Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just remember, YCBK is a college counseling service, it has a very powerful incentive to dismiss the idea that a kid can apply to college without using a counselor. YCBK is all about selling their college counseling service and naturally promotes the idea that you are doomed unless you hire a college counselor.

This is complete nonsense. As they say, their mission is to make college knowledge available to everyone. I get why the podcast isn't for everyone, but they are not all about "selling their college counseling service."

You are a disillusioned fool if you think he doesn't run this podcast to pay for his vacations we have to hear about. The point of these podcasts, including CEG, is to drive desperate families to their services. Capitalism.

This. He’s a salesman. He admits it! But, he offers something people desperately want so I don’t begrudge him. Everyone has to make a living. He’s engaging and provides good content. But it’s definitely a business.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just remember, YCBK is a college counseling service, it has a very powerful incentive to dismiss the idea that a kid can apply to college without using a counselor. YCBK is all about selling their college counseling service and naturally promotes the idea that you are doomed unless you hire a college counselor.

This is complete nonsense. As they say, their mission is to make college knowledge available to everyone. I get why the podcast isn't for everyone, but they are not all about "selling their college counseling service."

You are a disillusioned fool if you think he doesn't run this podcast to pay for his vacations we have to hear about. The point of these podcasts, including CEG, is to drive desperate families to their services. Capitalism.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just listened. Not that helpful as the only AOs who walked through their decision process were based in mountain states - Colorado College (small CO LAC), CU Boulder (big state safety school), and Grinnell (small Iowa LAC).

Wish there were some coastal representation: NE, SE, NW/SW.

Also seems like a lot of biases from AO readers based on how they grew up. The AOs were all female and seemed to come from less privileged families and more down to earth, and had a bias towards economically disadvantaged applicants who suffered. While they are underdogs, these aren't always the candidates who will thrive most in college!

Serious question. What would have been more helpful, from your perspective? I saw the exercise as mocking up how different people bring different perspectives to a review in light of what a college's mission is in selecting a student. So I viewed it as generic overview of holistic admissions. What would coastal representation bring that you feel was missing?

Curious if there is additional perspective/insight that was missing that is helpful to know.

Yes, it was pretty generic overview of holistic and I guess it wasn't that helpful to me. Our DC is trying to understand the admissions profile for more selective, urban schools. The only state U was a large non-selective school in a mountain state (CU Boulder CO). Everyone gets in at our HS so her insights weren't super helpful to get insights from a safety school AO that has an 80+% acceptance rate. Also, the other AOs and institutions chosen were similar: small, predominantly white institutions in Colorado again or Iowa. Plus they compared cases or files from very different schools that would never be reviewed against each other irl. They should have compared 3 files from the same school to show how the elements are different within the context of one school (competitive public, rigorous private or magnet school). They shouldn't do one of each - like comparing apples to oranges. Most files are read within context of one school (if they send many applicants) or in region or type (homeschools, by what % they send to college, how much they offer, etc.).

If by more selective urban schools, you mean ones outside the Top 20, like BU, NYU, USC, Pitt, Case Western and UW-Seattle and ones near urban areas like BC and Tufts, there are resources online (this site, College Confidential, YouTube videos, some by AOs) if you haven’t already looked.

And the Common Data Sets for these schools has a lot of helpful information.

I'd love to hear from an NYU AO

Search and compile a doc with all of the info you can from online sources including R/collegeresults

You’ll start to see some trends.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just remember, YCBK is a college counseling service, it has a very powerful incentive to dismiss the idea that a kid can apply to college without using a counselor. YCBK is all about selling their college counseling service and naturally promotes the idea that you are doomed unless you hire a college counselor.

You either don't listen to the podcast or you are purposefully misrepresenting the content. In the introduction, the host mentions he is a counselor and of course there are anecdotal references to his experience counseling, but it's hardly a hard sell. The whole point of the podcast is to educate parents and students. There are tons of interviews with AOs, higher ed industry folks, college deans, etc. There are highlights of various colleges, guidance on appying internationally, discussions on news. The latest interview from a professor/researcher about making the most of a college experience has been great. It's all free. Noone has to hire any of them.

One may not like the content which is fine. To each their own. But it's a disservice to misrepresent what could be a useful resource to other parents that may not have come across the podcast. I personally find it helpful, interesting, and have learned quite a bit.

I completely agree. I tried to listen to some of those other podcasts about college admissions but they’re only about the desperate 1% who want ivy +. That does describe a lot of people here but that’s not helpful to most people. YCBK is my favorite college podcast. I occasionally listen to Future U or the MEFA podcast or College Essay guy but I usually just delete them. I did appreciate the MEFA FAFSA episode.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just listened. Not that helpful as the only AOs who walked through their decision process were based in mountain states - Colorado College (small CO LAC), CU Boulder (big state safety school), and Grinnell (small Iowa LAC).

Wish there were some coastal representation: NE, SE, NW/SW.

Also seems like a lot of biases from AO readers based on how they grew up. The AOs were all female and seemed to come from less privileged families and more down to earth, and had a bias towards economically disadvantaged applicants who suffered. While they are underdogs, these aren't always the candidates who will thrive most in college!

Serious question. What would have been more helpful, from your perspective? I saw the exercise as mocking up how different people bring different perspectives to a review in light of what a college's mission is in selecting a student. So I viewed it as generic overview of holistic admissions. What would coastal representation bring that you feel was missing?

Curious if there is additional perspective/insight that was missing that is helpful to know.

Yes, it was pretty generic overview of holistic and I guess it wasn't that helpful to me. Our DC is trying to understand the admissions profile for more selective, urban schools. The only state U was a large non-selective school in a mountain state (CU Boulder CO). Everyone gets in at our HS so her insights weren't super helpful to get insights from a safety school AO that has an 80+% acceptance rate. Also, the other AOs and institutions chosen were similar: small, predominantly white institutions in Colorado again or Iowa. Plus they compared cases or files from very different schools that would never be reviewed against each other irl. They should have compared 3 files from the same school to show how the elements are different within the context of one school (competitive public, rigorous private or magnet school). They shouldn't do one of each - like comparing apples to oranges. Most files are read within context of one school (if they send many applicants) or in region or type (homeschools, by what % they send to college, how much tey offer, etc.).

start a podcast? these are very specific requests

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just listened. Not that helpful as the only AOs who walked through their decision process were based in mountain states - Colorado College (small CO LAC), CU Boulder (big state safety school), and Grinnell (small Iowa LAC).

Wish there were some coastal representation: NE, SE, NW/SW.

Also seems like a lot of biases from AO readers based on how they grew up. The AOs were all female and seemed to come from less privileged families and more down to earth, and had a bias towards economically disadvantaged applicants who suffered. While they are underdogs, these aren't always the candidates who will thrive most in college!

Serious question. What would have been more helpful, from your perspective? I saw the exercise as mocking up how different people bring different perspectives to a review in light of what a college's mission is in selecting a student. So I viewed it as generic overview of holistic admissions. What would coastal representation bring that you feel was missing?

Curious if there is additional perspective/insight that was missing that is helpful to know.

Yes, it was pretty generic overview of holistic and I guess it wasn't that helpful to me. Our DC is trying to understand the admissions profile for more selective, urban schools. The only state U was a large non-selective school in a mountain state (CU Boulder CO). Everyone gets in at our HS so her insights weren't super helpful to get insights from a safety school AO that has an 80+% acceptance rate. Also, the other AOs and institutions chosen were similar: small, predominantly white institutions in Colorado again or Iowa. Plus they compared cases or files from very different schools that would never be reviewed against each other irl. They should have compared 3 files from the same school to show how the elements are different within the context of one school (competitive public, rigorous private or magnet school). They shouldn't do one of each - like comparing apples to oranges. Most files are read within context of one school (if they send many applicants) or in region or type (homeschools, by what % they send to college, how much they offer, etc.).

If by more selective urban schools, you mean ones outside the Top 20, like BU, NYU, USC, Pitt, Case Western and UW-Seattle and ones near urban areas like BC and Tufts, there are resources online (this site, College Confidential, YouTube videos, some by AOs) if you haven’t already looked.

And the Common Data Sets for these schools has a lot of helpful information.

I'd love to hear from an NYU AO

Try YouTube and search for “how to get into NYU” and “what NYU is looking for” if you haven’t done it. I recall one AO video from around 2022, maybe another one as well, and an interesting short about what an admissions officer looks for in an applicant.

Also interesting that ECs and class rank aren’t as important at NYU as other factors if you believe the most recent common data set.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just listened. Not that helpful as the only AOs who walked through their decision process were based in mountain states - Colorado College (small CO LAC), CU Boulder (big state safety school), and Grinnell (small Iowa LAC).

Wish there were some coastal representation: NE, SE, NW/SW.

Also seems like a lot of biases from AO readers based on how they grew up. The AOs were all female and seemed to come from less privileged families and more down to earth, and had a bias towards economically disadvantaged applicants who suffered. While they are underdogs, these aren't always the candidates who will thrive most in college!

Serious question. What would have been more helpful, from your perspective? I saw the exercise as mocking up how different people bring different perspectives to a review in light of what a college's mission is in selecting a student. So I viewed it as generic overview of holistic admissions. What would coastal representation bring that you feel was missing?

Curious if there is additional perspective/insight that was missing that is helpful to know.

Yes, it was pretty generic overview of holistic and I guess it wasn't that helpful to me. Our DC is trying to understand the admissions profile for more selective, urban schools. The only state U was a large non-selective school in a mountain state (CU Boulder CO). Everyone gets in at our HS so her insights weren't super helpful to get insights from a safety school AO that has an 80+% acceptance rate. Also, the other AOs and institutions chosen were similar: small, predominantly white institutions in Colorado again or Iowa. Plus they compared cases or files from very different schools that would never be reviewed against each other irl. They should have compared 3 files from the same school to show how the elements are different within the context of one school (competitive public, rigorous private or magnet school). They shouldn't do one of each - like comparing apples to oranges. Most files are read within context of one school (if they send many applicants) or in region or type (homeschools, by what % they send to college, how much they offer, etc.).

If by more selective urban schools, you mean ones outside the Top 20, like BU, NYU, USC, Pitt, Case Western and UW-Seattle and ones near urban areas like BC and Tufts, there are resources online (this site, College Confidential, YouTube videos, some by AOs) if you haven’t already looked.

And the Common Data Sets for these schools has a lot of helpful information.

I'd love to hear from an NYU AO

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just listened. Not that helpful as the only AOs who walked through their decision process were based in mountain states - Colorado College (small CO LAC), CU Boulder (big state safety school), and Grinnell (small Iowa LAC).

Wish there were some coastal representation: NE, SE, NW/SW.

Also seems like a lot of biases from AO readers based on how they grew up. The AOs were all female and seemed to come from less privileged families and more down to earth, and had a bias towards economically disadvantaged applicants who suffered. While they are underdogs, these aren't always the candidates who will thrive most in college!

Serious question. What would have been more helpful, from your perspective? I saw the exercise as mocking up how different people bring different perspectives to a review in light of what a college's mission is in selecting a student. So I viewed it as generic overview of holistic admissions. What would coastal representation bring that you feel was missing?

Curious if there is additional perspective/insight that was missing that is helpful to know.

Yes, it was pretty generic overview of holistic and I guess it wasn't that helpful to me. Our DC is trying to understand the admissions profile for more selective, urban schools. The only state U was a large non-selective school in a mountain state (CU Boulder CO). Everyone gets in at our HS so her insights weren't super helpful to get insights from a safety school AO that has an 80+% acceptance rate. Also, the other AOs and institutions chosen were similar: small, predominantly white institutions in Colorado again or Iowa. Plus they compared cases or files from very different schools that would never be reviewed against each other irl. They should have compared 3 files from the same school to show how the elements are different within the context of one school (competitive public, rigorous private or magnet school). They shouldn't do one of each - like comparing apples to oranges. Most files are read within context of one school (if they send many applicants) or in region or type (homeschools, by what % they send to college, how much they offer, etc.).

If by more selective urban schools, you mean ones outside the Top 20, like BU, NYU, USC, Pitt, Case Western and UW-Seattle and ones near urban areas like BC and Tufts, there are resources online (this site, College Confidential, YouTube videos, some by AOs) if you haven’t already looked.

And the Common Data Sets for these schools has a lot of helpful information.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just listened. Not that helpful as the only AOs who walked through their decision process were based in mountain states - Colorado College (small CO LAC), CU Boulder (big state safety school), and Grinnell (small Iowa LAC).

Wish there were some coastal representation: NE, SE, NW/SW.

Also seems like a lot of biases from AO readers based on how they grew up. The AOs were all female and seemed to come from less privileged families and more down to earth, and had a bias towards economically disadvantaged applicants who suffered. While they are underdogs, these aren't always the candidates who will thrive most in college!

Serious question. What would have been more helpful, from your perspective? I saw the exercise as mocking up how different people bring different perspectives to a review in light of what a college's mission is in selecting a student. So I viewed it as generic overview of holistic admissions. What would coastal representation bring that you feel was missing?

Curious if there is additional perspective/insight that was missing that is helpful to know.

Yes, it was pretty generic overview of holistic and I guess it wasn't that helpful to me. Our DC is trying to understand the admissions profile for more selective, urban schools. The only state U was a large non-selective school in a mountain state (CU Boulder CO). Everyone gets in at our HS so her insights weren't super helpful to get insights from a safety school AO that has an 80+% acceptance rate. Also, the other AOs and institutions chosen were similar: small, predominantly white institutions in Colorado again or Iowa. Plus they compared cases or files from very different schools that would never be reviewed against each other irl. They should have compared 3 files from the same school to show how the elements are different within the context of one school (competitive public, rigorous private or magnet school). They shouldn't do one of each - like comparing apples to oranges. Most files are read within context of one school (if they send many applicants) or in region or type (homeschools, by what % they send to college, how much tey offer, etc.).

Thanks for sharing. Yeah, I can see how the comparison across schools can change the conversation vs if it was candidates from the same school in a very selective context might be pretty different i.e. What is it like when you are comparing students all with 1500+/34+, 8-12 APs, and deep, but very different ECs - all from the same school?

First is is coure rigor: which APs. The number is not that relevant, they score rigor based on whether the highest level rigor courses were taken in all or almost all areas. Read Selingo's older book on it, or watch some top schools review the transcript. The most rigorous APs matter to the T20 especially, even in areas the kid does not favor. AOs at ivies say this at admission sessions, they expect you to challenge yourselves in all areas even the ones you do not love. The whataboutism of this course has a hard teacher or this course could not be taken because the kid wanted to double-up in their favorite area of expertise does not matter to elites.
Next it would be the LORs and the counselor letter which puts them "in contet" and helps them compare to other kids with similar stats (ie relative gpa, rigor in context). Finally, least important but a factor, the ECs: as long as they have 1-2 that were over multiple years and had at least some impact and/or leadership(not always what dcum thinks it means), it is fine.
Unless your kid is applying from one of the true feeder schools that gets 20-25% of the class into T15/ivy UNhooked, there are never dozens of 1500+/34+ all at the top of the class who all had the same course rigor.

A great episode would be a roundtable talking about what % of a T25 private is allocated to "feeder private high schools". Is it higher now in the Trump era bc of funding issues?

Did anyone hear Lee Coffin's Admissions Beat this week - where he basically admits he created a supp essay prompt based off the a Quaker quote he saw at Sidwell when he was there for a visit? He actually said that....

I mean.....

Anonymous wrote:What's a YCBK?

I immediately thought TCBY. Frozen yogurt

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just remember, YCBK is a college counseling service, it has a very powerful incentive to dismiss the idea that a kid can apply to college without using a counselor. YCBK is all about selling their college counseling service and naturally promotes the idea that you are doomed unless you hire a college counselor.

Oh, I also think private counselors are pretty useless. You high school counselor and naviance (or similar) are your two best friends

Unfortunately, our school doesn't use Naviance or anything similar for college applications. And the couselors have hundreds of assigned students including kids with very serious issues. There is little help from the HS with the college process.

That sucks. I’m really sorry. There is a big difference in the quality of counseling available in American high schools. People like you need all the free help you can get. Listen to all the podcasts. Read all of the books. Sign up for all of the webinars

Yes. Did read several books and also hired a private college counselor for a few sessions. Cost about $900 total. Was worth it to us.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just listened. Not that helpful as the only AOs who walked through their decision process were based in mountain states - Colorado College (small CO LAC), CU Boulder (big state safety school), and Grinnell (small Iowa LAC).

Wish there were some coastal representation: NE, SE, NW/SW.

Also seems like a lot of biases from AO readers based on how they grew up. The AOs were all female and seemed to come from less privileged families and more down to earth, and had a bias towards economically disadvantaged applicants who suffered. While they are underdogs, these aren't always the candidates who will thrive most in college!

Serious question. What would have been more helpful, from your perspective? I saw the exercise as mocking up how different people bring different perspectives to a review in light of what a college's mission is in selecting a student. So I viewed it as generic overview of holistic admissions. What would coastal representation bring that you feel was missing?

Curious if there is additional perspective/insight that was missing that is helpful to know.

Yes, it was pretty generic overview of holistic and I guess it wasn't that helpful to me. Our DC is trying to understand the admissions profile for more selective, urban schools. The only state U was a large non-selective school in a mountain state (CU Boulder CO). Everyone gets in at our HS so her insights weren't super helpful to get insights from a safety school AO that has an 80+% acceptance rate. Also, the other AOs and institutions chosen were similar: small, predominantly white institutions in Colorado again or Iowa. Plus they compared cases or files from very different schools that would never be reviewed against each other irl. They should have compared 3 files from the same school to show how the elements are different within the context of one school (competitive public, rigorous private or magnet school). They shouldn't do one of each - like comparing apples to oranges. Most files are read within context of one school (if they send many applicants) or in region or type (homeschools, by what % they send to college, how much tey offer, etc.).

Thanks for sharing. Yeah, I can see how the comparison across schools can change the conversation vs if it was candidates from the same school in a very selective context might be pretty different i.e. What is it like when you are comparing students all with 1500+/34+, 8-12 APs, and deep, but very different ECs - all from the same school?

First is is coure rigor: which APs. The number is not that relevant, they score rigor based on whether the highest level rigor courses were taken in all or almost all areas. Read Selingo's older book on it, or watch some top schools review the transcript. The most rigorous APs matter to the T20 especially, even in areas the kid does not favor. AOs at ivies say this at admission sessions, they expect you to challenge yourselves in all areas even the ones you do not love. The whataboutism of this course has a hard teacher or this course could not be taken because the kid wanted to double-up in their favorite area of expertise does not matter to elites.
Next it would be the LORs and the counselor letter which puts them "in contet" and helps them compare to other kids with similar stats (ie relative gpa, rigor in context). Finally, least important but a factor, the ECs: as long as they have 1-2 that were over multiple years and had at least some impact and/or leadership(not always what dcum thinks it means), it is fine.
Unless your kid is applying from one of the true feeder schools that gets 20-25% of the class into T15/ivy UNhooked, there are never dozens of 1500+/34+ all at the top of the class who all had the same course rigor.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just listened. Not that helpful as the only AOs who walked through their decision process were based in mountain states - Colorado College (small CO LAC), CU Boulder (big state safety school), and Grinnell (small Iowa LAC).

Wish there were some coastal representation: NE, SE, NW/SW.

Also seems like a lot of biases from AO readers based on how they grew up. The AOs were all female and seemed to come from less privileged families and more down to earth, and had a bias towards economically disadvantaged applicants who suffered. While they are underdogs, these aren't always the candidates who will thrive most in college!

Serious question. What would have been more helpful, from your perspective? I saw the exercise as mocking up how different people bring different perspectives to a review in light of what a college's mission is in selecting a student. So I viewed it as generic overview of holistic admissions. What would coastal representation bring that you feel was missing?

Curious if there is additional perspective/insight that was missing that is helpful to know.

Yes, it was pretty generic overview of holistic and I guess it wasn't that helpful to me. Our DC is trying to understand the admissions profile for more selective, urban schools. The only state U was a large non-selective school in a mountain state (CU Boulder CO). Everyone gets in at our HS so her insights weren't super helpful to get insights from a safety school AO that has an 80+% acceptance rate. Also, the other AOs and institutions chosen were similar: small, predominantly white institutions in Colorado again or Iowa. Plus they compared cases or files from very different schools that would never be reviewed against each other irl. They should have compared 3 files from the same school to show how the elements are different within the context of one school (competitive public, rigorous private or magnet school). They shouldn't do one of each - like comparing apples to oranges. Most files are read within context of one school (if they send many applicants) or in region or type (homeschools, by what % they send to college, how much tey offer, etc.).

The reality is those schools have very few spots for unhooked candidates. Someone posted a great link here on institutional priorities and what percentage of the pie they get. A high stats kid is left with less than 10% of the available spots. It would be really disappointing to all of you to see

But ingenius prep Did something like that a few years ago with the review of a TJ kid. They also just had one that I saw that had a public school kid go up against a private school kid. Both with top stats.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just remember, YCBK is a college counseling service, it has a very powerful incentive to dismiss the idea that a kid can apply to college without using a counselor. YCBK is all about selling their college counseling service and naturally promotes the idea that you are doomed unless you hire a college counselor.

Oh, I also think private counselors are pretty useless. You high school counselor and naviance (or similar) are your two best friends

Unfortunately, our school doesn't use Naviance or anything similar for college applications. And the couselors have hundreds of assigned students including kids with very serious issues. There is little help from the HS with the college process.

That sucks. I’m really sorry. There is a big difference in the quality of counseling available in American high schools. People like you need all the free help you can get. Listen to all the podcasts. Read all of the books. Sign up for all of the webinars