because we need to fill a university with a bunch of different kinds of people with different interests. So, an applicant is not competing with the entire pool. They are competing with like-minded and interested students. So, we consult with coaches about sports needs and look at that applicant pool differently than we would a generic applicant with perfect scores and grades. We do the same with programmatic interests. So, for example, we look at science students through a different lens. Same goes for specialty programs. That's why a hook is so important. We look for people who will contribute to the school, who will provide something that adds to the campus community. At another college I worked for, we needed people in the damn marching band. That applicant pool got looked into differently and it was much easier to get an acceptance when the student expressed an interest in joining the band.

And now, the race question. First, almost all of the minority students basically clear that floor that everyone needs to in order to get a spot. If anything, I found myself frustrated by guidance counselors who would not support minority applicants because they either thought it was futile or were basically against AA. That basically kept plenty of qualified minority students from even attempting to apply. The students go through the same process I explained above and basically from there the decisions fall.

We also have something basically called a grit index, which we apply to all of our students. The evidence shows students who preserve through adversity are the most likely to engage and create meaningful impact in their respective fields. So, we look for students who show this potential. Once again, the test scores and grades are not enough to make a showing on this front. This is another reason why we end up rejecting perfect stat students and accepting students with lower stats (of all races, btw). We have seen big problems from students who cannot manage adversity, mainly because they have been cultivated to be academically or athletically successful (basically helicopter parenting). There's a hit for those kinds of kids because they struggle. First, when they arrive and inevitably run into an issue that they don't have the tools to effectively handle. And second, they tend to not push themselves or take risks academically, which basically produces bright but not innovative students. We want innovators and creators.

I think the top colleges, the Ivies and MIT etc can get both - the innovator risk taking creators who also have perfect scores.

PP I suspect you're from a middling college where you get less intake from the top score kids as you're more likely a 2nd choice or a safety.

Sigh. I am not going to out myself. I've worked at a few schools and they were the types of places people are clamoring to get into. I will say this. If you think insulting me will make you sleep better than junior will get that spot at Cal Tech, then have at it. I will just say that admissions over the past 10 years has really changed and the metrics and ideas of what is a successful applicant has changed dramatically, partially due to the extensive research on success.

I didn't write that to "insult" you. You're in the wrong business if you take offense at this kind of observation. It not going to be personal and you shouldn't attempt to attack people personally as a response. I really doubt you are a well behaved professional person and honestly hope to god none of my kids ever have to come across you in the admissions process.

You basically undermined everything you said previously by lowering yourself in that way. Shame on you, and get back to work you slacker.

not PP, but she didn't insult you. You don't work at a selective admissions office. How would you know what the reality looks like? Why are you going to try to be presumptuous when you literally have no experience whatsoever? Also, she did not say that the two- being a risk taker or being a high test performer- were necessarily exclusive. She said they get so many high test scores but not anywhere near as many risk takers, so even if the risk taker has slightly lower SATs, that's more impressive in the pool.

As for grit, it's well known that there aren't that many kids who're low income or URMs who get the 75% SAT for any top school, and that includes MIT and the Ivies. There are only 50 black kids in the nation who're getting 35 or 36 composite on the ACTs. It makes perfect sense to establish a grit measurement or to weigh those factors in context. All of the top colleges do.

actually there are lots of low income that do hit the 75% score threshold for top schools - but they are Asian or white. data has shown if we had race blind admissions, but only SES based boosts, URM's would be swamped out.

Low income Asians score higher than urms from higher incomes.

top colleges do a poor job measuring grit because they'll take a rich or middle class URM that scored 200 pts lower than a poor Asian. its totally asinine.

[Anonymous]

urms don't have a 'slightly' higher admit rate. its marked higher at certain elite schools.

'slightly higher' asserts that its within a 5% gap - that's not the case.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Higher Ed admin here: if I were your supervisor and caught you doing this, I might actually fire you.

LOL. Having gone through the highly selective admissions process last year, this is what's wrong with it in a nutshell. Why does everything have to be shrouded behind some curtain of mystery? I'm very impressed with both UVA and William & Mary for their admissions blogs, which share as much information as they can, as quickly as possible. The better informed applicants and their parents are, the better they can manage their search process. In particular, I wish highly selective schools were far more forthright with extremely detailed information (e.g., "Only 3% of non-URM applicants with SATs below 2100 were accepted and they were all recruited athletes"), instead of this "holistic" stuff, which just inspires kids with no hopes of being accepted to apply.

What do URM admit rates have to do with other a non-URM's search process?