Insider Perspectives from a Highly Selective Admissions Office

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

At Yale, jews represent 28% of the student body, asians represent 21%. Jews represent 2% of the US population, asians represent 5.6% So jews are represented 14x the expected rates while asians are represented under 4x the expected rate.

How do you know this? How do you know Jews aren't 10x or 14x more likely to apply to Yale than gentile peers?

Are you alleging there's a conspiracy to admit more Jews? How would an entire university go about doing that without that collusion eventually leaking and leading to a huge whistle blower lawsuit? How does admissions know a student is Jewish?

Why did this outgoing talented Jewish student get rejected from every top 20 university?

She is obnoxious. So glad she didn't get in. MCPS weighs their grades so highly it is almost impossible to NOT get an A. They also give a full point higher in honors and AP's. There are so many over achievers out there with close to 5.0 GPA. I watched a video on Amherst admissions round table and one kid had a 6.5 GPA. What the heck is that? Admissions weeds out ones that seem fake, put together. If she was on par with many kids in her school, didn't play sports or theater/music and only focused on grades, she is vanilla. And yes, if she was Latino, she would have been a shoe in. That part sucks but she still doesn't seem so great to me. Fake actually.

I think she is utterly obnoxious and incredibly off-putting. That said, I agree wholeheartedly with what she wrote. College admissions these days really is a silly game. She was right about the resume padding, fake charities, overseas service trips, extensive ECs, etc. It's just all so ridiculous and is, indeed, a rat race.

But I'm also glad she didn't get in. She's insufferable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, what do you (and those in your office) think about the higher standards being placed on Asian American applicants?

It's a difficult topic. We receive thousands of applications from Asian Americans who score a 2200+ and who have a 4.0 UW or close to it. We know these students have worked immeasurably hard to achieve these goals. The reality is that our purpose is to bring people from all walks of life, and unfortunately, when Asians are already over-represented at campus, it's hard to admit more students without compromising the diversity we aim for. Our white % is already noticeably lower than the US Census; the Hispanic and African-American numbers are a little lower or around the same, but the Asian American number is much higher than the US Census. Most of our international students are Asians as well. I know that sounds hypocritical when our campus is so privileged socioeconomically, but our admit pool is ultimately a microcosm of the larger applicant pool- no matter how many adjustments we try to make- we receive a lot (and I mean a lot) more applications from rich students, we receive more applications from Asians than Blacks or Hispanics and just a few more Caucasian applications than Asian applications.

I see the value of a meritocracy similar to the UC system- admitting students on the basis of their objective measures. My personal stance is that subjectives are as key to bringing the best and brightest. Were we to rely on just numbers, we'd exclude the student who graduated summa cum laude in our college but had only a 1750 SAT from her inner city background (real story, just happened last May). We'd exclude the valedictorian who had to work full time to support their family, and thus didn't have the ability to do test prep. Relying on objectives alone means eliminating the richness and complexity that is part of these students' lived backgrounds and experiences, and we just don't want to do that. We also want to make sure the students ARE capable of handling the work, hence the minimum expectations for GPA, test scores, etc. and a heavy consideration of academic potential by LORs.

isn't this the same argument used to hold jews down before?

Interesting point, so riddle me this. I'll use Yale as an example but the numbers are comparable at any top school. At Yale, jews represent 28% of the student body, asians represent 21%. Jews represent 2% of the US population, asians represent 5.6% So jews are represented 14x the expected rates while asians are represented under 4x the expected rate. Yet the college is concerned with over-representation of one group and not the other.....why is that? Could it be because Asians look different from others and thus are easily identifiable? And i like how the admissions officer effectively lumped the international asians in with asian-americans in his calculation of asian representation on campus.

Anti-Semitic!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, what do you (and those in your office) think about the higher standards being placed on Asian American applicants?

It's a difficult topic. We receive thousands of applications from Asian Americans who score a 2200+ and who have a 4.0 UW or close to it. We know these students have worked immeasurably hard to achieve these goals. The reality is that our purpose is to bring people from all walks of life, and unfortunately, when Asians are already over-represented at campus, it's hard to admit more students without compromising the diversity we aim for. Our white % is already noticeably lower than the US Census; the Hispanic and African-American numbers are a little lower or around the same, but the Asian American number is much higher than the US Census. Most of our international students are Asians as well. I know that sounds hypocritical when our campus is so privileged socioeconomically, but our admit pool is ultimately a microcosm of the larger applicant pool- no matter how many adjustments we try to make- we receive a lot (and I mean a lot) more applications from rich students, we receive more applications from Asians than Blacks or Hispanics and just a few more Caucasian applications than Asian applications.

I see the value of a meritocracy similar to the UC system- admitting students on the basis of their objective measures. My personal stance is that subjectives are as key to bringing the best and brightest. Were we to rely on just numbers, we'd exclude the student who graduated summa cum laude in our college but had only a 1750 SAT from her inner city background (real story, just happened last May). We'd exclude the valedictorian who had to work full time to support their family, and thus didn't have the ability to do test prep. Relying on objectives alone means eliminating the richness and complexity that is part of these students' lived backgrounds and experiences, and we just don't want to do that. We also want to make sure the students ARE capable of handling the work, hence the minimum expectations for GPA, test scores, etc. and a heavy consideration of academic potential by LORs.

isn't this the same argument used to hold jews down before?

Interesting point, so riddle me this. I'll use Yale as an example but the numbers are comparable at any top school. At Yale, jews represent 28% of the student body, asians represent 21%. Jews represent 2% of the US population, asians represent 5.6% So jews are represented 14x the expected rates while asians are represented under 4x the expected rate. Yet the college is concerned with over-representation of one group and not the other.....why is that? Could it be because Asians look different from others and thus are easily identifiable? And i like how the admissions officer effectively lumped the international asians in with asian-americans in his calculation of asian representation on campus.

Anti-Semitic!

Hah...you laugh but did you read the hysterical response from the poster upthread who thought the post was anti-semitic and pasted a video of the jewish kid who was rejected from selective schools to support her assertion? And while we are on the subject of that video, in what world did that fairly average girl (for applicants to selective colleges) think she would get into Princeton? Her whiney, bitter, entitled attitude was so off-putting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

At Yale, jews represent 28% of the student body, asians represent 21%. Jews represent 2% of the US population, asians represent 5.6% So jews are represented 14x the expected rates while asians are represented under 4x the expected rate.

How do you know this? How do you know Jews aren't 10x or 14x more likely to apply to Yale than gentile peers?

Are you alleging there's a conspiracy to admit more Jews? How would an entire university go about doing that without that collusion eventually leaking and leading to a huge whistle blower lawsuit? How does admissions know a student is Jewish?

Why did this outgoing talented Jewish student get rejected from every top 20 university?

Because her SAT scores were low. My DC had scores higher than hers and the college counselor was very clear that they made Ivy admissions a reach. DCs GPA was also higher. Funnily enough they appear to have ended up at the same college.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

At Yale, jews represent 28% of the student body, asians represent 21%. Jews represent 2% of the US population, asians represent 5.6% So jews are represented 14x the expected rates while asians are represented under 4x the expected rate.

How do you know this? How do you know Jews aren't 10x or 14x more likely to apply to Yale than gentile peers?

Are you alleging there's a conspiracy to admit more Jews? How would an entire university go about doing that without that collusion eventually leaking and leading to a huge whistle blower lawsuit? How does admissions know a student is Jewish?

Why did this outgoing talented Jewish student get rejected from every top 20 university?

Because her SAT scores were low. My DC had scores higher than hers and the college counselor was very clear that they made Ivy admissions a reach. DCs GPA was also higher. Funnily enough they appear to have ended up at the same college.

where did she get in? i know she's attending michigan.

I think she could've gotten into emory - that's where a lot of northeast jews go when they don't get into penn or above.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

At Yale, jews represent 28% of the student body, asians represent 21%. Jews represent 2% of the US population, asians represent 5.6% So jews are represented 14x the expected rates while asians are represented under 4x the expected rate.

How do you know this? How do you know Jews aren't 10x or 14x more likely to apply to Yale than gentile peers?

Are you alleging there's a conspiracy to admit more Jews? How would an entire university go about doing that without that collusion eventually leaking and leading to a huge whistle blower lawsuit? How does admissions know a student is Jewish?

Why did this outgoing talented Jewish student get rejected from every top 20 university?

Because her SAT scores were low. My DC had scores higher than hers and the college counselor was very clear that they made Ivy admissions a reach. DCs GPA was also higher. Funnily enough they appear to have ended up at the same college.

where did she get in? i know she's attending michigan.

I think she could've gotten into emory - that's where a lot of northeast jews go when they don't get into penn or above.

Sounded like she was going to Michigan. Her approach to college admissions was pretty dumb. She blasted out apps to a bunch of reaches, which she was delusional enough to think were matches, and then a bunch of state schools in the big ten. There are a number of great schools in between those cohorts including, as PP mentioned, Emory. Wash U., JHU, CMU, Georgetown, Tufts, BC, ND all might have been possibilities but her overall strategy was flawed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP, for anyone in the counseling community, where you work is becoming obvious from your posts.

Are you saying UPenn?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm really depressed by everything I'm hearing about the essay. The thing is that in my family we're pretty boring. We go to church and we eat dinner together and we eat vegetables and we mow the lawn.

I honestly don't think if you met my kid you'd think "Wow, what a fascinating individual!" You'd say -- Look, it's a white kid who plays the violin and takes advanced math. You probably wouldn't find me very fascinating either. None of us has eleventy thousand followers on Instagram. We dress in regular clothes -- nobody has dreadlocks or a nose ring or a tattoo.

In my mind, people who are charismatic and fascinating and quirky and funny are usually extroverts (which we're not in my family), and extremely self-confident (which no one in our family really is.). We're timid nerds who read books.

It feels a bit like you're saying that being invited to attend your university is like being invited to sit at the popular kid's table in the cafeteria in high school lunch period. I never sat there, but I always regarded that more as an accident of circumstance than as something I had to or could work on. Some of us are just less interesting. Kind of sad that these days you need to be brilliant AND fascinating, all by the age of 17.

Introverted kids are absolutely fascinating! I bet the intellectuals at UofC are more introverted than extroverted. You are short changing your kid PP. Help him identify his introverted interests.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, what do you (and those in your office) think about the higher standards being placed on Asian American applicants?

It's a difficult topic. We receive thousands of applications from Asian Americans who score a 2200+ and who have a 4.0 UW or close to it. We know these students have worked immeasurably hard to achieve these goals. The reality is that our purpose is to bring people from all walks of life, and unfortunately, when Asians are already over-represented at campus, it's hard to admit more students without compromising the diversity we aim for. Our white % is already noticeably lower than the US Census; the Hispanic and African-American numbers are a little lower or around the same, but the Asian American number is much higher than the US Census. Most of our international students are Asians as well. I know that sounds hypocritical when our campus is so privileged socioeconomically, but our admit pool is ultimately a microcosm of the larger applicant pool- no matter how many adjustments we try to make- we receive a lot (and I mean a lot) more applications from rich students, we receive more applications from Asians than Blacks or Hispanics and just a few more Caucasian applications than Asian applications.

I see the value of a meritocracy similar to the UC system- admitting students on the basis of their objective measures. My personal stance is that subjectives are as key to bringing the best and brightest. Were we to rely on just numbers, we'd exclude the student who graduated summa cum laude in our college but had only a 1750 SAT from her inner city background (real story, just happened last May). We'd exclude the valedictorian who had to work full time to support their family, and thus didn't have the ability to do test prep. Relying on objectives alone means eliminating the richness and complexity that is part of these students' lived backgrounds and experiences, and we just don't want to do that. We also want to make sure the students ARE capable of handling the work, hence the minimum expectations for GPA, test scores, etc. and a heavy consideration of academic potential by LORs.

isn't this the same argument used to hold jews down before?

Interesting point, so riddle me this. I'll use Yale as an example but the numbers are comparable at any top school. At Yale, jews represent 28% of the student body, asians represent 21%. Jews represent 2% of the US population, asians represent 5.6% So jews are represented 14x the expected rates while asians are represented under 4x the expected rate. Yet the college is concerned with over-representation of one group and not the other.....why is that? Could it be because Asians look different from others and thus are easily identifiable? And i like how the admissions officer effectively lumped the international asians in with asian-americans in his calculation of asian representation on campus.

Still awaiting any justification or rationalization for the above......

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, what do you (and those in your office) think about the higher standards being placed on Asian American applicants?

It's a difficult topic. We receive thousands of applications from Asian Americans who score a 2200+ and who have a 4.0 UW or close to it. We know these students have worked immeasurably hard to achieve these goals. The reality is that our purpose is to bring people from all walks of life, and unfortunately, when Asians are already over-represented at campus, it's hard to admit more students without compromising the diversity we aim for. Our white % is already noticeably lower than the US Census; the Hispanic and African-American numbers are a little lower or around the same, but the Asian American number is much higher than the US Census. Most of our international students are Asians as well. I know that sounds hypocritical when our campus is so privileged socioeconomically, but our admit pool is ultimately a microcosm of the larger applicant pool- no matter how many adjustments we try to make- we receive a lot (and I mean a lot) more applications from rich students, we receive more applications from Asians than Blacks or Hispanics and just a few more Caucasian applications than Asian applications.

I see the value of a meritocracy similar to the UC system- admitting students on the basis of their objective measures. My personal stance is that subjectives are as key to bringing the best and brightest. Were we to rely on just numbers, we'd exclude the student who graduated summa cum laude in our college but had only a 1750 SAT from her inner city background (real story, just happened last May). We'd exclude the valedictorian who had to work full time to support their family, and thus didn't have the ability to do test prep. Relying on objectives alone means eliminating the richness and complexity that is part of these students' lived backgrounds and experiences, and we just don't want to do that. We also want to make sure the students ARE capable of handling the work, hence the minimum expectations for GPA, test scores, etc. and a heavy consideration of academic potential by LORs.

isn't this the same argument used to hold jews down before?

Interesting point, so riddle me this. I'll use Yale as an example but the numbers are comparable at any top school. At Yale, jews represent 28% of the student body, asians represent 21%. Jews represent 2% of the US population, asians represent 5.6% So jews are represented 14x the expected rates while asians are represented under 4x the expected rate. Yet the college is concerned with over-representation of one group and not the other.....why is that? Could it be because Asians look different from others and thus are easily identifiable? And i like how the admissions officer effectively lumped the international asians in with asian-americans in his calculation of asian representation on campus.

Still awaiting any justification or rationalization for the above......

I don't recall religion being on the common app, or if it was neither of my kids completed that question. One of my kids is Jewish (we are a mix of multiple religions including Jewish and he has chosen to be Jewish) but doesn't look Jewish and doesn't have a Jewish name. So admissions offices would have no way to favor or disfavor him. What's the mix of other religions and which are underrepresented? Do you think a certain religion is being intentionally under admitted?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

At Yale, jews represent 28% of the student body, asians represent 21%. Jews represent 2% of the US population, asians represent 5.6% So jews are represented 14x the expected rates while asians are represented under 4x the expected rate.

How do you know this? How do you know Jews aren't 10x or 14x more likely to apply to Yale than gentile peers?

Are you alleging there's a conspiracy to admit more Jews? How would an entire university go about doing that without that collusion eventually leaking and leading to a huge whistle blower lawsuit? How does admissions know a student is Jewish?

Why did this outgoing talented Jewish student get rejected from every top 20 university?

Because her SAT scores were low. My DC had scores higher than hers and the college counselor was very clear that they made Ivy admissions a reach. DCs GPA was also higher. Funnily enough they appear to have ended up at the same college.

where did she get in? i know she's attending michigan.

I think she could've gotten into emory - that's where a lot of northeast jews go when they don't get into penn or above.

Sounded like she was going to Michigan. Her approach to college admissions was pretty dumb. She blasted out apps to a bunch of reaches, which she was delusional enough to think were matches, and then a bunch of state schools in the big ten. There are a number of great schools in between those cohorts including, as PP mentioned, Emory. Wash U., JHU, CMU, Georgetown, Tufts, BC, ND all might have been possibilities but her overall strategy was flawed.

I have two asian cousins from california with a similar profile to her and they didn't make her mistake - they applied to 30 schools a piece and ended up getting into the emory, jhu, cmu, washu, vandy tier. They were frozen out of all ivies.

She just had a bad application strategy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

At Yale, jews represent 28% of the student body, asians represent 21%. Jews represent 2% of the US population, asians represent 5.6% So jews are represented 14x the expected rates while asians are represented under 4x the expected rate.

How do you know this? How do you know Jews aren't 10x or 14x more likely to apply to Yale than gentile peers?

Are you alleging there's a conspiracy to admit more Jews? How would an entire university go about doing that without that collusion eventually leaking and leading to a huge whistle blower lawsuit? How does admissions know a student is Jewish?

Why did this outgoing talented Jewish student get rejected from every top 20 university?

Seriously? She says herself that her ECs involved scooping ice cream and her SATs were low. A WASP kid with similar credentials wouldn’t get into an elite school either.

This is 4-5 years old, btw. It came out about the time my kid got into a top 5 college. My kid scooped ice cream for a year—and also had state and national level awards in an EC and also spent a summer working in the field that was her intended major.

She’s right that the admissions process is out of control. But contrary to what she says, admissions officers are hip to the kids that spend 10 minutes “bonding” with poor Africans, and that’s not what tips admissions decisions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

At Yale, jews represent 28% of the student body, asians represent 21%. Jews represent 2% of the US population, asians represent 5.6% So jews are represented 14x the expected rates while asians are represented under 4x the expected rate.

How do you know this? How do you know Jews aren't 10x or 14x more likely to apply to Yale than gentile peers?

Are you alleging there's a conspiracy to admit more Jews? How would an entire university go about doing that without that collusion eventually leaking and leading to a huge whistle blower lawsuit? How does admissions know a student is Jewish?

Why did this outgoing talented Jewish student get rejected from every top 20 university?

Seriously? She says herself that her ECs involved scooping ice cream and her SATs were low. A WASP kid with similar credentials wouldn’t get into an elite school either.

This is 4-5 years old, btw. It came out about the time my kid got into a top 5 college. My kid scooped ice cream for a year—and also had state and national level awards in an EC and also spent a summer working in the field that was her intended major.

She’s right that the admissions process is out of control. But contrary to what she says, admissions officers are hip to the kids that spend 10 minutes “bonding” with poor Africans, and that’s not what tips admissions decisions.

Here’s her WSJ piece (she got an op-ed with them because her sister was in their staff). Note she laughs at the LGBT and Native American kids who were applying with her. She admits her qualifications were lacking... and blames her parents for not pushing her harder. PP’s anti-Semitism slant just goes to show that some see anti-Semitism under every rock.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

At Yale, jews represent 28% of the student body, asians represent 21%. Jews represent 2% of the US population, asians represent 5.6% So jews are represented 14x the expected rates while asians are represented under 4x the expected rate.

How do you know this? How do you know Jews aren't 10x or 14x more likely to apply to Yale than gentile peers?

Are you alleging there's a conspiracy to admit more Jews? How would an entire university go about doing that without that collusion eventually leaking and leading to a huge whistle blower lawsuit? How does admissions know a student is Jewish?

Why did this outgoing talented Jewish student get rejected from every top 20 university?

Seriously? She says herself that her ECs involved scooping ice cream and her SATs were low. A WASP kid with similar credentials wouldn’t get into an elite school either.

This is 4-5 years old, btw. It came out about the time my kid got into a top 5 college. My kid scooped ice cream for a year—and also had state and national level awards in an EC and also spent a summer working in the field that was her intended major.

She’s right that the admissions process is out of control. But contrary to what she says, admissions officers are hip to the kids that spend 10 minutes “bonding” with poor Africans, and that’s not what tips admissions decisions.

Here’s her WSJ piece (she got an op-ed with them because her sister was in their staff). Note she laughs at the LGBT and Native American kids who were applying with her. She admits her qualifications were lacking... and blames her parents for not pushing her harder. PP’s anti-Semitism slant just goes to show that some see anti-Semitism under every rock.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424127887324000704578390340064578654

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

At Yale, jews represent 28% of the student body, asians represent 21%. Jews represent 2% of the US population, asians represent 5.6% So jews are represented 14x the expected rates while asians are represented under 4x the expected rate.

How do you know this? How do you know Jews aren't 10x or 14x more likely to apply to Yale than gentile peers?

Are you alleging there's a conspiracy to admit more Jews? How would an entire university go about doing that without that collusion eventually leaking and leading to a huge whistle blower lawsuit? How does admissions know a student is Jewish?

Why did this outgoing talented Jewish student get rejected from every top 20 university?

Seriously? She says herself that her ECs involved scooping ice cream and her SATs were low. A WASP kid with similar credentials wouldn’t get into an elite school either.

This is 4-5 years old, btw. It came out about the time my kid got into a top 5 college. My kid scooped ice cream for a year—and also had state and national level awards in an EC and also spent a summer working in the field that was her intended major.

She’s right that the admissions process is out of control. But contrary to what she says, admissions officers are hip to the kids that spend 10 minutes “bonding” with poor Africans, and that’s not what tips admissions decisions.

Here’s her WSJ piece (she got an op-ed with them because her sister was in their staff). Note she laughs at the LGBT and Native American kids who were applying with her. She admits her qualifications were lacking... and blames her parents for not pushing her harder. PP’s anti-Semitism slant just goes to show that some see anti-Semitism under every rock.

+1000