small fixes to make this process more sane.

[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.

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

How much do you get paid a year to GOOGLE IT and then do zero follow up work beyond being judgemental?

Actually vetting would be calling the people in Thailand as step one.

Yeah there Columbo, the Form 990 doesn’t tell you much beyond “this nonprofit exists”, the board will be their friends and family so it tells you zero.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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?

“Kids should not be allowed to retake tests to prove they have now mastered the material” gives the real game away.

Actual learning is a scam, got it. What’s important is never ever making any mistake and if you do you can never correct it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Well I googled it and there it is on the web page, investigation is done!!!!

I mean nobody can fake a web page.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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?

“Kids should not be allowed to retake tests to prove they have now mastered the material” gives the real game away.

Actual learning is a scam, got it. What’s important is never ever making any mistake and if you do you can never correct it.

That's not the argument. The argument is why should we allow test scores to be curated through superscoring or repeated bites at the apple, but not grades? Do you have an explanation for that disconnect in the process?

I'm not opposed to consistency, so I'm completely fine with one and done on grades AND on standardized tests, or else "take it as many times as you can schedule" for both standardized tests AND grades in HS.

After all, the only thing the score hunters are learning is how to game the test (focus only on math this time, only on verbal the next time, etc.). At least with grades, the process of ameliorating lower grades would lend itself to learning how to learn, which is of far greater value to me (at least).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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?

“Kids should not be allowed to retake tests to prove they have now mastered the material” gives the real game away.

Actual learning is a scam, got it. What’s important is never ever making any mistake and if you do you can never correct it.

That's not the argument. The argument is why should we allow test scores to be curated through superscoring or repeated bites at the apple, but not grades? Do you have an explanation for that disconnect in the process?

I'm not opposed to consistency, so I'm completely fine with one and done on grades AND on standardized tests, or else "take it as many times as you can schedule" for both standardized tests AND grades in HS.

After all, the only thing the score hunters are learning is how to game the test (focus only on math this time, only on verbal the next time, etc.). At least with grades, the process of ameliorating lower grades would lend itself to learning how to learn, which is of far greater value to me (at least).

I’m 100% with you on this.

I suspect the reason is that it’s hard to maintain an exclusionary education system with “elite” performers if you do this.

If most kids can match the performance of elite students will a little more effort and some practice, why does one set go to Harvard and the other doesn’t.

Real life is full of failure where you miss a first attempt but recover and learn and get it right next time.

Not allowed in education though.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

You're on the mark w/r/t my kid and the lack of entitlement to a T25 education. He doesn't deserve anything more than he's worked for, subject to the same randomness and chance that anyone else might face.

However, you're dead wrong re: the supposed bright shining stars you imagine are out there just waiting to be discovered.

Have you ever interviewed undergraduates from T25 schools? I do this - weekly. I see graduates of the UC system all the time, including grad. school applicants. I'm dumbstruck at how poorly they communicate, how meandering their critical thinking skills are, and so much more about their capacity to contribute. It's fine that you need to believe that all THEY needed was the same resources that were festooned all over the "privileged kids", but your disregard re: the biological influences on intelligence is absurd.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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?

“Kids should not be allowed to retake tests to prove they have now mastered the material” gives the real game away.

Actual learning is a scam, got it. What’s important is never ever making any mistake and if you do you can never correct it.

Yeah, let's not let the civil engineer realize they made a miscalculation and change it before that bridge is built.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

You're on the mark w/r/t my kid and the lack of entitlement to a T25 education. He doesn't deserve anything more than he's worked for, subject to the same randomness and chance that anyone else might face.

However, you're dead wrong re: the supposed bright shining stars you imagine are out there just waiting to be discovered.

Have you ever interviewed undergraduates from T25 schools? I do this - weekly. I see graduates of the UC system all the time, including grad. school applicants. I'm dumbstruck at how poorly they communicate, how meandering their critical thinking skills are, and so much more about their capacity to contribute. It's fine that you need to believe that all THEY needed was the same resources that were festooned all over the "privileged kids", but your disregard re: the biological influences on intelligence is absurd.

And you have no clue if those T25 graduates were the 1600/4.0 from HS or the 1480/3.85 students. They could just as easily be the 1600/4.0 kids who went there and didn't do anything with their educational experience along the way.

I've meet plenty of top of the class kids in HS who I would not want to hire no matter where they went to college. Also meet plenty of kids who didn't blossom until college who I would hire for my team immediately.

the key is the colleges are taking who they determine is the best fit for their freshman class. Just like you are free to not hire the UC grads without critical thinking or communication skills, they are free to select the students they think will thrive at their school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

You're on the mark w/r/t my kid and the lack of entitlement to a T25 education. He doesn't deserve anything more than he's worked for, subject to the same randomness and chance that anyone else might face.

However, you're dead wrong re: the supposed bright shining stars you imagine are out there just waiting to be discovered.

Have you ever interviewed undergraduates from T25 schools? I do this - weekly. I see graduates of the UC system all the time, including grad. school applicants. I'm dumbstruck at how poorly they communicate, how meandering their critical thinking skills are, and so much more about their capacity to contribute. It's fine that you need to believe that all THEY needed was the same resources that were festooned all over the "privileged kids", but your disregard re: the biological influences on intelligence is absurd.

And you have no clue if those T25 graduates were the 1600/4.0 from HS or the 1480/3.85 students. They could just as easily be the 1600/4.0 kids who went there and didn't do anything with their educational experience along the way.

I've meet plenty of top of the class kids in HS who I would not want to hire no matter where they went to college. Also meet plenty of kids who didn't blossom until college who I would hire for my team immediately.

the key is the colleges are taking who they determine is the best fit for their freshman class. Just like you are free to not hire the UC grads without critical thinking or communication skills, they are free to select the students they think will thrive at their school.

No, you're wrong again. They (at least in the case of the UC system) are building classes by tip-toeing around to comply with a bizarre edict made by an outgoing President - after a UNANIMOUS vote by actual educators in the system sought to restore standardized testing in the admissions process. They are building weak classes, year over year. I'm seeing it in real time.

"Just as easily" ... if only. Look, ride the "best fit" pony into the ground, for all I care. Just know that the prestige and the quality of graduating class from top schools has been degraded immeasurably over the past 5 - 10 years.

[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.

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.

But neither of those kids were faking.

"she caught the admissions directors’ attention when they learned she was a certified mahout, a trained caretaker for elephants in Thailand."

https://nypost.com/2020/09/12/colleges-reveal-the-secret-formula-for-deciding-who-gets-in/

I am not saying the adcom made the right choice between the two - that's the prerogative of the college. We are speaking of lies for applications, and none of your post illustrates any of that.

It's not a thing. Certainly not in any consequential volume.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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?

“Kids should not be allowed to retake tests to prove they have now mastered the material” gives the real game away.

Actual learning is a scam, got it. What’s important is never ever making any mistake and if you do you can never correct it.

Yeah, let's not let the civil engineer realize they made a miscalculation and change it before that bridge is built.

Yes civil engineers build it all by themselves and nobody double checks their work first, they draw up the plan on the first draft without any validation and then the trucks arrive the next day to start construction.

Like a small child’s conception on how complex jobs work.

[Anonymous]

Just know that the prestige and the quality of graduating class from top schools has been degraded immeasurably over the past 5 - 10 years.

That's a GIGANTIC claim you are going to have to provide evidence for.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

But neither of those kids were faking.

"she caught the admissions directors’ attention when they learned she was a certified mahout, a trained caretaker for elephants in Thailand."

https://nypost.com/2020/09/12/colleges-reveal-the-secret-formula-for-deciding-who-gets-in/

I am not saying the adcom made the right choice between the two - that's the prerogative of the college. We are speaking of lies for applications, and none of your post illustrates any of that.

It's not a thing. Certainly not in any consequential volume.

You can’t put “this kid worked 20 hours a week at Cold Stone” in the school promotional materials or brag about it on the admissions blog, it’s completely ordinary.

But “certified elephant trainer”? Wowza!!!!

Straight to the YouTube channel. Look at the amazing and exotic kids we have here.

The unusual will always win out, for certain values of unusual.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Just know that the prestige and the quality of graduating class from top schools has been degraded immeasurably over the past 5 - 10 years.

That's a GIGANTIC claim you are going to have to provide evidence for.

How can their vibes be wrong?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

You're on the mark w/r/t my kid and the lack of entitlement to a T25 education. He doesn't deserve anything more than he's worked for, subject to the same randomness and chance that anyone else might face.

However, you're dead wrong re: the supposed bright shining stars you imagine are out there just waiting to be discovered.

Have you ever interviewed undergraduates from T25 schools? I do this - weekly. I see graduates of the UC system all the time, including grad. school applicants. I'm dumbstruck at how poorly they communicate, how meandering their critical thinking skills are, and so much more about their capacity to contribute. It's fine that you need to believe that all THEY needed was the same resources that were festooned all over the "privileged kids", but your disregard re: the biological influences on intelligence is absurd.

They got a 740 verbal score and an A in AP English long before they got to that T25 school, they wouldn’t even be considered without them.

🤔

Anyway, biotruths on intelligence belong on Stormfront or at your Klan meeting, not here.