Anonymous wrote:The entire US educational system in this country is broken. It is no longer about helping a student reach their potential, but instead painting a mosaic of how some school administrators believe America should look.

I get that universities are businesses and need slots for athletes and other needs to create a school community but some percentage of each class should be set aside for pure merit based admission. I know it won’t happen, so more and more Americans will go to school in the UK where admission is merit based, get a degree in 3 or 4 years from a quality university for less than one would pay for a mid-level SLAC.

For those that choose to stay in the US just understand that admissions are random, and based on the “needs/whims” of the university and not a reflection of the quality of the applicant.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At a HS "college day", I directly asked an AO if they think it is ethical and responsible to disclose institutional priorities to prospective students. Without hesitation, the AO said no! Because then they would only get applicants with those characteristics. For background, we as parents were given a faux case study with a fictitious college with their institutional priorities, and 3 common app applications with essays to review and discuss. At the end, we had to vote accept, reject, waitlist. The vote was pretty clear to choose the candidate that met the college institutional priority- not the strongest kid nor the more interesting candilate. The 'admitted' candidate was a male, first gen, from a rural town. I found the process both illuminating and disheartening. I do think schools have an ethical obligation to be more explicit with their goals. The high achieving girl who showed great curiosity and impact wasted her time and $. Yes, my kid has a savvy mom who reads posts, books. Podcasts, etc. - but many do not. The process is NOT equitable. Wealthy applicants pay for suppport and many fgli and urm in our community have access to special free application support. However, those in the middle are without access to this helpful information which influences admission. Fyi. I am not bitter. My kid got accepted to their top choice... but we totally played the game. It was bs, but it worked.

Same. I figured it out too. In at T10.
But it’s a joke this process..or a game.

What did you figure out? What do we need to do if we are trying to help our kid play this game?

The whole process. How your kid has to sell themselves. Pick a strategic major, show your origin story, create multiple angles or layers, going deep into niche academic interest, demonstrating the values and qualities a school is looking for, creating a cohesive application that creates an uncommon, memorable and authentically compelling tagline to help the AO with their review/defense of my kid in committee.

All of it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At a HS "college day", I directly asked an AO if they think it is ethical and responsible to disclose institutional priorities to prospective students. Without hesitation, the AO said no! Because then they would only get applicants with those characteristics. For background, we as parents were given a faux case study with a fictitious college with their institutional priorities, and 3 common app applications with essays to review and discuss. At the end, we had to vote accept, reject, waitlist. The vote was pretty clear to choose the candidate that met the college institutional priority- not the strongest kid nor the more interesting candilate. The 'admitted' candidate was a male, first gen, from a rural town. I found the process both illuminating and disheartening. I do think schools have an ethical obligation to be more explicit with their goals. The high achieving girl who showed great curiosity and impact wasted her time and $. Yes, my kid has a savvy mom who reads posts, books. Podcasts, etc. - but many do not. The process is NOT equitable. Wealthy applicants pay for suppport and many fgli and urm in our community have access to special free application support. However, those in the middle are without access to this helpful information which influences admission. Fyi. I am not bitter. My kid got accepted to their top choice... but we totally played the game. It was bs, but it worked.

Same. I figured it out too. In at T10.
But it’s a joke this process..or a game.

What did you figure out? What do we need to do if we are trying to help our kid play this game?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At a HS "college day", I directly asked an AO if they think it is ethical and responsible to disclose institutional priorities to prospective students. Without hesitation, the AO said no! Because then they would only get applicants with those characteristics. For background, we as parents were given a faux case study with a fictitious college with their institutional priorities, and 3 common app applications with essays to review and discuss. At the end, we had to vote accept, reject, waitlist. The vote was pretty clear to choose the candidate that met the college institutional priority- not the strongest kid nor the more interesting candilate. The 'admitted' candidate was a male, first gen, from a rural town. I found the process both illuminating and disheartening. I do think schools have an ethical obligation to be more explicit with their goals. The high achieving girl who showed great curiosity and impact wasted her time and $. Yes, my kid has a savvy mom who reads posts, books. Podcasts, etc. - but many do not. The process is NOT equitable. Wealthy applicants pay for suppport and many fgli and urm in our community have access to special free application support. However, those in the middle are without access to this helpful information which influences admission. Fyi. I am not bitter. My kid got accepted to their top choice... but we totally played the game. It was bs, but it worked.

Same. I figured it out too. In at T10.
But it’s a joke this process..or a game.

Anonymous wrote:For those that choose to stay in the US just understand that admissions are random, and based on the “needs/whims” of the university and not a reflection of the quality of the applicant.

Anonymous wrote:The entire US educational system in this country is broken. It is no longer about helping a student reach their potential, but instead painting a mosaic of how some school administrators believe America should look.

I get that universities are businesses and need slots for athletes and other needs to create a school community but some percentage of each class should be set aside for pure merit based admission. I know it won’t happen, so more and more Americans will go to school in the UK where admission is merit based, get a degree in 3 or 4 years from a quality university for less than one would pay for a mid-level SLAC.

For those that choose to stay in the US just understand that admissions are random, and based on the “needs/whims” of the university and not a reflection of the quality of the applicant.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think they should have a right to see the file. They turned over a lot of personal information and paid a fee. They have a right to see any information the school has on them or wrote about them.

On what legal or regulatory grounds is this "right to see any information" derived?

Don't you see the news?
Tax funding should stop for schools not complying.

If you're referring to affirmative action litigation, only those with standing to sue and are actually party to the cases have access to a controlled production of certain school records via discovery in accordance with the rules of civil procedure and the courts. On what legal or regulatory grounds does Larlo's mom, not a party to the lawsuit, have the legal or regulatory "right to see any information" merely from having paid an application fee?

No. Government withdrew funding and schools went crybabies.

Funding can go to schools complying.

Anonymous wrote:At a HS "college day", I directly asked an AO if they think it is ethical and responsible to disclose institutional priorities to prospective students. Without hesitation, the AO said no! Because then they would only get applicants with those characteristics. For background, we as parents were given a faux case study with a fictitious college with their institutional priorities, and 3 common app applications with essays to review and discuss. At the end, we had to vote accept, reject, waitlist. The vote was pretty clear to choose the candidate that met the college institutional priority- not the strongest kid nor the more interesting candilate. The 'admitted' candidate was a male, first gen, from a rural town. I found the process both illuminating and disheartening. I do think schools have an ethical obligation to be more explicit with their goals. The high achieving girl who showed great curiosity and impact wasted her time and $. Yes, my kid has a savvy mom who reads posts, books. Podcasts, etc. - but many do not. The process is NOT equitable. Wealthy applicants pay for suppport and many fgli and urm in our community have access to special free application support. However, those in the middle are without access to this helpful information which influences admission. Fyi. I am not bitter. My kid got accepted to their top choice... but we totally played the game. It was bs, but it worked.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At a HS "college day", I directly asked an AO if they think it is ethical and responsible to disclose institutional priorities to prospective students. Without hesitation, the AO said no! Because then they would only get applicants with those characteristics. For background, we as parents were given a faux case study with a fictitious college with their institutional priorities, and 3 common app applications with essays to review and discuss. At the end, we had to vote accept, reject, waitlist. The vote was pretty clear to choose the candidate that met the college institutional priority- not the strongest kid nor the more interesting candilate. The 'admitted' candidate was a male, first gen, from a rural town. I found the process both illuminating and disheartening. I do think schools have an ethical obligation to be more explicit with their goals. The high achieving girl who showed great curiosity and impact wasted her time and $. Yes, my kid has a savvy mom who reads posts, books. Podcasts, etc. - but many do not. The process is NOT equitable. Wealthy applicants pay for suppport and many fgli and urm in our community have access to special free application support. However, those in the middle are without access to this helpful information which influences admission. Fyi. I am not bitter. My kid got accepted to their top choice... but we totally played the game. It was bs, but it worked.

So you were in the middle and figured it out, right? That's what I did, too. Pretty much the definition of equitable.

Anonymous wrote:At a HS "college day", I directly asked an AO if they think it is ethical and responsible to disclose institutional priorities to prospective students. Without hesitation, the AO said no! Because then they would only get applicants with those characteristics. For background, we as parents were given a faux case study with a fictitious college with their institutional priorities, and 3 common app applications with essays to review and discuss. At the end, we had to vote accept, reject, waitlist. The vote was pretty clear to choose the candidate that met the college institutional priority- not the strongest kid nor the more interesting candilate. The 'admitted' candidate was a male, first gen, from a rural town. I found the process both illuminating and disheartening. I do think schools have an ethical obligation to be more explicit with their goals. The high achieving girl who showed great curiosity and impact wasted her time and $. Yes, my kid has a savvy mom who reads posts, books. Podcasts, etc. - but many do not. The process is NOT equitable. Wealthy applicants pay for suppport and many fgli and urm in our community have access to special free application support. However, those in the middle are without access to this helpful information which influences admission. Fyi. I am not bitter. My kid got accepted to their top choice... but we totally played the game. It was bs, but it worked.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We tell applicants every year why they get rejected. There’s a lot of other applicants, the applicant pool was strong, and your application wasn’t at the top. Learning to take no for an answer is an important skill.

That doesn’t help current juniors choose which schools to put on their college list. The “advice” seems to be, “apply to as many schools as humanly possible, because you have no right to get into any, no matter how well you did in high school! And there’s no way to predict in advance which might accept you!”

The advice is to apply to 2 or so safety schools, mostly apply to schools your stats align with, and have a couple reach schools. Any "pressure" to get into a top college is self inflicted.

“Any pressure to get into a top college is self inflicted” they say, in the same breath that they tell high-stats kids they should “mostly apply to colleges their stats align with.” This idea that high stats kids should go top colleges, where could it possibly be coming from?

Anybody advising solely based on stats is an idiot. Stats means nothing in holistic review. High stat kids with average activities and essays are boring, deal with it.

We don't even know who really wrote the essays LOL
Now we have ChatGPT, too.

Who is we? AO’s know and are smarter than you. LOL

AO's are low paid mediocre workforce dumber than the applicants LOL

^^ This right here shows the kind of disrespectful upbringing which explains why this angry poster's kid didn't get in.

Agree. A lot of people don't understand that the AO is curating a class. It's actually not about your kid. It's whether or not they need more "prototypes" like your kid inside the larger class. chances are they don't, especially if CS, math, Eng, with no other special talent.....

Curation doesn't need to be a secret.

You want to know how many violin players they need, how many water polo players/equestrians, and Chicano studies majors in the fall for the coming year? It will change from year to year.....It's fluid.
It's entirely subjective. And so different for every school.

It's why kids who get into Dartmouth don't always get into a school like Penn....also, what if they fill those spots in REA/ED....then they have to tell you? What if you spent your whole life trying to get your violin player into either Princeton or Dartmouth, but now that D spot is filled in ED (and your kid applied REA to Princeton but was rejected). Are they supposed to tell you that that spot is gone in December and then you pivot in RD (well, too bad, too late for your kid to pivot)? What kind of crappy Asian style robotic system is that?

Weird that you don't understand why this entire framework is unattractive to Americans.

Yes, they should indicate how many violin players or water polo players they pick for the year, so that applicats have information before applying and compete for the spots. No reason what so ever applicants should be blinded. This has nothing to do with Asian style. Most of other advanced Western countries are not different than the Asian countries.
You are very weird bringing in Asian to this.

Holistic BS was invented to suppress Jews in the first place.
Last year, colleges lost in the Supreme court for discriminating Asians.
These are very un-American.

Actually Harvard won that case. People believe that they were found to discriminate against Asians but that’s false.

LOL

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We tell applicants every year why they get rejected. There’s a lot of other applicants, the applicant pool was strong, and your application wasn’t at the top. Learning to take no for an answer is an important skill.

That doesn’t help current juniors choose which schools to put on their college list. The “advice” seems to be, “apply to as many schools as humanly possible, because you have no right to get into any, no matter how well you did in high school! And there’s no way to predict in advance which might accept you!”

The advice is to apply to 2 or so safety schools, mostly apply to schools your stats align with, and have a couple reach schools. Any "pressure" to get into a top college is self inflicted.

“Any pressure to get into a top college is self inflicted” they say, in the same breath that they tell high-stats kids they should “mostly apply to colleges their stats align with.” This idea that high stats kids should go top colleges, where could it possibly be coming from?

Anybody advising solely based on stats is an idiot. Stats means nothing in holistic review. High stat kids with average activities and essays are boring, deal with it.

We don't even know who really wrote the essays LOL
Now we have ChatGPT, too.

Who is we? AO’s know and are smarter than you. LOL

AO's are low paid mediocre workforce dumber than the applicants LOL