Anonymous
07/14/2025 08:41
Subject: Should admissions be more transparent?
An early July (July 7) YCBK podcast had some good content on exactly what AO are looking for when they use “holistic” - really helpful imo:
“Because colleges want difference makers, colleges want people that will make the big splash. They don't want the person that graduates and nobody knows them. They want the person in their class that's going to be greatly missed by everybody.
It's all impact, right? The personal qualities is personal impact, positive personal impact through personal qualities, and extracurricular impact. Now, this is important.”
“One of them is, are you interesting and unique? You ever had food without any spices? It's bland.
It significantly improves the food experience if you can spice it up. That's how being interesting and unique is. The last two years, I've worked with rock climbers from California that were ranked in the top 50 in the country.
And that's the kind of thing. It just adds some spice because of their uniqueness. I'm working with a kid this year who's a juggler.
That kind of stuff really can spice it up, and it makes the place an interesting place.”
“The next one is demonstrated understanding and alignment with the mission. Demonstrated understanding, you get who we are. Alignment with the mission is you believe in what we value.
“Are you in alignment with our mission? And when you are, that can be one of the things that can make a student with lower test scores, lower grade point averages, less rigor, be seen as the better fit than the person that has the higher class rank, make higher grades, higher test scores, more APs.”
“Most admits have a confluence of multiple factors from the ones I listed, both here and off the institutional priority list.”
From Your College Bound Kid | Admission Tips, Admission Trends & Admission Interviews: The Big Fear That Many Teens Have When It Comes To Admissions, Jul 7, 2025
“Because colleges want difference makers, colleges want people that will make the big splash. They don't want the person that graduates and nobody knows them. They want the person in their class that's going to be greatly missed by everybody.
It's all impact, right? The personal qualities is personal impact, positive personal impact through personal qualities, and extracurricular impact. Now, this is important.”
“One of them is, are you interesting and unique? You ever had food without any spices? It's bland.
It significantly improves the food experience if you can spice it up. That's how being interesting and unique is. The last two years, I've worked with rock climbers from California that were ranked in the top 50 in the country.
And that's the kind of thing. It just adds some spice because of their uniqueness. I'm working with a kid this year who's a juggler.
That kind of stuff really can spice it up, and it makes the place an interesting place.”
“The next one is demonstrated understanding and alignment with the mission. Demonstrated understanding, you get who we are. Alignment with the mission is you believe in what we value.
“Are you in alignment with our mission? And when you are, that can be one of the things that can make a student with lower test scores, lower grade point averages, less rigor, be seen as the better fit than the person that has the higher class rank, make higher grades, higher test scores, more APs.”
“Most admits have a confluence of multiple factors from the ones I listed, both here and off the institutional priority list.”
From Your College Bound Kid | Admission Tips, Admission Trends & Admission Interviews: The Big Fear That Many Teens Have When It Comes To Admissions, Jul 7, 2025
Anonymous
05/26/2025 22:59
Subject: Should admissions be more transparent?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote: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.
Pure merit by your definition I presume.
Understand that top colleges do admit on merit. The issue that you have is that their definition of merit isn’t your definition of merit.
DP
Not PP but yes we do.
Even they admit it is not based on merit. AOs are open about this and, in fact, emphasize this point.
Their priorities are to be diverse as in being able to represent all 50 states, x number of countries, male/female balance, represent different races, etc.
None of these are wrong, but it is not pure merit, when you also have these additional constraints.
At MIT, women have a far lower bar compared to men. At SLAC's with some majors, men have a lower bar compared to women. Does not mean the people being admitted are not qualified, but at the margins a slightly weaker candidate is admitted over a stronger candidate to achieve the balance they were seeking.
Every kid picked deserves admission in the schools view. The criteria might differ from what you believe to be the correct one (solely ranked by academic strength and nothing else) but they all are seen as meriting admission by the institution.
You missed the whole point! The students picked do not qualify based on the school's definition of merit.
That is where holistic admissions process comes in. Even if a student by themselves cannot get by on merit, they have other priorities that need to be satisfied, so they pick someone with lower merit, according to their own definition.
You missed the point. They merit admission because they fill and institutional priority.
Exactly.
Its not up to you (or me) to decide whether that institutional priority is worthy. The market will clear.
In Yale podcast, they explicitly say "we are not taking who we think have the most merit". But you know their definition of merit better than they do.
Anonymous
05/26/2025 22:39
Subject: Should admissions be more transparent?
Anonymous wrote:So from one sentence in that one podcast, you drew sweeping conclusions about every single college in the US. Got it.
I'm wi;lling to be that was a misquote or paraphrase as well.....utter nonsense.
Anonymous
05/26/2025 19:33
Subject: Should admissions be more transparent?
So from one sentence in that one podcast, you drew sweeping conclusions about every single college in the US. Got it.
Anonymous
05/26/2025 18:20
Subject: Should admissions be more transparent?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote: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.
Pure merit by your definition I presume.
Understand that top colleges do admit on merit. The issue that you have is that their definition of merit isn’t your definition of merit.
DP
Even they admit it is not based on merit. AOs are open about this and, in fact, emphasize this point.
Their priorities are to be diverse as in being able to represent all 50 states, x number of countries, male/female balance, represent different races, etc.
None of these are wrong, but it is not pure merit, when you also have these additional constraints.
At MIT, women have a far lower bar compared to men. At SLAC's with some majors, men have a lower bar compared to women. Does not mean the people being admitted are not qualified, but at the margins a slightly weaker candidate is admitted over a stronger candidate to achieve the balance they were seeking.
Every kid picked deserves admission in the schools view. The criteria might differ from what you believe to be the correct one (solely ranked by academic strength and nothing else) but they all are seen as meriting admission by the institution.
You missed the whole point! The students picked do not qualify based on the school's definition of merit.
That is where holistic admissions process comes in. Even if a student by themselves cannot get by on merit, they have other priorities that need to be satisfied, so they pick someone with lower merit, according to their own definition.
You missed the point. They merit admission because they fill and institutional priority.
Exactly.
Its not up to you (or me) to decide whether that institutional priority is worthy. The market will clear.
In Yale podcast, they explicitly say "we are not taking who we think have the most merit". But you know their definition of merit better than they do.
Anonymous
05/26/2025 17:14
Subject: Should admissions be more transparent?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote: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.
Pure merit by your definition I presume.
Understand that top colleges do admit on merit. The issue that you have is that their definition of merit isn’t your definition of merit.
DP
Even they admit it is not based on merit. AOs are open about this and, in fact, emphasize this point.
Their priorities are to be diverse as in being able to represent all 50 states, x number of countries, male/female balance, represent different races, etc.
None of these are wrong, but it is not pure merit, when you also have these additional constraints.
At MIT, women have a far lower bar compared to men. At SLAC's with some majors, men have a lower bar compared to women. Does not mean the people being admitted are not qualified, but at the margins a slightly weaker candidate is admitted over a stronger candidate to achieve the balance they were seeking.
Every kid picked deserves admission in the schools view. The criteria might differ from what you believe to be the correct one (solely ranked by academic strength and nothing else) but they all are seen as meriting admission by the institution.
You missed the whole point! The students picked do not qualify based on the school's definition of merit.
That is where holistic admissions process comes in. Even if a student by themselves cannot get by on merit, they have other priorities that need to be satisfied, so they pick someone with lower merit, according to their own definition.
You missed the point. They merit admission because they fill and institutional priority.
Exactly.
Its not up to you (or me) to decide whether that institutional priority is worthy. The market will clear.
Anonymous
05/26/2025 10:03
Subject: Should admissions be more transparent?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote: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.
Pure merit by your definition I presume.
Understand that top colleges do admit on merit. The issue that you have is that their definition of merit isn’t your definition of merit.
DP
Even they admit it is not based on merit. AOs are open about this and, in fact, emphasize this point.
Their priorities are to be diverse as in being able to represent all 50 states, x number of countries, male/female balance, represent different races, etc.
None of these are wrong, but it is not pure merit, when you also have these additional constraints.
At MIT, women have a far lower bar compared to men. At SLAC's with some majors, men have a lower bar compared to women. Does not mean the people being admitted are not qualified, but at the margins a slightly weaker candidate is admitted over a stronger candidate to achieve the balance they were seeking.
Every kid picked deserves admission in the schools view. The criteria might differ from what you believe to be the correct one (solely ranked by academic strength and nothing else) but they all are seen as meriting admission by the institution.
You missed the whole point! The students picked do not qualify based on the school's definition of merit.
That is where holistic admissions process comes in. Even if a student by themselves cannot get by on merit, they have other priorities that need to be satisfied, so they pick someone with lower merit, according to their own definition.
You missed the point. They merit admission because they fill and institutional priority.
Anonymous
05/26/2025 08:55
Subject: Should admissions be more transparent?
The US was never a meritocracy?
Anonymous
05/26/2025 08:54
Subject: Should admissions be more transparent?
Why not have the same transparent process for all job hiring in the US?
Anonymous
05/26/2025 08:42
Subject: Should admissions be more transparent?
Anonymous wrote:US college admission is by and large not merit driven - full stop. At least from a purely academic standpoint. Sure many students are admitted based on the merits of their athletic skills, or the play an instrument well that the school band needs or they can help fill a bucket set-up to fill a social engineering desire. Yes, there is a bucket for academic excellence because schools want to tout the number of Fulbright scholars they produce or Nobel laureates. But unfortunately today that is one of the smaller buckets at most schools. That is why truly bright and academically gifted kids can get shut out of the top 20 or 30 schools.
The transparency exists, people just can’t accept that the US is no longer a meritocracy and colleges are businesses that bend to the will of the masses.
Yes, they can do whatever they want, then just that I don't want a penny of my tax dollar goes there.
Anonymous
05/26/2025 08:28
Subject: Should admissions be more transparent?
US college admission is by and large not merit driven - full stop. At least from a purely academic standpoint. Sure many students are admitted based on the merits of their athletic skills, or the play an instrument well that the school band needs or they can help fill a bucket set-up to fill a social engineering desire. Yes, there is a bucket for academic excellence because schools want to tout the number of Fulbright scholars they produce or Nobel laureates. But unfortunately today that is one of the smaller buckets at most schools. That is why truly bright and academically gifted kids can get shut out of the top 20 or 30 schools.
The transparency exists, people just can’t accept that the US is no longer a meritocracy and colleges are businesses that bend to the will of the masses.
The transparency exists, people just can’t accept that the US is no longer a meritocracy and colleges are businesses that bend to the will of the masses.
Anonymous
05/26/2025 08:17
Subject: Should admissions be more transparent?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote: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.
Pure merit by your definition I presume.
Understand that top colleges do admit on merit. The issue that you have is that their definition of merit isn’t your definition of merit.
DP
Even they admit it is not based on merit. AOs are open about this and, in fact, emphasize this point.
Their priorities are to be diverse as in being able to represent all 50 states, x number of countries, male/female balance, represent different races, etc.
None of these are wrong, but it is not pure merit, when you also have these additional constraints.
At MIT, women have a far lower bar compared to men. At SLAC's with some majors, men have a lower bar compared to women. Does not mean the people being admitted are not qualified, but at the margins a slightly weaker candidate is admitted over a stronger candidate to achieve the balance they were seeking.
Every kid picked deserves admission in the schools view. The criteria might differ from what you believe to be the correct one (solely ranked by academic strength and nothing else) but they all are seen as meriting admission by the institution.
You missed the whole point! The students picked do not qualify based on the school's definition of merit.
That is where holistic admissions process comes in. Even if a student by themselves cannot get by on merit, they have other priorities that need to be satisfied, so they pick someone with lower merit, according to their own definition.
Anonymous
05/23/2025 09:22
Subject: Should admissions be more transparent?
Anonymous wrote:Transparency doesn't have to mean fair. And not being merit-based is also ok. But colleges should be transparent about their true process and methodology. If its not about grades, then dont tell kids they look for highest rigor/grades when they take so many kids without (when they have something else they want). Otherwise, it's just a bunch of in-the-know private counselors and those who pay for that info- who know the ranking/value system of individual schools. The whole point system for certain schools is known by only a few. For ex, if harvard values leadership/class president's and duke values high impact EC, and Georgetown values service - then schools should be more explicit about their preferences of particular 'holistic' elements. Kids should know the rules of the game before they play. Then kids can self select and make more informed choices of where to apply. It would be more empowering for students and more efficient for schools. The current system can be gamed which is sad. I am done and my kid is going to an ivy. After doing a ton of research about admission commitee evaluations and hours of brainstorming, we figured out a strategy and plan that made sense, targeted schools that would value his narrative and accomplishments, and it worked. We didn't follow any of the generic and unhelpful AO advice.
What are ballyhooing about. I’m sure these universities know what students they want the same way the Supreme Court knows pornography: when they see it. It’s ridiculous to think they just want a handful of narratives. Finally, your kid got into an ivy, so stop agitating and enjoy. Seriously.