Insider Perspectives from a Highly Selective Admissions Office

[Anonymous]

Does anyone know the answer to this question? Do colleges give the results to the high schools or do they only find out as students self-report?

I know the answer and any Fairfax counselor would as well. Just ask them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Does anyone know the answer to this question? Do colleges give the results to the high schools or do they only find out as students self-report?

I know the answer and any Fairfax counselor would as well. Just ask them.

Why not just give the answer if you know it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No college admissions offices notify high school's of admissions results--specifically, which of their students have been accepted, denied, waitlisted?

Does anyone know the answer to this question? Do colleges give the results to the high schools or do they only find out as students self-report?

Don't know how it is these days, but my school knew where I was admitted without me telling them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No college admissions offices notify high school's of admissions results--specifically, which of their students have been accepted, denied, waitlisted?

Does anyone know the answer to this question? Do colleges give the results to the high schools or do they only find out as students self-report?

Don't know how it is these days, but my school knew where I was admitted without me telling them.

Same here. My college even notified my high school when I graduated.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Does anyone know the answer to this question? Do colleges give the results to the high schools or do they only find out as students self-report?

I know the answer and any Fairfax counselor would as well. Just ask them.

Why not just give the answer if you know it?

Seriously! What's the point of coming on here to say that you know the answer and then fail to share it? It's hardly classified information, and it will help people figure out how much they can rely on Naviance.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To the above pps saying that colleges want bright, motivated kids from mediocre or low income areas over typical affluent generic white kids - while I agree with you that such kids are admirable and full of grit and perseverance, I doubt colleges take many from this category. My nephew just started at a highly ranked ivy this year and said he is amazed at the level of affluence of most of the kids. Not just upper middle class but seriously wealthy. Don't colleges still want the vast majority of students to be wealthy as that is where the money comes from. Also, while some wealth in this country is newly acquired, a large % of it is family wealth is passed down through generations. Makes sense that colleges and universities want to keep that spigot flowing. Unless you are talking about Amherst or Middlebury, most of the slots go to the top grade performers of private schools and well off suburban white schools.

PP who recently posted. That's actually not the point. We can completely fill our classes with perfect scores and grades. These are almost entirely from wealthy area, so your son has a point.

But we do make an effort to have economic diversity and to seek applicants who have achieved past adversity. And we look for people to fill specific roles on our campus. That applicant pool for some reason is much, much smaller.

I was trying to explain why so many high stat applicants do not get in. I don't think I made my point clear, but I am trying to explain that it isn't race.[b] I see these threads and I just think...well...maybe I can give some clarity.

How are you so sure it isn't race unless you come from a school where that is not allowed to be a factor. If your school allows for certain races easier entry then it must at least partly due to race.

+1M

It's literally not true. Is there a correlation between awful schools and race and does that correlation play out in the admissions pool? Of course. Because more minority children are raised in poverty and difficult conditions. But we are not looking at race when we are trying judge an applicant. Like I said, all of our applicants clear the floor. Once they clear the floor, we are looking for three things.

First, we want to source students who will contribute to our campus. Specific programs, sports, endowment (legacy), cache (celebrity admits), etc. These applicants all fall into different pools and you would probably lose your stuff when I tell you the easiest admissions odds basically goes to celebrities, extremely wealthy people's children, and athletes.

Second, we look at grades, scores, essays, etc. If we did a straight GPA and SAT cut off, we could fill our class with perfect scores basically. We don't. We look for students who have demonstrated an interest in being a big thinker, a creator, an innovator, etc. We look for people who have overcome a lot and have shown strength through true adversity because the data shows that these are the people who go on to do amazing things in the world and do really well here. I can attest that after years of dealing with students who aren't emotionally or socially equipped for college, this has really cut back on the perfect sheep and helicopter issues that were so prevalent ten years ago.

But go ahead and hang your hat on race. That's fine. I think it's more telling and interesting when people refuse to acknowledge the privilege inequity built into the primary education system in this country. It takes a lot of grit to excel and flourish in difficult circumstances. It takes a lot less to be a cultivated flower in a greenhouse.

[Anonymous]

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.

I agree with this. OP - I love your posts; they have been very informative. But I agree with PP that you work at a selective college, not at one of the most selective colleges, i.e. certainly not at any of the Ivies/MIT/Stanford/SLAC. Elite schools have a lot of applicants who have both extremely high grades & SAT scores, as well as extracurricular activities.

Reading what you wrote above - you sound like an employee at a place like University of Denver or Tufts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Does anyone know the answer to this question? Do colleges give the results to the high schools or do they only find out as students self-report?

I know the answer and any Fairfax counselor would as well. Just ask them.

Well, it is a little difficult to ask a "Fairfax" counselor if you are in the Fairfax school system. This smacks of the "I know something you don't know" mentality of a kindergartener.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To the above pps saying that colleges want bright, motivated kids from mediocre or low income areas over typical affluent generic white kids - while I agree with you that such kids are admirable and full of grit and perseverance, I doubt colleges take many from this category. My nephew just started at a highly ranked ivy this year and said he is amazed at the level of affluence of most of the kids. Not just upper middle class but seriously wealthy. Don't colleges still want the vast majority of students to be wealthy as that is where the money comes from. Also, while some wealth in this country is newly acquired, a large % of it is family wealth is passed down through generations. Makes sense that colleges and universities want to keep that spigot flowing. Unless you are talking about Amherst or Middlebury, most of the slots go to the top grade performers of private schools and well off suburban white schools.

PP who recently posted. That's actually not the point. We can completely fill our classes with perfect scores and grades. These are almost entirely from wealthy area, so your son has a point.

But we do make an effort to have economic diversity and to seek applicants who have achieved past adversity. And we look for people to fill specific roles on our campus. That applicant pool for some reason is much, much smaller.

I was trying to explain why so many high stat applicants do not get in. I don't think I made my point clear, but I am trying to explain that it isn't race.[b] I see these threads and I just think...well...maybe I can give some clarity.

How are you so sure it isn't race unless you come from a school where that is not allowed to be a factor. If your school allows for certain races easier entry then it must at least partly due to race.

+1M

It's literally not true. Is there a correlation between awful schools and race and does that correlation play out in the admissions pool? Of course. Because more minority children are raised in poverty and difficult conditions. But we are not looking at race when we are trying judge an applicant. Like I said, all of our applicants clear the floor. Once they clear the floor, we are looking for three things.

First, we want to source students who will contribute to our campus. Specific programs, sports, endowment (legacy), cache (celebrity admits), etc. These applicants all fall into different pools and you would probably lose your stuff when I tell you the easiest admissions odds basically goes to celebrities, extremely wealthy people's children, and athletes.

Second, we look at grades, scores, essays, etc. If we did a straight GPA and SAT cut off, we could fill our class with perfect scores basically. We don't. We look for students who have demonstrated an interest in being a big thinker, a creator, an innovator, etc. We look for people who have overcome a lot and have shown strength through true adversity because the data shows that these are the people who go on to do amazing things in the world and do really well here. I can attest that after years of dealing with students who aren't emotionally or socially equipped for college, this has really cut back on the perfect sheep and helicopter issues that were so prevalent ten years ago.

But go ahead and hang your hat on race. That's fine. I think it's more telling and interesting when people refuse to acknowledge the privilege inequity built into the primary education system in this country. It takes a lot of grit to excel and flourish in difficult circumstances. It takes a lot less to be a cultivated flower in a greenhouse.

No one is saying that it doesn't take "grit" to excel in impoverished homes and school systems. However, the "race" factor in college admissions is not limited to a boost only to URMs from impoverished homes. An URM with two Ivy league educated parents presumably has no more grit than the middle class kid from nowhere or the Asian kid and yet the URM gets the boost. No wonder people are frustrated.

[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.

I agree with this. OP - I love your posts; they have been very informative. But I agree with PP that you work at a selective college, not at one of the most selective colleges, i.e. certainly not at any of the Ivies/MIT/Stanford/SLAC. Elite schools have a lot of applicants who have both extremely high grades & SAT scores, as well as extracurricular activities.

Reading what you wrote above - you sound like an employee at a place like University of Denver or Tufts.

Hate to burst your bubble, but I work at a selective school that would/could be part of the category of schools you listed. Like I said, last year we could have filled our classes with 4.0+ and 2300+ students and met yield. We didn't and it was a conscious decision.

[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.

I agree with this. OP - I love your posts; they have been very informative. But I agree with PP that you work at a selective college, not at one of the most selective colleges, i.e. certainly not at any of the Ivies/MIT/Stanford/SLAC. Elite schools have a lot of applicants who have both extremely high grades & SAT scores, as well as extracurricular activities.

Reading what you wrote above - you sound like an employee at a place like University of Denver or Tufts.

Hate to burst your bubble, but I work at a selective school that would/could be part of the category of schools you listed. Like I said, last year we could have filled our classes with 4.0+ and 2300+ students and met yield. We didn't and it was a conscious decision.

You didn't because you weren't getting enough candidates that had 4.0+, 2300+ stats WHILE ALSO having the other factors you were looking for. Point is that elite schools get enough candidates that have both the stats and other factors to get the yield.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To the above pps saying that colleges want bright, motivated kids from mediocre or low income areas over typical affluent generic white kids - while I agree with you that such kids are admirable and full of grit and perseverance, I doubt colleges take many from this category. My nephew just started at a highly ranked ivy this year and said he is amazed at the level of affluence of most of the kids. Not just upper middle class but seriously wealthy. Don't colleges still want the vast majority of students to be wealthy as that is where the money comes from. Also, while some wealth in this country is newly acquired, a large % of it is family wealth is passed down through generations. Makes sense that colleges and universities want to keep that spigot flowing. Unless you are talking about Amherst or Middlebury, most of the slots go to the top grade performers of private schools and well off suburban white schools.

PP who recently posted. That's actually not the point. We can completely fill our classes with perfect scores and grades. These are almost entirely from wealthy area, so your son has a point.

But we do make an effort to have economic diversity and to seek applicants who have achieved past adversity. And we look for people to fill specific roles on our campus. That applicant pool for some reason is much, much smaller.

I was trying to explain why so many high stat applicants do not get in. I don't think I made my point clear, but I am trying to explain that it isn't race.[b] I see these threads and I just think...well...maybe I can give some clarity.

How are you so sure it isn't race unless you come from a school where that is not allowed to be a factor. If your school allows for certain races easier entry then it must at least partly due to race.

+1M

It's literally not true. Is there a correlation between awful schools and race and does that correlation play out in the admissions pool? Of course. Because more minority children are raised in poverty and difficult conditions. But we are not looking at race when we are trying judge an applicant. Like I said, all of our applicants clear the floor. Once they clear the floor, we are looking for three things.

First, we want to source students who will contribute to our campus. Specific programs, sports, endowment (legacy), cache (celebrity admits), etc. These applicants all fall into different pools and you would probably lose your stuff when I tell you the easiest admissions odds basically goes to celebrities, extremely wealthy people's children, and athletes.

Second, we look at grades, scores, essays, etc. If we did a straight GPA and SAT cut off, we could fill our class with perfect scores basically. We don't. We look for students who have demonstrated an interest in being a big thinker, a creator, an innovator, etc. We look for people who have overcome a lot and have shown strength through true adversity because the data shows that these are the people who go on to do amazing things in the world and do really well here. I can attest that after years of dealing with students who aren't emotionally or socially equipped for college, this has really cut back on the perfect sheep and helicopter issues that were so prevalent ten years ago.

But go ahead and hang your hat on race. That's fine. I think it's more telling and interesting when people refuse to acknowledge the privilege inequity built into the primary education system in this country. It takes a lot of grit to excel and flourish in difficult circumstances. It takes a lot less to be a cultivated flower in a greenhouse.

No one is saying that it doesn't take "grit" to excel in impoverished homes and school systems. However, the "race" factor in college admissions is not limited to a boost only to URMs from impoverished homes. An URM with two Ivy league educated parents presumably has no more grit than the middle class kid from nowhere or the Asian kid and yet the URM gets the boost. No wonder people are frustrated.

Furthermore, op, it is pretty racist in and of itself to state of imply that URMs need the boost because they are, of course, from uneducated households, poor neighborhoods and sub-par school systems.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To the above pps saying that colleges want bright, motivated kids from mediocre or low income areas over typical affluent generic white kids - while I agree with you that such kids are admirable and full of grit and perseverance, I doubt colleges take many from this category. My nephew just started at a highly ranked ivy this year and said he is amazed at the level of affluence of most of the kids. Not just upper middle class but seriously wealthy. Don't colleges still want the vast majority of students to be wealthy as that is where the money comes from. Also, while some wealth in this country is newly acquired, a large % of it is family wealth is passed down through generations. Makes sense that colleges and universities want to keep that spigot flowing. Unless you are talking about Amherst or Middlebury, most of the slots go to the top grade performers of private schools and well off suburban white schools.

PP who recently posted. That's actually not the point. We can completely fill our classes with perfect scores and grades. These are almost entirely from wealthy area, so your son has a point.

But we do make an effort to have economic diversity and to seek applicants who have achieved past adversity. And we look for people to fill specific roles on our campus. That applicant pool for some reason is much, much smaller.

I was trying to explain why so many high stat applicants do not get in. I don't think I made my point clear, but I am trying to explain that it isn't race.[b] I see these threads and I just think...well...maybe I can give some clarity.

How are you so sure it isn't race unless you come from a school where that is not allowed to be a factor. If your school allows for certain races easier entry then it must at least partly due to race.

+1M

It's literally not true. Is there a correlation between awful schools and race and does that correlation play out in the admissions pool? Of course. Because more minority children are raised in poverty and difficult conditions. But we are not looking at race when we are trying judge an applicant. Like I said, all of our applicants clear the floor. Once they clear the floor, we are looking for three things.

First, we want to source students who will contribute to our campus. Specific programs, sports, endowment (legacy), cache (celebrity admits), etc. These applicants all fall into different pools and you would probably lose your stuff when I tell you the easiest admissions odds basically goes to celebrities, extremely wealthy people's children, and athletes.

Second, we look at grades, scores, essays, etc. If we did a straight GPA and SAT cut off, we could fill our class with perfect scores basically. We don't. We look for students who have demonstrated an interest in being a big thinker, a creator, an innovator, etc. We look for people who have overcome a lot and have shown strength through true adversity because the data shows that these are the people who go on to do amazing things in the world and do really well here. I can attest that after years of dealing with students who aren't emotionally or socially equipped for college, this has really cut back on the perfect sheep and helicopter issues that were so prevalent ten years ago.

But go ahead and hang your hat on race. That's fine. I think it's more telling and interesting when people refuse to acknowledge the privilege inequity built into the primary education system in this country. It takes a lot of grit to excel and flourish in difficult circumstances. It takes a lot less to be a cultivated flower in a greenhouse.

No one is saying that it doesn't take "grit" to excel in impoverished homes and school systems. However, the "race" factor in college admissions is not limited to a boost only to URMs from impoverished homes. An URM with two Ivy league educated parents presumably has no more grit than the middle class kid from nowhere or the Asian kid and yet the URM gets the boost. No wonder people are frustrated.

Furthermore, op, it is pretty racist in and of itself to state of imply that URMs need the boost because they are, of course, from uneducated households, poor neighborhoods and sub-par school systems.

If we are going to social engineer (and that debate is left for another thread), the most logical course would be to social engineer via socioeconomic class and not a race based system--grit is grit no matter what the color of your skin.

[Anonymous]

At Harvard, there were 39,041 applicants for the Class of 2020. Only 2,106 were admitted. Of those, just 289 were African-American. If Harvard just didn't accept any Black students, regardless of qualifications, that would mean the non-Black admission rate would go up by 0.7%. Don't blame affirmative action for your child's rejection. There 99 other reasons he didn't get in and affirmative action isn't one of them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:At Harvard, there were 39,041 applicants for the Class of 2020. Only 2,106 were admitted. Of those, just 289 were African-American. If Harvard just didn't accept any Black students, regardless of qualifications, that would mean the non-Black admission rate would go up by 0.7%. Don't blame affirmative action for your child's rejection. There 99 other reasons he didn't get in and affirmative action isn't one of them.

What about the latinos/hispanic advantage? I don't have the numbers for that but i would assume its probably equal or more than black students? There may be 99 other reasons but race IS certainly one of them. Especially if you are ASIAN.