Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Better for the kids to learn now that there are thousands and thousands of other kids out there who are just as or more smart and accomplished, instead of going through their young adult years with an inflated sense of self importance and being put in their place when they reach a roadblock or face a setback of sorts.

Do you think the kids who succeed in competitive high schools have never faced roadblocks or setbacks before college?

Some have, others have had M&D run interference every time things got difficult (just ask any teacher at an elite private school about parental overinvolvment)

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I work in higher ed, have lived in Asia, and visit universities and high schools in China, Japan, and Vietnam annually. My opinion is that holistic admissions are imperfect, but they are a hell of a lot better than purely grade- and test-centric admissions, which corrupt not only the colleges that rely on them but also the high schools that teach to them.

the EC centered holistic admissions are more likely to confer advantages on the wealthy

The wealthy have an advantage in nearly everything, including testing and grades. We may never have a complete meritocracy, but most AOs are trained to recognize such disparities. So the kid who does a month of volunteering in Palau on his parent's dime may not have an advantage over the kid who spends 20 hours a week at a parttime job or looking after younger siblings.

a students income does not change the correlation between test scores and college performance. A 1550 rich kids in average does as well as a1550 poor kid.

Does it take into account that the 1550 poor kid might be their first and only sitting without any prep, and the 1550 rich kid might have taken it 3+ times with private tutoring?

Yeah. thats what I thought.

Exactly! Or that the 1550 poor kid has to work PT job to help pay the family bills, might worry about not getting enough to eat, might not have a safe space to study (crammed into a tiny apartment and have to worry about gunshots outside or an abusive parent/boyfriend of mom), etc.

"top 20 schools enroll about 49,000 students annually"

He wrongly equates this to how many seats a kid has a shot at. This would only be true of kids who are "Top 20 or bust," who apply to all 20 of them, which is not the case for most students.

If you don't want a big school, scratch X.
If you want to be close enough to home to drive, scratch Y.
If you need a certain amount of money to afford it, scratch Z.
If you want something specific (Catholic college, small engineering, a particular program or professor, etc.etc.), scratch P.
If you are only applying to 8-10 colleges to begin with, and you need to make sure some of them are target and safety, scratch D.
If you are a candidate for a full ride to a great school and your family needs that, scratch Q.

For some kids, that narrows the seats available by a significant amount (49K - (X+Y+Z+P+D+Q)), and they are just as likely to choose from a completely different set of colleges.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Obviously being 5% faster at solving 9th grade English and math questions is the key to curing cancer. Holistic admissions is killing people.

Obviously Americas core weakness is a critical shortage of high stats investment bankers and M&A lawyers.

A century ago, the Ivies didn't use holistic admissions, only test scores and grades. They came up with holistic admissions because Jewish students were getting in.

+1 No one is saying that having your kid's future decided by their test scores and grades is ideal. But since admissions officers can't know each kid, it's at least the fairest ways, more fair than getting in because you're a legacy admit or a champion equestrian or some other rich kid sport.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Agreed. T20 universities and T10 lacs admit too many hooked applicants. If they are admitting over 20% QuestBridge, they should increase their class proportionally.

Nobody is admitt 20% QB. It is under 2% at most schools so just stop now.

It's commonplace now for top colleges admitting over 20% QuestBridge.

[url]https://www.questbridge.org/partners/college-partners/swarthmore-college
[/url]

24% affiliated with QuestBridge (Class of 2028)

Not correct. At all. As an example, Yale took 66 Questbridge kids in 2025, out of 2308 admitted students. That's about 3%. Please stop spreading misinformation (or take a math class.)

Funny you chose not to explain Swarthmore numbers. I can post a lot more top colleges’ percentages.

Please feel free to calculate the Ivy League colleges' Questbridge percentages and share them here. We'll be waiting.

DP

"Top colleges" is more than just ivy.

Swarthmore is frequently considered a to college

Sorry your kid couldn't get in to HYPSM

Sorry your kid had to go South

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Agreed. T20 universities and T10 lacs admit too many hooked applicants. If they are admitting over 20% QuestBridge, they should increase their class proportionally.

Nobody is admitt 20% QB. It is under 2% at most schools so just stop now.

It's commonplace now for top colleges admitting over 20% QuestBridge.

[url]https://www.questbridge.org/partners/college-partners/swarthmore-college
[/url]

24% affiliated with QuestBridge (Class of 2028)

Not correct. At all. As an example, Yale took 66 Questbridge kids in 2025, out of 2308 admitted students. That's about 3%. Please stop spreading misinformation (or take a math class.)

Funny you chose not to explain Swarthmore numbers. I can post a lot more top colleges’ percentages.

Please feel free to calculate the Ivy League colleges' Questbridge percentages and share them here. We'll be waiting.

DP

"Top colleges" is more than just ivy.

Swarthmore is frequently considered a to college

Sorry your kid couldn't get in to HYPSM

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Obviously being 5% faster at solving 9th grade English and math questions is the key to curing cancer. Holistic admissions is killing people.

Obviously Americas core weakness is a critical shortage of high stats investment bankers and M&A lawyers.

A century ago, the Ivies didn't use holistic admissions, only test scores and grades. They came up with holistic admissions because Jewish students were getting in.

This is spot on. Before, it was too many Jewish students. Now it is too many Asian students.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I work in higher ed, have lived in Asia, and visit universities and high schools in China, Japan, and Vietnam annually. My opinion is that holistic admissions are imperfect, but they are a hell of a lot better than purely grade- and test-centric admissions, which corrupt not only the colleges that rely on them but also the high schools that teach to them.

the EC centered holistic admissions are more likely to confer advantages on the wealthy

The wealthy have an advantage in nearly everything, including testing and grades. We may never have a complete meritocracy, but most AOs are trained to recognize such disparities. So the kid who does a month of volunteering in Palau on his parent's dime may not have an advantage over the kid who spends 20 hours a week at a parttime job or looking after younger siblings.

a students income does not change the correlation between test scores and college performance. A 1550 rich kids in average does as well as a1550 poor kid.

Does it take into account that the 1550 poor kid might be their first and only sitting without any prep, and the 1550 rich kid might have taken it 3+ times with private tutoring?

Yeah. thats what I thought.

Why are you assuming that it's the rich kid who needs to take it 3+ times with private tutoring and the poor kid who took it in one sitting without any prep? Innately smart kids exist from both high and low income. I'd definitely be more impressed by the first-sitting high score with no prep, regardless of the background, but there is really no way for colleges to tell the difference on an application. I know plenty of motivated and hard working fgli kids who self-study diligently until they can get 1500+. Sure they didn't benefit from private tutors because their families couldn't afford it, but the mechanics of improving your score is the same. The resources, tips, strategies are all online for free these days for those who want to make use of it. There is no "magic secret formula" that only test prep companies know. Plus, no amount of tutoring or self-study is going to bring some kids up to a very high score. For those who are capable of a high score with preparation, it then mostly depends on motivation and focus.

Anonymous wrote:Obviously being 5% faster at solving 9th grade English and math questions is the key to curing cancer. Holistic admissions is killing people.

Obviously Americas core weakness is a critical shortage of high stats investment bankers and M&A lawyers.

A century ago, the Ivies didn't use holistic admissions, only test scores and grades. They came up with holistic admissions because Jewish students were getting in.

Obviously being 5% faster at solving 9th grade English and math questions is the key to curing cancer. Holistic admissions is killing people.

Obviously Americas core weakness is a critical shortage of high stats investment bankers and M&A lawyers.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I work in higher ed, have lived in Asia, and visit universities and high schools in China, Japan, and Vietnam annually. My opinion is that holistic admissions are imperfect, but they are a hell of a lot better than purely grade- and test-centric admissions, which corrupt not only the colleges that rely on them but also the high schools that teach to them.

the EC centered holistic admissions are more likely to confer advantages on the wealthy

The wealthy have an advantage in nearly everything, including testing and grades. We may never have a complete meritocracy, but most AOs are trained to recognize such disparities. So the kid who does a month of volunteering in Palau on his parent's dime may not have an advantage over the kid who spends 20 hours a week at a parttime job or looking after younger siblings.

a students income does not change the correlation between test scores and college performance. A 1550 rich kids in average does as well as a1550 poor kid.

Does it take into account that the 1550 poor kid might be their first and only sitting without any prep, and the 1550 rich kid might have taken it 3+ times with private tutoring?

Yeah. thats what I thought.

So the rich kid has a family that care and can support him vs the poor one? There are many free sat prep options for the poors so how do you know both didn't get prepped. The word prep is so stupid it's like complaining that kids studied before a test vs free balling it. By this logic no one should do homework or study for anything.

The SAT isn't a subject matter test

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Better for the kids to learn now that there are thousands and thousands of other kids out there who are just as or more smart and accomplished, instead of going through their young adult years with an inflated sense of self importance and being put in their place when they reach a roadblock or face a setback of sorts.

Do you think the kids who succeed in competitive high schools have never faced roadblocks or setbacks before college?

They face them earlier and are better prepared for it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I work in higher ed, have lived in Asia, and visit universities and high schools in China, Japan, and Vietnam annually. My opinion is that holistic admissions are imperfect, but they are a hell of a lot better than purely grade- and test-centric admissions, which corrupt not only the colleges that rely on them but also the high schools that teach to them.

the EC centered holistic admissions are more likely to confer advantages on the wealthy

The wealthy have an advantage in nearly everything, including testing and grades. We may never have a complete meritocracy, but most AOs are trained to recognize such disparities. So the kid who does a month of volunteering in Palau on his parent's dime may not have an advantage over the kid who spends 20 hours a week at a parttime job or looking after younger siblings.

a students income does not change the correlation between test scores and college performance. A 1550 rich kids in average does as well as a1550 poor kid.

Does it take into account that the 1550 poor kid might be their first and only sitting without any prep, and the 1550 rich kid might have taken it 3+ times with private tutoring?

Yeah. thats what I thought.

So the rich kid has a family that care and can support him vs the poor one? There are many free sat prep options for the poors so how do you know both didn't get prepped. The word prep is so stupid it's like complaining that kids studied before a test vs free balling it. By this logic no one should do homework or study for anything.

Anonymous wrote:Better for the kids to learn now that there are thousands and thousands of other kids out there who are just as or more smart and accomplished, instead of going through their young adult years with an inflated sense of self importance and being put in their place when they reach a roadblock or face a setback of sorts.

Do you think the kids who succeed in competitive high schools have never faced roadblocks or setbacks before college?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I work in higher ed, have lived in Asia, and visit universities and high schools in China, Japan, and Vietnam annually. My opinion is that holistic admissions are imperfect, but they are a hell of a lot better than purely grade- and test-centric admissions, which corrupt not only the colleges that rely on them but also the high schools that teach to them.

the EC centered holistic admissions are more likely to confer advantages on the wealthy

The wealthy have an advantage in nearly everything, including testing and grades. We may never have a complete meritocracy, but most AOs are trained to recognize such disparities. So the kid who does a month of volunteering in Palau on his parent's dime may not have an advantage over the kid who spends 20 hours a week at a parttime job or looking after younger siblings.

a students income does not change the correlation between test scores and college performance. A 1550 rich kids in average does as well as a1550 poor kid.

Does it take into account that the 1550 poor kid might be their first and only sitting without any prep, and the 1550 rich kid might have taken it 3+ times with private tutoring?

Yeah. thats what I thought.