small fixes to make this process more sane.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes. I like those rules, OP! I’ll add:

For application, these 2 questions:
-did you use ChatGPT for your application?
-did you hire an independent college counselor?
-did you SAT/ACT test prep services
-remove letter of recommendations

Plus:
-remove activities from 10 to 6 in CommonApp
-increase auditing of Applications due to rampant lying & cheating

I'd like to see some of this. Colleges will audit parents financial statements, but not this.

What I would propose to colleges: once you'd made your final admit list, audit 10-15% of them. Dartmouth admitted 578 kids. This wouldn't be hard. Audit 100 of them. Dartmouth has a staff that's over 10 people, so what I'm proposing is to spend 1-2 days on this. An hour per app. Just google. Maybe make a couple calls. And if you're finding a lot of information like (example from Who Gets in and Why): "Oh, that young woman we were impressed by who was a certified elephant whisperer [I forget the lingo], that was just something she got on a 6k tour of Thailand. [I know because I recently got an email promoting that teen tour]. Are we still impressed?"

And if what you find is you are throwing half these applications back into the WL pile, you need to rethink your process. At this point, I'd email the counselor that there was one application from their school that was initially passed and then failed upon review. Build the reputation of checking this stuff.

If you want to be bad ass - and I do - I would admit the 578 pending authorization of data and THEN email 10-15% that their app has been chosen at random for verification. And then rescind when appropriate. I think after a year or two you'd get much more honest data from the students.

I dont see this as such a big problem for big state schools, but .. maybe verify 2% after admissions to keep things honest.

The High School verifies the grades and graduation status.

The College Board verifies the SAT score.

The College Board verifies the AP scores.

The reference letters verify at least some of the claimed activities.

Things like Eagle Scout are verified by issuing organizations.

You mean like someone whole cloth creates a team sport and photoshops the students picture onto a water polo player?

Yeah the schools caught that and people went to prison.

How does the audit work anyway because the number the student provides for the reference is for Vandelay Industries, their friend answers the phone.

“Just audit 100 people” is definitely a statement from someone who has never run an audit or regulatory validation process.

I totally disagree with everything you are saying, but I adore the fact that you think Varsity Blues solved this problem. Like - clap, clap - solved! High five!

Also I work in HR and we vet apps all the time. If I had a team of 10 I could vet 100 apps in a day.

Yes vetting a 17 year old (many of whom don’t even have Photo ID or any employment record whatsoever) is simple.

Just call up their friends and family members, none of whom have incentive to lie.

Can I see your Credit Report? Don’t have one. I can’t legally sign contracts.

Can I talk to your former Boss? Don’t have one.

Can I talk to someone who knows you well? Sure here’s my Mom.

Someone who knows you well not in your family? Sure here’s my girlfriend.

Can I talk to your coach? Sure! (Puts 23 year old cousin on phone)

Can I talk to your landlord? Sure here’s my Mom again.

Remind me what databases you are finding these CHILDREN in to validate their data.

Half the time it’s not even legal to collect any data on them because again they are minors.

Can I talk to someone who supervised your charity trip? Yeah; he’s in Pakistan though and only speaks Urdu.

Can I talk to your landlord?? LOL. We do not call anyone's landlord. We look at the resume in front of us. I wouldn't need to speak to the tour guide of the Thai tour, I could just google it. And I'd see .. "I'll trust that this student took this tour, but the tour itself is not impressive and that fact that she got a piece of paper saying she's a Certified Elephant Whisperer is something all the kids get after a morning at the elephant sanctuary" There is, in fact, a ton of information about NFPs that is available, including the names of the people who filed the paperwork for the 501c3

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes. I like those rules, OP! I’ll add:

For application, these 2 questions:
-did you use ChatGPT for your application?
-did you hire an independent college counselor?
-did you SAT/ACT test prep services
-remove letter of recommendations

Plus:
-remove activities from 10 to 6 in CommonApp
-increase auditing of Applications due to rampant lying & cheating

I'd like to see some of this. Colleges will audit parents financial statements, but not this.

What I would propose to colleges: once you'd made your final admit list, audit 10-15% of them. Dartmouth admitted 578 kids. This wouldn't be hard. Audit 100 of them. Dartmouth has a staff that's over 10 people, so what I'm proposing is to spend 1-2 days on this. An hour per app. Just google. Maybe make a couple calls. And if you're finding a lot of information like (example from Who Gets in and Why): "Oh, that young woman we were impressed by who was a certified elephant whisperer [I forget the lingo], that was just something she got on a 6k tour of Thailand. [I know because I recently got an email promoting that teen tour]. Are we still impressed?"

And if what you find is you are throwing half these applications back into the WL pile, you need to rethink your process. At this point, I'd email the counselor that there was one application from their school that was initially passed and then failed upon review. Build the reputation of checking this stuff.

If you want to be bad ass - and I do - I would admit the 578 pending authorization of data and THEN email 10-15% that their app has been chosen at random for verification. And then rescind when appropriate. I think after a year or two you'd get much more honest data from the students.

I dont see this as such a big problem for big state schools, but .. maybe verify 2% after admissions to keep things honest.

The High School verifies the grades and graduation status.

The College Board verifies the SAT score.

The College Board verifies the AP scores.

The reference letters verify at least some of the claimed activities.

Things like Eagle Scout are verified by issuing organizations.

You mean like someone whole cloth creates a team sport and photoshops the students picture onto a water polo player?

Yeah the schools caught that and people went to prison.

How does the audit work anyway because the number the student provides for the reference is for Vandelay Industries, their friend answers the phone.

“Just audit 100 people” is definitely a statement from someone who has never run an audit or regulatory validation process.

I totally disagree with everything you are saying, but I adore the fact that you think Varsity Blues solved this problem. Like - clap, clap - solved! High five!

Also I work in HR and we vet apps all the time. If I had a team of 10 I could vet 100 apps in a day.

Yes vetting a 17 year old (many of whom don’t even have Photo ID or any employment record whatsoever) is simple.

Just call up their friends and family members, none of whom have incentive to lie.

Can I see your Credit Report? Don’t have one. I can’t legally sign contracts.

Can I talk to your former Boss? Don’t have one.

Can I talk to someone who knows you well? Sure here’s my Mom.

Someone who knows you well not in your family? Sure here’s my girlfriend.

Can I talk to your coach? Sure! (Puts 23 year old cousin on phone)

Can I talk to your landlord? Sure here’s my Mom again.

Remind me what databases you are finding these CHILDREN in to validate their data.

Half the time it’s not even legal to collect any data on them because again they are minors.

Can I talk to someone who supervised your charity trip? Yeah; he’s in Pakistan though and only speaks Urdu.

You are coming up with pretty extreme examples.

You list a HS varsity sport, AO goes to the school website, finds the coach and calls. That’s easy.

You list school extracurricular activities, again you go the school website and see if they list the teacher / advisor…or you call the main office and ask for the faculty advisor.

You say you volunteered at this charity…again simple google search for a contact. Most kids won’t claim a Pakistani charity.

If colleges decided to do this, they would put an efficient process in place.

Agree. And if colleges actually made a couple calls once in a while, word would get around at the school level. Don't make this up!

And agree that colleges did nothing w Varsity Blues. FBI got that because one of the parents was on the hook for another crime and gave this up as part of his deal. I'm still now sure that colleges are verifying sports information - which would really be easy to do. Sports stats are published.

[Anonymous]

Superscoring AND repeat administrations ("score hunting"?) of the SAT or ACT should be struck down as permissible unless colleges and universities are also prepared to allow applicants to ameliorate any grade on their transcript that they wish to improve upon. Grade inflation is already a Pandora's box, why not align it with this superscoring and repeat testing monster that so many succumb to?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes. I like those rules, OP! I’ll add:

For application, these 2 questions:
-did you use ChatGPT for your application?
-did you hire an independent college counselor?
-did you SAT/ACT test prep services
-remove letter of recommendations

Plus:
-remove activities from 10 to 6 in CommonApp
-increase auditing of Applications due to rampant lying & cheating

I'd like to see some of this. Colleges will audit parents financial statements, but not this.

What I would propose to colleges: once you'd made your final admit list, audit 10-15% of them. Dartmouth admitted 578 kids. This wouldn't be hard. Audit 100 of them. Dartmouth has a staff that's over 10 people, so what I'm proposing is to spend 1-2 days on this. An hour per app. Just google. Maybe make a couple calls. And if you're finding a lot of information like (example from Who Gets in and Why): "Oh, that young woman we were impressed by who was a certified elephant whisperer [I forget the lingo], that was just something she got on a 6k tour of Thailand. [I know because I recently got an email promoting that teen tour]. Are we still impressed?"

And if what you find is you are throwing half these applications back into the WL pile, you need to rethink your process. At this point, I'd email the counselor that there was one application from their school that was initially passed and then failed upon review. Build the reputation of checking this stuff.

If you want to be bad ass - and I do - I would admit the 578 pending authorization of data and THEN email 10-15% that their app has been chosen at random for verification. And then rescind when appropriate. I think after a year or two you'd get much more honest data from the students.

I dont see this as such a big problem for big state schools, but .. maybe verify 2% after admissions to keep things honest.

The High School verifies the grades and graduation status.

The College Board verifies the SAT score.

The College Board verifies the AP scores.

The reference letters verify at least some of the claimed activities.

Things like Eagle Scout are verified by issuing organizations.

You mean like someone whole cloth creates a team sport and photoshops the students picture onto a water polo player?

Yeah the schools caught that and people went to prison.

How does the audit work anyway because the number the student provides for the reference is for Vandelay Industries, their friend answers the phone.

“Just audit 100 people” is definitely a statement from someone who has never run an audit or regulatory validation process.

I totally disagree with everything you are saying, but I adore the fact that you think Varsity Blues solved this problem. Like - clap, clap - solved! High five!

Also I work in HR and we vet apps all the time. If I had a team of 10 I could vet 100 apps in a day.

Yes vetting a 17 year old (many of whom don’t even have Photo ID or any employment record whatsoever) is simple.

Just call up their friends and family members, none of whom have incentive to lie.

Can I see your Credit Report? Don’t have one. I can’t legally sign contracts.

Can I talk to your former Boss? Don’t have one.

Can I talk to someone who knows you well? Sure here’s my Mom.

Someone who knows you well not in your family? Sure here’s my girlfriend.

Can I talk to your coach? Sure! (Puts 23 year old cousin on phone)

Can I talk to your landlord? Sure here’s my Mom again.

Remind me what databases you are finding these CHILDREN in to validate their data.

Half the time it’s not even legal to collect any data on them because again they are minors.

Can I talk to someone who supervised your charity trip? Yeah; he’s in Pakistan though and only speaks Urdu.

You are coming up with pretty extreme examples.

You list a HS varsity sport, AO goes to the school website, finds the coach and calls. That’s easy.

You list school extracurricular activities, again you go the school website and see if they list the teacher / advisor…or you call the main office and ask for the faculty advisor.

You say you volunteered at this charity…again simple google search for a contact. Most kids won’t claim a Pakistani charity.

If colleges decided to do this, they would put an efficient process in place.

Also, I have a DC who is nationally ranked in a couple of things (think areas like chess and debate) and it’s dead easy to find them online. My other DC has won a lot of performing arts competitions and every one can be found online, including the first place notation. Volunteer work and anything they really do is pretty easy to find online. It’s the ECs you’d want to confirm, anyway, since you can’t fake grades and test scores.

[Anonymous]

I’m sorry but we just need to go back to basics. Test scores and grades. Yes prepping for tests is an “advantage” but also shows commitment and in reality only gets you so far. No one seems to complain about the GRE or the Bar exam. Eventually life is not about how “special” you are but how you can perform. Your boss is not going to keep you around if you can’t meet your numbers because you are first generation or do volunteer work.

[Anonymous]

Guys, please... if you can tell kids whose resume entries are faked, you don't think the people who do this for a living can?

They can.

Stop worrying about that. It's not a thing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’m sorry but we just need to go back to basics. Test scores and grades.

Who's this "we" you speak of?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The process is crazy. And the kids are suffering. I sometimes wish there was more groundswell for small fixes.

Would you agree to any of these? Or something else?

You can't apply to more than 20 schools via common app.

or

You can't sit for SAT or ACT more than twice (each, if you must). Nobody is up in arms that you can't take the AP exam over and over. you take it, if it's good you include it. if not, you move on. I know seniors who are waiting for scores from their Oct exam to see if they should include in their ED. These are kids who took it several times in Junior year. It's too much. I'd really be fine with a one and done SAT. or just use PSAT data.

or

Colleges must disclose Athlete and Legacy numbers in their ED data. I don't think ED is as beneficial for unhooked kids as we've been led to believe. But kids think they have to play this game

For #1, standardized testing isn't high stakes anymore. Test Optional is pretty much baked in the admissions process. Since colleges allow superscoriing en masse, I doubt there will be a "limit."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Guys, please... if you can tell kids whose resume entries are faked, you don't think the people who do this for a living can?

They can.

Stop worrying about that. It's not a thing.

I really don't believe this is true. 15 years ago, AOs loved those kids going to Kenya working in orphanages before they decided, wait a minute here ...

And now they LOVE the podcasts or YouTube channels or foundations. Those "passion projects" you don't know about because a student really only spend 4 days over the summer building that passion. It's kinda impossible to go through for a year or two not to see this play out.

I don't think it will last forever, but it's a thing now. The example about elephant helper given in the Jeff Selling book is real. And if you read that book at the same time they rejected a lower income applicant who had working 20+ hours a week as an activity, an amount of time the AdCom thought was not "realistic". Which is so crazy to me. Lots of kids do that. Both these examples would have been easy to dig into if a reader had 15 extra minutes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Guys, please... if you can tell kids whose resume entries are faked, you don't think the people who do this for a living can?

They can.

Stop worrying about that. It's not a thing.

let's remember the people who are "doing this for a living" have an average 3 years on the job. In the average are the Deans/AOs who have been there for 25+ years and the odds are your kids application will be read by someone doing this in their first or maybe 2nd.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Guys, please... if you can tell kids whose resume entries are faked, you don't think the people who do this for a living can?

They can.

Stop worrying about that. It's not a thing.

let's remember the people who are "doing this for a living" have an average 3 years on the job. In the average are the Deans/AOs who have been there for 25+ years and the odds are your kids application will be read by someone doing this in their first or maybe 2nd.

Even the newest adcom has more experience than the people on this forum. If they can tell, you can tell. Plus, there is institutional knowledge, training, and guidance given by the senior people.

[Anonymous]

Get rid of TO. Tests or test blind.
Get rid of ED.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are no AOs.

Every school publishes a minimum GPA and test score. Everyone who qualifies is put into a pool and a blind lottery is held to select the freshman class.

So no more concern about intended majors, specific skills, or building a class to fit their mission... just WHAM! Here you go Harvard, 1,200 CS students, 600 economists and no artists, dancers, right fielders or kids to write for the Lampoon!

So crazy. Worst idea ever.

So out of a pool of 50 or 60 thousand people (100k if you are NYU or UCLA or Michigan) you think a random sample of 5% to 20% of them won’t yield any diversity of race, gender, income, interests and skills?

More like “I don’t want to play any game that’s not rigged in my favor”

Harvard doesn’t recruit for the Lampoon, they have no idea who is funny up front. It’s tryout based. Anyone can show up and pitch to be in the club.

No it probably won't. They could easily end up with an entire class of CS/engineering if they pick the highest GPA/test scores. And we already know those from a higher income background tend to have higher test scores and gpas overall simply from all the support they have to ensure this happens. I am glad Harvard gives the 3.8/3.9 kid from inner city Chicago who has more daily struggles than most a chance, because that kid might just be smarter than all the 4.0/perfect resumes from years of tutoring and curating.

Yes, let's undercut applicants who HAVE demonstrated merit for those who MIGHT demonstrate merit later. I don't disagree that the strategy you describe may lead to some positive outcomes (both for the latter kid, and the student population overall), but let's not pretend that it's fair or sensible (or defensible to the kid who DID demonstrate merit). It's just another form of social engineering.

Says a person of privilege.

First, the difference between a 4.0 and a 3.8 is not really that much. Just like the difference between 1500 and 1600 is minimal. So you need to get over the notion that your kid with a 4.0 is somehow better/smarter/more successful than a kid with a 3.9 or a 3.8. We are not comparing them to a 3.0 student.

Secondly, yes that kid who had to struggle to achieve everything they've gotten is someone most people would happily put on their team. Hence why most colleges want to include those bright shining stars in their class. What you seem not to get is it's the Whole picture, so that person tells a story of drive, determination, overcoming hardships, and succeeding in life. They did demonstrate merit. You are just upset elite colleges don't want to fill their classes with all 1600/4.0/15+ AP students. You cannot understand why they'd want some kids with a 1500 and 3.85 and all the APs their school offered (which might be 3 or 4)

Your kid will do fine wherever they go. And your kid is not entitled to a T25 education, no matter what you think

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you want to make things saner, do the following:

1. Get rid of Test Optional. A school should either require the test or be test blind. TO all of a sudden makes a school's average SAT score a 1550 when it was 1470 the year before TO came into existence. So much stress and strategizing over whether to submit or not;

2. Make every kid check a box Yes or No...did you use a college counselor or any 3rd party help outside of your family or school. If you check Yes, your application will be subject to a more stringent standard. This would decimate the 3rd party college counseling business and make it more sane for all. Sure, some people may lie and click No, but they could say they conduct random audits (even if they don't);

3. Same disclaimer for any NPOs or businesses that the kid claims to have founded on their own. Your application will be subject to a random audit where the AO will ask pointed questions on how you incorporated it, why did you have to create it (vs. volunteer or work at an established company), how did you create the Board, what is your transition strategy when you get to college, etc.

Those are my 3 suggestions.

+1 to number one. I think it's crazy - at my kids' college the average SAT is crazy high, meanwhile on the parent facebook page, there are a million kids struggling in pre-calculus- that means many didn't have the SAT or AP score to pass out of PC, let alone calculus, but also it looks like every kid got a 750 on math SAT, which just cannot be true.

Then just get rid of the SAT/ACT. Colleges don't need it to assess who they want to fill their classes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’m sorry but we just need to go back to basics. Test scores and grades. Yes prepping for tests is an “advantage” but also shows commitment and in reality only gets you so far. No one seems to complain about the GRE or the Bar exam. Eventually life is not about how “special” you are but how you can perform. Your boss is not going to keep you around if you can’t meet your numbers because you are first generation or do volunteer work.

Here's the thing, T25 schools are not admitting students who are struggling. Have they had their graduation rates drop significantly? Likewise the boss isn't going to keep around a student with stellar grades who cannot work well with a team of people and cannot recognize that everyone on the team has something to contribute/their area of expertise.

Yes I think the bar exam is important (it's nothing like the GRE equivalent), just like passing medical boards/exams are important. But you know what, once you Pass either of those, I don't really care what your score was or if you scored 10 points (or whatever amount) higher than someone else. I care about your on the job performance. So for a doctor, I care that you don't make mistakes but also about how you treat the patient and listen to them, how you treat the nurses and rest of the medical team on staff. So you could have an extremely high medical board score (don't know the exact terms), but if you cannot apply it to real life situations, cannot listen to the patient and delve deep to help find the real issues and solve the problems, and if you suck at bedside manner, I don't want you on my team. I want the highly educated, board passing but just barely, doctor who is willing to continue to learn daily, who is willing to listen to the patient and who treats the nurses, radiologists, and all medical staff with respect and who is a team player for treating patients.

Get over it, T25 schools are not accepting dumb kids who struggle to attend. They are still selecting really bright, smart motivated students. The universities have just realized that test scores/grades are NOT the be all end all indicator of someone being successful in life.