Reply to Insider Perspectives from a Highly Selective Admissions Office

Forum Index » College and University Discussion

Reply to "Insider Perspectives from a Highly Selective Admissions Office"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]I worked in admissions at a highly regarded school. I think I can add a few points to the thread.

First, scores matter, like OP said, but there is a floor and 80 percent of the applicants clear it. We don't chase the highest scores because we have enough of a pool of applicants to stay competitive. In my experience, if you are hanging your hat on high scores and grades, that is not going to be enough to make the cut and you will be disappointed to learn that there are a plurality of people with worse grades and scores who will get in.

Why? Because we need to fill a university with a bunch of different kinds of people with different interests. So, an applicant is not competing with the entire pool. They are competing with like-minded and interested students. So, we consult with coaches about sports needs and look at that applicant pool differently than we would a generic applicant with perfect scores and grades. We do the same with programmatic interests. So, for example, we look at science students through a different lens. Same goes for specialty programs. That's why a hook is so important. We look for people who will contribute to the school, who will provide something that adds to the campus community. At another college I worked for, we needed people in the damn marching band. That applicant pool got looked into differently and it was much easier to get an acceptance when the student expressed an interest in joining the band.

And now, the race question. First, almost all of the minority students basically clear that floor that everyone needs to in order to get a spot. If anything, I found myself frustrated by guidance counselors who would not support minority applicants because they either thought it was futile or were basically against AA. That basically kept plenty of qualified minority students from even attempting to apply. The students go through the same process I explained above and basically from there the decisions fall.

We also have something basically called a grit index, which we apply to all of our students. The evidence shows students who preserve through adversity are the most likely to engage and create meaningful impact in their respective fields. So, we look for students who show this potential. Once again, the test scores and grades are not enough to make a showing on this front. This is another reason why we end up rejecting perfect stat students and accepting students with lower stats (of all races, btw). We have seen big problems from students who cannot manage adversity, mainly because they have been cultivated to be academically or athletically successful (basically helicopter parenting). There's a hit for those kinds of kids because they struggle. First, when they arrive and inevitably run into an issue that they don't have the tools to effectively handle. And second, they tend to not push themselves or take risks academically, which basically produces bright but not innovative students. We want innovators and creators. [/quote]

I think the top colleges, the Ivies and MIT etc can get both - the innovator risk taking creators who also have perfect scores.

PP I suspect you're from a middling college where you get less intake from the top score kids as you're more likely a 2nd choice or a safety.[/quote]

Sigh. I am not going to out myself. I've worked at a few schools and they were the types of places people are clamoring to get into. I will say this. If you think insulting me will make you sleep better than junior will get that spot at Cal Tech, then have at it. I will just say that admissions over the past 10 years has really changed and the metrics and ideas of what is a successful applicant has changed dramatically, partially due to the extensive research on success. [/quote]

I didn't write that to "insult" you. You're in the wrong business if you take offense at this kind of observation. It not going to be personal and you shouldn't attempt to attack people personally as a response. I really doubt you are a well behaved professional person and honestly hope to god none of my kids ever have to come across you in the admissions process.

You basically undermined everything you said previously by lowering yourself in that way. Shame on you, and get back to work you slacker.[/quote]

not PP, but she didn't insult you. You don't work at a selective admissions office. How would you know what the reality looks like? Why are you going to try to be presumptuous when you literally have no experience whatsoever? Also, she did not say that the two- being a risk taker or being a high test performer- were necessarily exclusive. She said they get so many high test scores but not anywhere near as many risk takers, so even if the risk taker has slightly lower SATs, that's more impressive in the pool.

As for grit, it's well known that there aren't that many kids who're low income or URMs who get the 75% SAT for any top school, and that includes MIT and the Ivies. There are only 50 black kids in the nation who're getting 35 or 36 composite on the ACTs. It makes perfect sense to establish a grit measurement or to weigh those factors in context. All of the top colleges do. [/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics