Yale breaks own record with # of applications for 2016

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I suspect the poster above is also minority. Lots of asian concerto winners with higher sats were denied. Certainly your kid with the mediocre scores was not the only musician to apply. LOL

Most likely the Asian concerto winners with higher sas were violinists or cellists which are a dime a dozen (no insult intended). A harpist, if needed in a university orchestra, will be a strong hoop regardless of color.

I would enjoy reading an essay about the trials and tribulations of moving your harp from concert to concert in 6" of snow versus toting a violin. The imagination could really go to some interesting visuals in that essay.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: I agree wth 12:58. My DC is at one of these extraordinary schools and I've met some of DC's STEM friends. They are incredibly bright, busy on original research teams as underclassman (and some started in high school), and have an enthusiasm for their studies that is infectiously delightful. I am sure some may be less articulate, but my DC's STEM friends make for great guests over the dinner table, and can discuss current events, literature, etc. as well as STEM. If his friends had an edge in admission because they are interesting and articulate, I don't consider that to be fluff. Recommendations play a role here too. When you are one of 10 typically strong kids in a great high school, that's great and certainly can make you competitive. When the teachers say a kid is one of the best the teacher has seen in 10 -15 years of teaching, that is something different. The equally bright kid who is also interesting and likable will have an edge here too.

The point is not that being articulate, being likable, and having wide interests are somehow bad for a STEM kid. The point is that process by which those characteristics are being assessed in essays etc using totally ad-hoc criteria by the admissions folks. People can run tests on the association between SAT scores and outcomes, and psychologists can validate personality questionnaires and measure personality traits. Instead, we have an arbitrary system operated by amateurs. And this system can be gamed fairly easily -- as suggested by a previous poster's examples A and B. Just curious why it works this way. My guess is that if it were important to design a a valid system and schools really cared about the outcomes they would put better measures in place. There is a reason why they don't. Probably most faculty don't care who gets admitted as long as the GPAs and SATs are high, and most university administrations like an seemingly unpredictable hard to quantify system because it allows them lots of freedom at the margin to pick whoever they want in order to satisfy unrelated institutional constraints.

I agree with this poster. It's such a sad statement that we are not doing our utmost to tease out the best in class STEM students because given the state of affairs we really need them. If you look at the rate of transfers out of the hard majors such as engineering, too many seats are being wasted. I would guess though that faculty does care.

I disagree. The assumption is that students are transferring out of STEM majors because it is too hard. I was a STEM major, and I'd say that this explanation only accounts for a small percentage of people who transfer out. The reality is that STEM professors themselves lack soft skills because they don't perceive them to be "real" qualifications, and the classes are boring and un-engaging. They too think that telling interesting stories or connecting with students on a personal level takes away from "real" learning, and as a result they come off as aloof and unapproachable. This also means that few students transfer into STEM subjects, because the intro-level classes aren't nearly as inspiring as they are in other subjects where being articulate is seen as an actual skill.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't think that that kind of story works well for many upper middle class (private school?) kids. It's just as generic as the other parts of the application.

What the privates offer wrt college admissions is not so much advice re packaging/storytelling as insight re which colleges are looking for kids like yours. In my admittedly limited experience, they also do a good job with recs and deadlines and keeping everyone involved in the process on task and on time.

Why wouldn't it work for upper middle class kids?. I basically provided the formula for how to articulate the course you have charted as per 10:13, who said the same thing but was a bit vaguer in advice. Obviously don't sit there and spew off those sentences fill in the blank style, but if you can cover all those points with compelling, personal answers, you will drastically increase you me chances of getting in.

In part because it *is* a formula. And in part because the obstacles are usually fairly trivial/similar (and the ones that are real -- e.g. serious depression -- may send up red flags). Also, there's no way you can know these stories "worked" because you haven't seen the rest of the pool and other parts of the applications (e.g. recs).

I think that the difference between your answer and mine is not primarily the degree of specificity but a focus on where kids put their energy and why in the years leading up to college vs. a focus on how to play the applications game. (I'd have different answers from yours re the latter question as well).

*shrug* Well, if you have any specific advice, feel free to provide it instead of making vague arguments against mine. Once you have a certain level of accomplishment, it's all about how you sell your story.

Me: What types of activities are you involved with? Can you tell me a bit about that?

Kid A: I play softball for my school team year-round. I made captain my junior year. I really like it because it of the teamwork and it pushes me out of my comfort zone as a leader. We were state champions last year.

Kid B: I play softball for my school team year-round. I made captain my junior year. I was an only child growing up and the neighborhood kids would get together in a nearby field, so that's how I discovered my love of softball and the kind of teamwork it entails. Last year we lost one of our key players due to a really bad injury halfway through the season, and it really pushed me out of my comfort zone as a leader because team morale was really low. I pulled the team together by organizing trips to the hospital to visit our teammate, and we ended up becoming state champions.

Me: What are you interested in studying?

Kid A: I like science. It's my best subject.

Kid B: I like science. Last year in AP Biology we studied suriname toads, and I thought it was so interesting how their baby toads just pop out of their backs. It's my best subject.

Whether that's in an essay, rec, or interview, Kid B is way more memorable and likely to get in.

Yale interviewer here. Not even close. Person B has just been coached on "proper interview technique". It doesn't make that person any more memorable - while I know captaining a sports team is a leadership position and these poor kids need to say something, the ones that are memorable are the ones who can hold an engaged conversation to the extent I forget I'm talking to a teenager. I don't give particularly high marks to the ones who never can shake off the beauty-pageant-contestant answers to questions. Part of what I'm looking for is those that don't seem to have an inordinate desire to please and give the impression that when they are really on their own in a high-stress environment, they have the internal resources to deal and take it with a grain of salt.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't think that that kind of story works well for many upper middle class (private school?) kids. It's just as generic as the other parts of the application.

What the privates offer wrt college admissions is not so much advice re packaging/storytelling as insight re which colleges are looking for kids like yours. In my admittedly limited experience, they also do a good job with recs and deadlines and keeping everyone involved in the process on task and on time.

Why wouldn't it work for upper middle class kids?. I basically provided the formula for how to articulate the course you have charted as per 10:13, who said the same thing but was a bit vaguer in advice. Obviously don't sit there and spew off those sentences fill in the blank style, but if you can cover all those points with compelling, personal answers, you will drastically increase you me chances of getting in.

In part because it *is* a formula. And in part because the obstacles are usually fairly trivial/similar (and the ones that are real -- e.g. serious depression -- may send up red flags). Also, there's no way you can know these stories "worked" because you haven't seen the rest of the pool and other parts of the applications (e.g. recs).

I think that the difference between your answer and mine is not primarily the degree of specificity but a focus on where kids put their energy and why in the years leading up to college vs. a focus on how to play the applications game. (I'd have different answers from yours re the latter question as well).

*shrug* Well, if you have any specific advice, feel free to provide it instead of making vague arguments against mine. Once you have a certain level of accomplishment, it's all about how you sell your story.

Me: What types of activities are you involved with? Can you tell me a bit about that?

Kid A: I play softball for my school team year-round. I made captain my junior year. I really like it because it of the teamwork and it pushes me out of my comfort zone as a leader. We were state champions last year.

Kid B: I play softball for my school team year-round. I made captain my junior year. I was an only child growing up and the neighborhood kids would get together in a nearby field, so that's how I discovered my love of softball and the kind of teamwork it entails. Last year we lost one of our key players due to a really bad injury halfway through the season, and it really pushed me out of my comfort zone as a leader because team morale was really low. I pulled the team together by organizing trips to the hospital to visit our teammate, and we ended up becoming state champions.

Me: What are you interested in studying?

Kid A: I like science. It's my best subject.

Kid B: I like science. Last year in AP Biology we studied suriname toads, and I thought it was so interesting how their baby toads just pop out of their backs. It's my best subject.

Whether that's in an essay, rec, or interview, Kid B is way more memorable and likely to get in.

Yale interviewer here. Not even close. Person B has just been coached on "proper interview technique". It doesn't make that person any more memorable - while I know captaining a sports team is a leadership position and these poor kids need to say something, the ones that are memorable are the ones who can hold an engaged conversation to the extent I forget I'm talking to a teenager. I don't give particularly high marks to the ones who never can shake off the beauty-pageant-contestant answers to questions. Part of what I'm looking for is those that don't seem to have an inordinate desire to please and give the impression that when they are really on their own in a high-stress environment, they have the internal resources to deal and take it with a grain of salt.

You seem like you have an agenda to prove, and your method of interviewing basically just selects for kids who have interests that are similar to yours or can suck up enough to be "engaging". Btw, your recommendation is basically meaningless. Kid B wins because they give me more details to include in the write up, not because they have "proper interview technique".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: I agree wth 12:58. My DC is at one of these extraordinary schools and I've met some of DC's STEM friends. They are incredibly bright, busy on original research teams as underclassman (and some started in high school), and have an enthusiasm for their studies that is infectiously delightful. I am sure some may be less articulate, but my DC's STEM friends make for great guests over the dinner table, and can discuss current events, literature, etc. as well as STEM. If his friends had an edge in admission because they are interesting and articulate, I don't consider that to be fluff. Recommendations play a role here too. When you are one of 10 typically strong kids in a great high school, that's great and certainly can make you competitive. When the teachers say a kid is one of the best the teacher has seen in 10 -15 years of teaching, that is something different. The equally bright kid who is also interesting and likable will have an edge here too.

The point is not that being articulate, being likable, and having wide interests are somehow bad for a STEM kid. The point is that process by which those characteristics are being assessed in essays etc using totally ad-hoc criteria by the admissions folks. People can run tests on the association between SAT scores and outcomes, and psychologists can validate personality questionnaires and measure personality traits. Instead, we have an arbitrary system operated by amateurs. And this system can be gamed fairly easily -- as suggested by a previous poster's examples A and B. Just curious why it works this way. My guess is that if it were important to design a a valid system and schools really cared about the outcomes they would put better measures in place. There is a reason why they don't. Probably most faculty don't care who gets admitted as long as the GPAs and SATs are high, and most university administrations like an seemingly unpredictable hard to quantify system because it allows them lots of freedom at the margin to pick whoever they want in order to satisfy unrelated institutional constraints.

I agree with this poster. It's such a sad statement that we are not doing our utmost to tease out the best in class STEM students because given the state of affairs we really need them. If you look at the rate of transfers out of the hard majors such as engineering, too many seats are being wasted. I would guess though that faculty does care.

I disagree. The assumption is that students are transferring out of STEM majors because it is too hard. I was a STEM major, and I'd say that this explanation only accounts for a small percentage of people who transfer out. The reality is that STEM professors themselves lack soft skills because they don't perceive them to be "real" qualifications, and the classes are boring and un-engaging. They too think that telling interesting stories or connecting with students on a personal level takes away from "real" learning, and as a result they come off as aloof and unapproachable. This also means that few students transfer into STEM subjects, because the intro-level classes aren't nearly as inspiring as they are in other subjects where being articulate is seen as an actual skill.

I was a STEM major too; almost everybody I Know who transferred out did it because they couldn't hack it.

[Anonymous]

You're responding to different posters, so don't assume an agenda. I previously said neither A nor B get in, but I'm not the Yale interviewer. We just agree. (As, apparently, do a couple other posters).

FWIW, I don't look for shared interests -- if anything, I probably tend to be more impressed by kids who are able to make things I'm not especially drawn to seem interesting. I think Yale interviewer's comment that you forget that you're talking to a teenager really captures what makes the exceptional kids stand out.

And, yeah, our recommendations as interviewers are meaningless -- but so are yours. Alumni interviews rarely matter. That said, I've also been involved in admissions and fellowship decisionmaking (and recommendation writing) as a faculty member, so I've seen lots of applicant files and that also shapes my perspective re what gets a candidate noticed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You're responding to different posters, so don't assume an agenda. I previously said neither A nor B get in, but I'm not the Yale interviewer. We just agree. (As, apparently, do a couple other posters).

FWIW, I don't look for shared interests -- if anything, I probably tend to be more impressed by kids who are able to make things I'm not especially drawn to seem interesting. I think Yale interviewer's comment that you forget that you're talking to a teenager really captures what makes the exceptional kids stand out.

And, yeah, our recommendations as interviewers are meaningless -- but so are yours. Alumni interviews rarely matter. That said, I've also been involved in admissions and fellowship decisionmaking (and recommendation writing) as a faculty member, so I've seen lots of applicant files and that also shapes my perspective re what gets a candidate noticed.

So what gets noticed, other than this not seeming like a teenager vibe?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You're responding to different posters, so don't assume an agenda. I previously said neither A nor B get in, but I'm not the Yale interviewer. We just agree. (As, apparently, do a couple other posters).

FWIW, I don't look for shared interests -- if anything, I probably tend to be more impressed by kids who are able to make things I'm not especially drawn to seem interesting. I think Yale interviewer's comment that you forget that you're talking to a teenager really captures what makes the exceptional kids stand out.

And, yeah, our recommendations as interviewers are meaningless -- but so are yours. Alumni interviews rarely matter. That said, I've also been involved in admissions and fellowship decisionmaking (and recommendation writing) as a faculty member, so I've seen lots of applicant files and that also shapes my perspective re what gets a candidate noticed.

So what gets noticed, other than this not seeming like a teenager vibe?

+1 Share your secrets!

Having met many of these kids from DD's school who went on to Ivies, they all still sounded like teenagers to me, just slightly more introspective ones. I don't think A or B were supposed to be examples of exact conversations given they were stereotypical caricatures, just a way to illustrate that B was more in depth in portraying the "whys" than A even though they had the same accomplishments.

[Anonymous]

Things that make applicants stand out: direction, focus, humor, follow-through, unpackaged experiences, initiative, thoughtfulness. I thought X, so I did Y. Intellectual drive/energy. Well-reasoned but unconventional choices.

Basically, you've got a whole bunch of kids doing the needful. And defining the needful in similar ways (e.g. a sport, an art, challenging coursework, volunteering, summer enrichment, an internship, experience abroad). As you can deduce from this list, most of the kids I've interviewed are upper middle class. Some are more articulate, some have done these things better than others. A few (surprisingly few, actually) can give you specific reasons re why they are a good match for this school/program/fellowship. But on some level, they all look alike.

The compelling applications are ones where the kid has a project/mission/purpose/sensibility that's powerful and different. They aren't just going to college because it's the next step toward adulthood and you need to do well to get into grad school to get a good job. There's something they really want to learn or do or experience and they know what it is and why they think this is where they'll find it.

[Anonymous]

Re not seeming like a teenager. I think I've failed to convey that well. The kids still seem like teenagers, it's just that at some point in the conversation or in reading what they've written, the fact that they're a teenager trying to get into college drops out of the interaction and they're just an interesting person you're talking to (or it's just an engaging essay you're reading). Basically, the content transcends the genre. You're not just watching the compulsory figures part of the show anymore.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Things that make applicants stand out: direction, focus, humor, follow-through, unpackaged experiences, initiative, thoughtfulness. I thought X, so I did Y. Intellectual drive/energy. Well-reasoned but unconventional choices.

Basically, you've got a whole bunch of kids doing the needful. And defining the needful in similar ways (e.g. a sport, an art, challenging coursework, volunteering, summer enrichment, an internship, experience abroad). As you can deduce from this list, most of the kids I've interviewed are upper middle class. Some are more articulate, some have done these things better than others. A few (surprisingly few, actually) can give you specific reasons re why they are a good match for this school/program/fellowship. But on some level, they all look alike.

The compelling applications are ones where the kid has a project/mission/purpose/sensibility that's powerful and different. They aren't just going to college because it's the next step toward adulthood and you need to do well to get into grad school to get a good job. There's something they really want to learn or do or experience and they know what it is and why they think this is where they'll find it.[/quote

So, do you believe that in an interview you are actually capturing some deep characteristic of the kid or just variations in the rate of development? Any evidence for your belief? What is the evidence from Psychology or Organisational Behavior on the predictive power of interviews? The reason I ask is that recently we met a kid whom we hadn't seen for a year or so who is now on his gap year. He had traveled a bit and had had several temporary jobs/internships. The difference was striking --- last time he was a bit of a space cadet and now exhibits a whole bunch of the behaviors you reference.

I understand why schools do these interviews and why soft skills matter --- I just have no confidence that in practice a single interview can do much except rule out obvious mismatches.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Things that make applicants stand out: direction, focus, humor, follow-through, unpackaged experiences, initiative, thoughtfulness. I thought X, so I did Y. Intellectual drive/energy. Well-reasoned but unconventional choices.

Basically, you've got a whole bunch of kids doing the needful. And defining the needful in similar ways (e.g. a sport, an art, challenging coursework, volunteering, summer enrichment, an internship, experience abroad). As you can deduce from this list, most of the kids I've interviewed are upper middle class. Some are more articulate, some have done these things better than others. A few (surprisingly few, actually) can give you specific reasons re why they are a good match for this school/program/fellowship. But on some level, they all look alike.

The compelling applications are ones where the kid has a project/mission/purpose/sensibility that's powerful and different. They aren't just going to college because it's the next step toward adulthood and you need to do well to get into grad school to get a good job. There's something they really want to learn or do or experience and they know what it is and why they think this is where they'll find it.

Great points. This is pretty much what I look for as well. However, I do try to keep in mind that the idea of being driven or having a purpose can have different cultural manifestations as well be as affected by whether a kid grew up in a family that encouraged exploration, or if they grew up with abusive or negligent parents and are just trying to do the right thing and go to college to survive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Things that make applicants stand out: direction, focus, humor, follow-through, unpackaged experiences, initiative, thoughtfulness. I thought X, so I did Y. Intellectual drive/energy. Well-reasoned but unconventional choices.

Basically, you've got a whole bunch of kids doing the needful. And defining the needful in similar ways (e.g. a sport, an art, challenging coursework, volunteering, summer enrichment, an internship, experience abroad). As you can deduce from this list, most of the kids I've interviewed are upper middle class. Some are more articulate, some have done these things better than others. A few (surprisingly few, actually) can give you specific reasons re why they are a good match for this school/program/fellowship. But on some level, they all look alike.

The compelling applications are ones where the kid has a project/mission/purpose/sensibility that's powerful and different. They aren't just going to college because it's the next step toward adulthood and you need to do well to get into grad school to get a good job. There's something they really want to learn or do or experience and they know what it is and why they think this is where they'll find it.[/quote

So, do you believe that in an interview you are actually capturing some deep characteristic of the kid or just variations in the rate of development? Any evidence for your belief? What is the evidence from Psychology or Organisational Behavior on the predictive power of interviews? The reason I ask is that recently we met a kid whom we hadn't seen for a year or so who is now on his gap year. He had traveled a bit and had had several temporary jobs/internships. The difference was striking --- last time he was a bit of a space cadet and now exhibits a whole bunch of the behaviors you reference.

I understand why schools do these interviews and why soft skills matter --- I just have no confidence that in practice a single interview can do much except rule out obvious mismatches.

There are huge margins of error in the college application process, which is why most studies show that the college you go to doesn't matter, but the underlying character traits that may or may not have be read accurately in the application process do. Honestly, 10+ years down the road, anyone who puts too much emphasis on the fact they attended an elite college strikes me as someone who hasn't accomplished much since then. But the process itself is an opportunity for kids to introspect and should be a growing experience.

[Anonymous]

If an applicant is quite gifted and talented and attends a proven feeder like GDS, the odds of Harvard and Yale are much enhanced. I've met some truly outstanding GDS students who would be dynamite in interviews.

[Anonymous]

Again, I don't think the interviews influence acceptances.

But I think that when I see these attributes in interviews, they're also highly likely to be reflected in other aspects of the application. I've certainly seen them in paperwork before (e.g. in fellowship and grad admissions). And their presence was striking in my HYP cohort (certainly more striking than intelligence or commitment to academics).

Re is it developmental? In some cases. But, honestly, most adults never develop it. Sure, some kids get it later and some lose it (or only appeared to have it because they matured earlier than the rest of their cohort).

I also think there's an environmental/cultural component. We've made doing the needful such a burden/drain that, honestly, it's much harder for kids caught up in this frenzy to find the time and energy to explore and develop their own interests and goals.

There's a whole interesting side conversation to be had about race/class/privilege, but those conversations get so ugly on DCUM that I'm not sure I want to go there in this forum.