Anonymous wrote:I'll tell you why my kids focused on T20 and not T75s, because they went to feeder high schools. The top 10 colleges not only know the high school, but know the "good" teachers who only write 5 letters of recommendation a year. My kids had those. They also had Bs in a school where a B is a legit good grade, on a scale where a 90 is a 3.5. They were also unhooked in other ways. But they had good college counseling, read books, and could write papers.

Believe it or not, a T20 was an easier admit for my kids than a T75 who had readers who didnt know the teachers - and maybe didn't know the high school. Those readers saw the 3.8 GPA and thought, eh.

IOW, why wouldnt we go where they know the landscape. And if you're full pay and these schools are all 90k, why not go for the one with the name brand.

+1 on the T20 being an easier admit than the 75-25, I don't know if that is "yield protection" or if it is because no or few kids from our HS have gone there. Your school's profile cuts both ways, the sweet spot is to be at or above the CDS median for the colleges you apply to and from a HS where students have been accepted from and have matriculated.

I'll tell you why my kids focused on T20 and not T75s, because they went to feeder high schools. The top 10 colleges not only know the high school, but know the "good" teachers who only write 5 letters of recommendation a year. My kids had those. They also had Bs in a school where a B is a legit good grade, on a scale where a 90 is a 3.5. They were also unhooked in other ways. But they had good college counseling, read books, and could write papers.

Believe it or not, a T20 was an easier admit for my kids than a T75 who had readers who didnt know the teachers - and maybe didn't know the high school. Those readers saw the 3.8 GPA and thought, eh.

IOW, why wouldnt we go where they know the landscape. And if you're full pay and these schools are all 90k, why not go for the one with the name brand.

It’s not a rigged game. It’s a product with limited supply and high demand so any way of allocating it is going to be somewhat irrational.

What drives me more nuts is the public schools funded by our tax dollars but which pick inferiors applicants from out of state or from rural parts of the state over better qualified kids from the suburbs. So the whole country ends up in the crazy cycle where everyone pays more to send their kids farther away than they want.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Greater transparency, i.e. what is the 50th/ 75th% SAT/ GPA of the non athlete admittees? What percent of the ED admits are legacy, what percent are recruited athletes how many are "dean's interest," i.e donors? It would be useful to know how many spots at the T20 privates are really "available" for unhooked applicants?
But in the end that info won't change that there are only a few spots.
That scarcity is what makes this all so fraught and I don't see how any legislation can fix that

What needs to stop is the ranking. It creates a gross misimpression that an only few schools good or that they are 'better' than the other schools or that the students are better. It's completely false.

+1 the idea that university x is better in all cases for every student than university y might be is so obviously a false premise.

I wholeheartedly agree. But also aware that students who attend elite schools they genuinely are ‘better than, superior to’ the students who didn’t get in or didn’t even apply. Parents also feel they did a great job and they and their kids are definitely ‘better than’ others.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Greater transparency, i.e. what is the 50th/ 75th% SAT/ GPA of the non athlete admittees? What percent of the ED admits are legacy, what percent are recruited athletes how many are "dean's interest," i.e donors? It would be useful to know how many spots at the T20 privates are really "available" for unhooked applicants?
But in the end that info won't change that there are only a few spots.
That scarcity is what makes this all so fraught and I don't see how any legislation can fix that

What needs to stop is the ranking. It creates a gross misimpression that an only few schools good or that they are 'better' than the other schools or that the students are better. It's completely false.

+1 the idea that university x is better in all cases for every student than university y might be is so obviously a false premise.

For the sake of everyone’s stress levels I pray all your DC’s go to UMBC or GMU.

Anonymous wrote:^^ his commentary is so detailed. Im loving it!

___________
In my original comment, I was very clear that I think it's ridiculous to fixate on HYPSM...given that some top 20s are state schools and are more competitive for OOS students than some Ivies are overall, and given that some top state schools offer comparable resources to some Ivies, generally speaking, though it depends on field of study...obviously, Yale students are not "better humans" than state school students. They may have been more successful at demonstrating value to Yale, though, than students who were rejected from Yale and attended a public school instead. I do not think it's 100% up to chance. I'm going to proceed by referring loosely to rankings instead of state/public vs HYPSM because that's what makes more sense in this conversation, due to those above givens.

Not only do the vast majority of schools rank ECs, Talent/Ability, and Character/Personal Qualities as "important" to "very important," in the Common Data Set, but my personal case study spans about a thousand students over a decade - domestic, international, traditional, and returning/re-entry students, though I concede that perhaps I shouldn't attempt to identify patterns or apply it broadly either, as generalization is folly I condemn others for.

Allow me to engage in conjecture - in my experience, a student who placed in Regeneron ISEF; made it to MOP; has significant leadership in large, established organizations; and fundraised ~50k for a pressing issue in their community; and who worked towards these goals over 4 years has a better chance at Top 10 schools than one who attended an InspiritAI camp, has been president of XYZ small clubs for 2 years, and volunteers at the food bank once weekly - and in turn, that child has a better chances at top 50 schools than a child who is a member of XYZ club for 1 year with annual campus beautification as volunteer work and no work experience/leadership/academic ECs and no family responsibility/extenuating circumstances - assuming the first 2 have scores that meet the medians of Top 10 and the latter 1 meets the medians of Top 50s. I don't mean to imply volunteer work alone is some end all be all because honestly it's not - it tends to be ranked in the common data set as only "considered," but it can be a vehicle for displaying strong character/personal qualities. Of course, the rigor of the course plan and progression is noted too and could vary in the above students and factor into the decision, but I just doubt that's the only other element at play and that they're entirely ignoring an huge portion of the application.

I mean, if ECs made zero difference in application outcomes...don't you think that schools would decide not to include an EC section in the app at all? I really don't think they're torturing applicants entirely needlessly to give some false impression that factors besides scores matter to...what? Distract applicants from their sole focus, which should be maxing out grades, courses, and test scores? Most kids who are accepted to Top 20s do that, AND they have meaningful ECs that qualify their high school experiences and contextualize their future goals and prove their determination and ambition, while also signaling they can play nicely with others.

Every year, in my experience, the difference in outcomes between a student with a 1540 SAT and 3.9 GPA and max course rigor who is admitted to a Top 20 and one who is not has been caliber and rigor of extracurricular pursuits and how they are spoken about in essays (not that there's one winning formula for essays, though) - save for some outlier situations where disciplinary history or letters of recommendation negatively impacted the applicant - as I mentioned above, maybe those students who have higher prestige/rigor pursuits over more extended periods happen to more effectively communicate those traits/skills/values they learned in their app that signal college readiness - who knows, and wouldn't that be an interesting research study! At the end of the day, there are more qualified applicants than spots available, and so there is an element of chance and luck involved, and the possible biases or capriciousness of the readers/committee/AOs on any given day are a factor too.

What I've seen is that great scores are what get your foot in the door, but they are not what ensure that door stays open for walking through - that's an amalgam of colliding factors.

I'm also not saying a student with cracked ECs but poor academics will defo get accepted at HYPSM - that's precisely the opposite of what I was signalling in my comment: that if you don't measure up and fall under the 25th percentile of GPA/testing, you're unlikely to be a successful candidate and don't have high chances of acceptance. But if you meet or exceed the median, your foot is holding that door open - make the rest of your app strong enough that you breeze right on through.

Yes, good students are good students...and colleges want good students...but every year, there are cases where students with strong grades/scores aren't admitted to Top 20s. And every year, there are students below those 25th percentiles who are admitted over members of that former group. What's the difference there? How a student qualifies their experiences, and perhaps, the rigor of their ECs, along with all those other aforementioned factors. *

Colleges encourage students to fill out all portions of the application, noting it puts students at a disadvantage if they do not...which signals that college admissions is not only a numbers game, and other aspects of the application matter. Given all the above, I can say that I'm certain it's not a complete lottery after passing some secret score thresholds - and again, why wouldn't ECs be part of that other element that's being evaluated, as they're one of the main sections of the application and lend themselves to being essay topics too as they can be so significant, they're life changing.*

The review process is opaque, and that's frustrating! But it's the general consensus and a logical conclusion that ECs are considered...though how much of an impact they really make is going to vary wildly from student to student, from utterly negligible to maybe even cinching it.

I like the commentary too. I especially like the comment about being at the 75%, that was my guidance to my DC who did great in the process and wasn't traumatized. I am surprised at the folks on this board arguing for the 25% and I worry they are going to steer their kids towards a black hole of rejection

^^ his commentary is so detailed. Im loving it!

___________
In my original comment, I was very clear that I think it's ridiculous to fixate on HYPSM...given that some top 20s are state schools and are more competitive for OOS students than some Ivies are overall, and given that some top state schools offer comparable resources to some Ivies, generally speaking, though it depends on field of study...obviously, Yale students are not "better humans" than state school students. They may have been more successful at demonstrating value to Yale, though, than students who were rejected from Yale and attended a public school instead. I do not think it's 100% up to chance. I'm going to proceed by referring loosely to rankings instead of state/public vs HYPSM because that's what makes more sense in this conversation, due to those above givens.

Not only do the vast majority of schools rank ECs, Talent/Ability, and Character/Personal Qualities as "important" to "very important," in the Common Data Set, but my personal case study spans about a thousand students over a decade - domestic, international, traditional, and returning/re-entry students, though I concede that perhaps I shouldn't attempt to identify patterns or apply it broadly either, as generalization is folly I condemn others for.

Allow me to engage in conjecture - in my experience, a student who placed in Regeneron ISEF; made it to MOP; has significant leadership in large, established organizations; and fundraised ~50k for a pressing issue in their community; and who worked towards these goals over 4 years has a better chance at Top 10 schools than one who attended an InspiritAI camp, has been president of XYZ small clubs for 2 years, and volunteers at the food bank once weekly - and in turn, that child has a better chances at top 50 schools than a child who is a member of XYZ club for 1 year with annual campus beautification as volunteer work and no work experience/leadership/academic ECs and no family responsibility/extenuating circumstances - assuming the first 2 have scores that meet the medians of Top 10 and the latter 1 meets the medians of Top 50s. I don't mean to imply volunteer work alone is some end all be all because honestly it's not - it tends to be ranked in the common data set as only "considered," but it can be a vehicle for displaying strong character/personal qualities. Of course, the rigor of the course plan and progression is noted too and could vary in the above students and factor into the decision, but I just doubt that's the only other element at play and that they're entirely ignoring an huge portion of the application.

I mean, if ECs made zero difference in application outcomes...don't you think that schools would decide not to include an EC section in the app at all? I really don't think they're torturing applicants entirely needlessly to give some false impression that factors besides scores matter to...what? Distract applicants from their sole focus, which should be maxing out grades, courses, and test scores? Most kids who are accepted to Top 20s do that, AND they have meaningful ECs that qualify their high school experiences and contextualize their future goals and prove their determination and ambition, while also signaling they can play nicely with others.

Every year, in my experience, the difference in outcomes between a student with a 1540 SAT and 3.9 GPA and max course rigor who is admitted to a Top 20 and one who is not has been caliber and rigor of extracurricular pursuits and how they are spoken about in essays (not that there's one winning formula for essays, though) - save for some outlier situations where disciplinary history or letters of recommendation negatively impacted the applicant - as I mentioned above, maybe those students who have higher prestige/rigor pursuits over more extended periods happen to more effectively communicate those traits/skills/values they learned in their app that signal college readiness - who knows, and wouldn't that be an interesting research study! At the end of the day, there are more qualified applicants than spots available, and so there is an element of chance and luck involved, and the possible biases or capriciousness of the readers/committee/AOs on any given day are a factor too.

What I've seen is that great scores are what get your foot in the door, but they are not what ensure that door stays open for walking through - that's an amalgam of colliding factors.

I'm also not saying a student with cracked ECs but poor academics will defo get accepted at HYPSM - that's precisely the opposite of what I was signalling in my comment: that if you don't measure up and fall under the 25th percentile of GPA/testing, you're unlikely to be a successful candidate and don't have high chances of acceptance. But if you meet or exceed the median, your foot is holding that door open - make the rest of your app strong enough that you breeze right on through.

Yes, good students are good students...and colleges want good students...but every year, there are cases where students with strong grades/scores aren't admitted to Top 20s. And every year, there are students below those 25th percentiles who are admitted over members of that former group. What's the difference there? How a student qualifies their experiences, and perhaps, the rigor of their ECs, along with all those other aforementioned factors. *

Colleges encourage students to fill out all portions of the application, noting it puts students at a disadvantage if they do not...which signals that college admissions is not only a numbers game, and other aspects of the application matter. Given all the above, I can say that I'm certain it's not a complete lottery after passing some secret score thresholds - and again, why wouldn't ECs be part of that other element that's being evaluated, as they're one of the main sections of the application and lend themselves to being essay topics too as they can be so significant, they're life changing.*

The review process is opaque, and that's frustrating! But it's the general consensus and a logical conclusion that ECs are considered...though how much of an impact they really make is going to vary wildly from student to student, from utterly negligible to maybe even cinching it.

I don't think its collusion. Look at how this counselor describes the customization ideally done for each selective college - eye-opening.

How many of your IECs are recommending or doing this for you?

https://www.reddit.com/r/ApplyingToCollege/comments/1nqo30j/comment/ng9c7o5/

Every child wants to be the outlier, the breakthrough, the starry eyed exception to the rule - which is fine! Dream big. There are some who are the exception, every year. Shoot your shot. But, students and their families, international particularly but domestic too of course,* should be prepared for a devastating application cycle if they apply to literally zero safeties and/or targets, that are designated as such per the data.

Sorry to rant, it's just been weighing on me - I hate to see a kid's heart break so needlessly.
______

I wouldn't rank an application or confidence on a 1-10 scale unless I had taken the time to break down each aspect of it numerically and had a general rubric or idea of the basis of evaluation and what to weigh, ie, the perspective of an AO or reader. I discourage it because it's pretty futile as it's too subjective. You could devise some such numerical system based on the information in the common data set (more on that below) but it would be labor intensive and time consuming and would have to be done for each individual school.

To "chance" someone, after they had devised a preliminary list, I would look at acceptance rates first and foremost (if they're available at the departmental level, all the better, but sometimes they're not even available at all) both regular and early and overall. Sometimes you have to do the math to figure out the early rate based on figures in university newspaper articles. In general, the estimates on many consulting websites are fairly reliable, but be aware that often they are approximate. Obviously, the university itself is the ideal source, but universities don't always make their admission breakdowns public (early versus regular).

That is just where you would start though; acceptance rate alone isn't a reliable indicator. If a school has a 20% overall rate, you might think you have approximately a 1 in 5 chance (visualize it, you and four classmates in a room) — but the acceptance rate for international students might actually only be 4% at that same school, meaning you have a 1 in 25 chance (again, visualize it). I find visualizing your competition in this way is the best way to think about confidence, but idk, maybe that's psycho.

Theoretically, you have a pretty good chance/a school could be considered a "target" if your scores meet or exceed the median test scores and gpa - better yet if you meet or exceed the 75th percentile. This is not a hard and fast rule, though - see the very bottom of this comment.

For top 100ish (very loose number as this differs by ranking body and metric of evaluation) schools, along with those scores that meet or exceed medians, applicants should have some academic ECs/leadership/community involvement and some other factors that are highly university-dependent (what level that involvement needs to be at/competitiveness/rigor/quantifiable impact/reach, athletics, arts, just as a few examples), as well as adequate essays and LOR. ECs, like academics, are considered within a socioeconomic/geographic context too - I will say that I have seen full pay international applicants with less competitive EC profiles accepted to schools domestic applicants with more competitive EC profiles were rejected from. All that aside, that's a lot of unaccounted for, only-able-to-be-qualified variables, in case you haven't noticed.

You can find all of the data and stats referenced above in the common data set for each school you are applying to. Just Google common data set + school name. Typically it's a PDF. You will find gpa and test scores ranges of accepted students as well as a chart (section C7) that shows the relative importance (ranked from not considered to very important) of the components of your applicant profile. You should analyze the profile of admitted students as well to see if there is a discrepancy between the score ranges of admitted/accepted students and attending students as well.

This is also generally where you may find a geographic breakdown of how many nationalities are represented in the incoming class and what percentage of the student body they make up, which would be pertinent to international students understanding their chances. International students should look for the breakdown of how many international students applied versus were accepted - all domestic students should look for this info re: in state versus out of state, too. That will change that ratio visualization in your minds eye regarding your chances.

If you take all that data and that chart and read the mission statement of the school and of the department you're interested in along with some of the current research being done and recent policy changes at the school and school newspaper articles, you can construct your profile around showcasing or emphasizing different aspects of yourself that align with what each school you're applying to is looking for. For example, one may value volunteering while another values exceptional talent, so for the former you write about being an animal shelter volunteer or a peer tutor and for the latter you write about being varsity soccer captain or knowing 200 digits of pi and how memorization connects to your interest in neuroscience or whatever. If a school values test scores highly (ranked: very important), well, let's hope your SAT is at the median, and maybe you can choose to emphasize AMC12 in your activities list by writing a supplemental about the Math Club community that supported you and helped you grow to get there. This does require more personalization of supplementals than many students do, though you can typically still reuse essays a lot (with a few tweaks) if you have a "bank" of 4 strong, diverse drafts about different aspects of who you are/identity/culture/background/interests/passions/lived experience, etc. Lots of schools publish supplemental instructions on their websites about what they want to see/how they suggest you write your personal statement beyond just the prompt included in the common app. Go look that up, school by school. Choose to showcase positive traits, skills, and values in your essays that will ensure your success in college and beyond. Include growth arcs - don't dwell on challenges, but on lessons learned and actions taken since. I could go on, but I won't. Simply: make yourself as attractive as possible with the information available to you.

Anyway, I'm rambling, but I hope this illustrates how complex the interplay of factors is and that there are very few guarantees and there is certainly an element of chance involved in college admissions. However, by looking at the numbers and what the university has to say about itself, you will be able to get a general sense of whether you are the kind of student that particular school is looking for and whether you are quantifiably performing at the level of the average accepted student.

Regardless of ECs, and even if you have perfect scores/grades, moderate your expectations if there is a below 15% acceptance rate for whatever demographic you fall under or really in general, and/or if you fall below the 25th percentile, especially if you are well below it, for GPA and SAT.

Anonymous wrote:I found this very interesting. How were the top-20 colleges able to increase their yield from 40 to 50%?

Let's do some modeling. 50% yield for the top-20 colleges means that for every 2 students they admit, one will attend.

Based on past trends, we know that if students apply to colleges in the top 20, they not only apply to one, but to many if not all.

If admissions decisions were objective, admissions decisions to similar (top) colleges would be correlated, that is, students that are accepted by one top-20 college will also likely be accepted by another and conversely, if they are rejected by one, others are more likely to reject them too.

This would mean that most students would either be accepted by most top-20 colleges or rejected by most. A student, however, can attend only one college, which means that each top college's yield could only be 1/n where n is the average number of top colleges that accepted an applicant that was accepted. n should be larger than 2, much larger: probably 4 or 5.

So how is it that the top students applying to many top-20 colleges receive, on average, only 2 admissions even though they, on average, applied to many more similar colleges and should be receiving many more, or none?
(A yield of 40% means that they had 2.5 admissions.)

To me, the answer is clear: college admissions are less correlated than you would expect, and they are less objective; they are basically crap shots.

Only collusion or randomness can explain these numbers.

Almost no one applies to all 20. That's ridiculous.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Greater transparency, i.e. what is the 50th/ 75th% SAT/ GPA of the non athlete admittees? What percent of the ED admits are legacy, what percent are recruited athletes how many are "dean's interest," i.e donors? It would be useful to know how many spots at the T20 privates are really "available" for unhooked applicants?
But in the end that info won't change that there are only a few spots.
That scarcity is what makes this all so fraught and I don't see how any legislation can fix that

What needs to stop is the ranking. It creates a gross misimpression that a only few schools good or that they are 'better' than the other schools or that the students are better. It's completely false.

Or get smarter about the process/the game. Good intel here:
https://www.reddit.com/r/ApplyingToCollege/comments/1nqti31/statistical_exercise_quantifying_the_chances_to/

"here's a simpler way based on the SFFA data to figure things out:

If you are not ALDC and you don't go to one of the college preparatory schools (as you've listed) or ones that have direct communication with Harvard and the likes:

If you cannot score a 1 or a 2 in any category (Academic, Activity, Athletic, since Personal is hard to quantify and is out of your control), then it is NOT worth applying to Harvard because you are in the 0.2% 0.1% bucket.

Most applicants overestimate their chances or think admissions is haphazard or is like buying a lottery ticket: that just means they haven't taken the time to understand the system.

Based on frequency of ratings:

If 1 Academic rating is offered to less than a hundred a year, it will take more than valedictorian.

A 2 or 2+ Academic rating might correlate well with valedictorian/salutatorian with extensive courseload, challenging classes, and academic rigor.

Being admitted is the key here (financial aid is based on need)."

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:College admissions is a rigged beauty pageant disguised as a meritocracy. You need to be strategic in your approach while remaining true to yourself!

Thought that line resonated here:
https://www.reddit.com/r/ApplyingIvyLeague/comments/1lrz8t4/heres_what_they_dont_tell_you_about_college/

I think we can all agree when I say that the college admissions period compares to The Hunger Games version of academia. It's only a matter of time before everyone starts scrambling, and the "Should I apply to so and so school even though my GPA and SAT scores are blah blah" posts start trickling in.

Anyway, from my readings of former AO books and experience, here are some things about college admissions that are imperative towards your 'Congratulations' and 'rejected' letters.

1.No one's paying equal attention to your 10-list activity! Yeah, you heard that right. List all the 10 if you want, but they're mentally checking out after 3 or 4. They don't have time to read all your 10 club positions, 4 awards, and 3 service hours feeding pigeons and will instead skim through. Unless you're a goat herder from Wyoming who codes in COBOL, it better be weird or elite.

Remedy? Stack your top 3 and ensure they all tell a story. Mostly, think about the impact, specificity and leadership growth.

2. Your Essay is a Personality Test, not a brag sheet! It's not so much what you did, but why are you obsessed with it? If it doesn't sound like you're low-key spiraling at 1 a.m. while being emotionally self-aware...err…. try again. If there's a whiff of AI or CHATGPT…err… try again.

Remedy? Write out your authentic and quirky stories. If someone knocked over your computer at 11:55 p.m. and you had to rewrite it panicked, what would go down on that page? That's what your AO wants to see.

3. They're building a team and not rewarding the 'best' students It's not a meritocracy. It's a roster draft. If they already have 5 violin players from New Jersey with a 1570… you're screwed. They've got quotas to be met. So, you might have stacked all the merits in the world, but you'll get booted if you don't meet the quota. "Don't take it personally," they say (Hard not to AOs!)

Remedy Don't be like the average Joe who does all the model UN projects and DECA because that's what gives. Find yourself, and be the missing but useful puzzle in a niche of your interest.

4. "Well rounded?" More like forgettable Having some depth in one or two things beats a shallow involvement in 10 or 12 things. This is the one time where being weird actually pays off. You know that obsession you have with rocks or science experiments? These folks want to see that. The involvement in 15 clubs and 2 honor societies is more meh to them. Everyone does that!

Remedy Stay weird and obsessed.

5. Your State matters CA, NJ, NY? They've got stacks of apps that look like yours. You're competing against other cloned versions of your app. It's not your fault, but that's just how privileged you seem. Nebraska, Idaho, North Dakota? They want you.

Remedy I honestly don't have a concrete remedy for this, but one way to start is to look into institutions that are flexible on geographic diversity.

6. Polish your second choice major; it might save you! Trying to get into Umich for CS? Think again! The competition is insane. The system is already flawed, so finding loopholes is a way to go about it. Try for undeclared STEM and transfer after you make the cut.

Remedy Look for adjacent majors when trying for those.

7. Full-pay students are walking scholarships for the school Colleges call it "enrollment management." You call it admissions. You're no longer a student but a form of revenue.

Remedy If not full pay like the small privileged lot, apply to need-blind schools.

8. Your teacher's Recommendation letter is not just that, it's a factor to your admission The student is a good listener, kind, hardworking…. Snooze. Your recommendation letter reading like that is just the epitome of generic LORs that could have been written by anyone that doesn't know you. The repercussions of this is negative, obviously!!

Remedy Actively interact with your teachers and get them to tell a story about you.

9. Hookless, middle-class, non-URM, overrepresented=hard place and a rock You're not imagining it. You need to be greater than excellent. Sad but true. If you're upper-middle-class, Asian, from California, and unhooked, sorry, you're in nightmare mode. You could be president of everything with a 1570 but miss out on your spot to a kid from Arkansas with a 3.7 with a better essay and relevant sob story.

Remedy Strategic applications

10. Prestige isn't everything! Ultimately, it's all about what you do, as opposed to the brand college attached to you. So, wherever you're placed, find yourself and be your best.

College admissions is a rigged beauty pageant disguised as a meritocracy. You need to be strategic in your approach while remaining true to yourself!

Well said, I agree with most of this. My problem with the word "rigged" and some of the venom in the discussion is the implication that the kids who do get in don't deserve it, i.e. the first 5 violin players, the upper middle class unhooked kid from California with amazing grades, rigor and leadership or the kid with the sob story from Arkansas. They all got in on merit. The fact that not all of thousands of applicants with merit get in doesn't make the ones who do less meritorious.

And here's the thing - all those meritorious rejected applicants, just as good on paper, are going to go somewhere else. But because of the stupid 'ranking" that somewhere else with thousands of just as good students is thought of as "lesser," but it isn't.

Anonymous wrote:Greater transparency, i.e. what is the 50th/ 75th% SAT/ GPA of the non athlete admittees? What percent of the ED admits are legacy, what percent are recruited athletes how many are "dean's interest," i.e donors? It would be useful to know how many spots at the T20 privates are really "available" for unhooked applicants?
But in the end that info won't change that there are only a few spots.
That scarcity is what makes this all so fraught and I don't see how any legislation can fix that

What needs to stop is the ranking. It creates a gross misimpression that a only few schools good or that they are 'better' than the other schools or that the students are better. It's completely false.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Applying to colleges should not be as stressful as it has become. Colleges shouldn’t be as expensive as they are now. High school students shouldn’t be expected to win national awards, present themselves as prodigies, professional athletes etc. They are just teens beginning their lives. They might not know what they want to do in college and yet they already expected to have achieved so much success in various fields. Its insane! They should instead be allowed to make mistakes and learn from them, which in the current system is not allowed. Imagine the stress when KIDS are not allowed to make mistakes. Cause one mistake (one B or C) can mean no chance at the elite schools.
Then we wonder why our kids are anxious and stressed.

+ 1000. Get rid of the whole industry that enables this with coaches, consultants, tutors.

Zero stress for my kid. Had 5 schools they liked. Applied to rolling admissions one, a reach ED and a few EA. Once the rolling admissions one came in with the acceptance, everything else was no big deal Ended up getting into ED pick and happy. You have to pick places based on fit and not prestige. Plenty of kids have no stress at all

Anonymous wrote:College admissions is a rigged beauty pageant disguised as a meritocracy. You need to be strategic in your approach while remaining true to yourself!

Thought that line resonated here:
https://www.reddit.com/r/ApplyingIvyLeague/comments/1lrz8t4/heres_what_they_dont_tell_you_about_college/

I think we can all agree when I say that the college admissions period compares to The Hunger Games version of academia. It's only a matter of time before everyone starts scrambling, and the "Should I apply to so and so school even though my GPA and SAT scores are blah blah" posts start trickling in.

Anyway, from my readings of former AO books and experience, here are some things about college admissions that are imperative towards your 'Congratulations' and 'rejected' letters.

1.No one's paying equal attention to your 10-list activity! Yeah, you heard that right. List all the 10 if you want, but they're mentally checking out after 3 or 4. They don't have time to read all your 10 club positions, 4 awards, and 3 service hours feeding pigeons and will instead skim through. Unless you're a goat herder from Wyoming who codes in COBOL, it better be weird or elite.

Remedy? Stack your top 3 and ensure they all tell a story. Mostly, think about the impact, specificity and leadership growth.

2. Your Essay is a Personality Test, not a brag sheet! It's not so much what you did, but why are you obsessed with it? If it doesn't sound like you're low-key spiraling at 1 a.m. while being emotionally self-aware...err…. try again. If there's a whiff of AI or CHATGPT…err… try again.

Remedy? Write out your authentic and quirky stories. If someone knocked over your computer at 11:55 p.m. and you had to rewrite it panicked, what would go down on that page? That's what your AO wants to see.

3. They're building a team and not rewarding the 'best' students It's not a meritocracy. It's a roster draft. If they already have 5 violin players from New Jersey with a 1570… you're screwed. They've got quotas to be met. So, you might have stacked all the merits in the world, but you'll get booted if you don't meet the quota. "Don't take it personally," they say (Hard not to AOs!)

Remedy Don't be like the average Joe who does all the model UN projects and DECA because that's what gives. Find yourself, and be the missing but useful puzzle in a niche of your interest.

4. "Well rounded?" More like forgettable Having some depth in one or two things beats a shallow involvement in 10 or 12 things. This is the one time where being weird actually pays off. You know that obsession you have with rocks or science experiments? These folks want to see that. The involvement in 15 clubs and 2 honor societies is more meh to them. Everyone does that!

Remedy Stay weird and obsessed.

5. Your State matters CA, NJ, NY? They've got stacks of apps that look like yours. You're competing against other cloned versions of your app. It's not your fault, but that's just how privileged you seem. Nebraska, Idaho, North Dakota? They want you.

Remedy I honestly don't have a concrete remedy for this, but one way to start is to look into institutions that are flexible on geographic diversity.

6. Polish your second choice major; it might save you! Trying to get into Umich for CS? Think again! The competition is insane. The system is already flawed, so finding loopholes is a way to go about it. Try for undeclared STEM and transfer after you make the cut.

Remedy Look for adjacent majors when trying for those.

7. Full-pay students are walking scholarships for the school Colleges call it "enrollment management." You call it admissions. You're no longer a student but a form of revenue.

Remedy If not full pay like the small privileged lot, apply to need-blind schools.

8. Your teacher's Recommendation letter is not just that, it's a factor to your admission The student is a good listener, kind, hardworking…. Snooze. Your recommendation letter reading like that is just the epitome of generic LORs that could have been written by anyone that doesn't know you. The repercussions of this is negative, obviously!!

Remedy Actively interact with your teachers and get them to tell a story about you.

9. Hookless, middle-class, non-URM, overrepresented=hard place and a rock You're not imagining it. You need to be greater than excellent. Sad but true. If you're upper-middle-class, Asian, from California, and unhooked, sorry, you're in nightmare mode. You could be president of everything with a 1570 but miss out on your spot to a kid from Arkansas with a 3.7 with a better essay and relevant sob story.

Remedy Strategic applications

10. Prestige isn't everything! Ultimately, it's all about what you do, as opposed to the brand college attached to you. So, wherever you're placed, find yourself and be your best.

College admissions is a rigged beauty pageant disguised as a meritocracy. You need to be strategic in your approach while remaining true to yourself!

Well said, I agree with most of this. My problem with the word "rigged" and some of the venom in the discussion is the implication that the kids who do get in don't deserve it, i.e. the first 5 violin players, the upper middle class unhooked kid from California with amazing grades, rigor and leadership or the kid with the sob story from Arkansas. They all got in on merit. The fact that not all of thousands of applicants with merit get in doesn't make the ones who do less meritorious.