Anonymous wrote:Op, how old are your kids? It sounds like they’re still young. Provide them with a good education and plenty of room to explore and discover what they love, and put this idea on the back burner until they have a couple years of high school and an SAT or ACT score under their belt. A vast majority of students just don’t have the grades and scores for Ivy admissions, and of those that do, the exceptional qualities that catch the eye of the admissions officers are beyond the boxes you can check to make sure you “do everything right.”

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Wait — just so I understand it: you think the process is based on criteria you can control, such that you can guarantee the admission of a given person? You realize that’s what you’re saying, right?

No that is not what I am saying. If it was you would have quoted and bolded it.

To be clear:

Elite college admissions is NOT random. Ever.

There are things you can do which are likely to increase your chances at any college. Since the chances at elite schools are so small to begin with, the change may not be enough to gain your admission. But if you do gain admission, it is likely you did some of those things. And if you don't do those things, your chances of admission are lower. Get it?

Main point: not random. Don't tell people it is.

Can't believe I have to type that so many times. Ahh, the internets!

Did you read what I said? I conceded it isn’t random. What I am saying is that you can do all sorts of things to increase your chances and still get rejected because you have very little influence over the process. Two people can do the same things to gain an advantage and one will get in and the other won’t, for reasons neither could have known beforehand.

That’s what people need to understand. If you get in and aren’t a legacy, it was probably for a decent reason. If you didn’t get in, it’s not necessarily because you didn’t do exactly the same things as those who did get in.

That’s the point.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Wait — just so I understand it: you think the process is based on criteria you can control, such that you can guarantee the admission of a given person? You realize that’s what you’re saying, right?

No that is not what I am saying. If it was you would have quoted and bolded it.

To be clear:

Elite college admissions is NOT random. Ever.

There are things you can do which are likely to increase your chances at any college. Since the chances at elite schools are so small to begin with, the change may not be enough to gain your admission. But if you do gain admission, it is likely you did some of those things. And if you don't do those things, your chances of admission are lower. Get it?

Main point: not random. Don't tell people it is.

Can't believe I have to type that so many times. Ahh, the internets!

Anonymous wrote:

Wait — just so I understand it: you think the process is based on criteria you can control, such that you can guarantee the admission of a given person? You realize that’s what you’re saying, right?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Honestly, what’s the difference in practice between a random process and one you can barely influence?

Gosh, do you really need that explained to you?

OK.

A random process is one where you can't do anything to influence the event, so you don't. Don't bother with that summer research job. Don't bother doing volunteer work. Don't bother entering the science competition. Don't do extra research on the college for your essays. Don't read one of the many books that can help you make a stronger application. Why bother? It's random. Like the lottery.

A random process is one where you apply game theory and say "I'll apply to 10 colleges with an average acceptance rate of 10% and I'll be likely to get into one!" That doesn't work either.

In this process, with so many qualified applicants, barely influencing your chances is almost always the difference between admission and rejection. So that tiny bit of influence is critical.

No, it’s often not enough. That’s why so many qualified applicants get rejected every year. If it was “almost always the difference,” those kids would get in. Why is that so hard to understand?

It's not hard to understand.

In fact it is exactly my point.

Those kids that got in had something that those rejected didn't. There was a difference upon which they were chosen. Not randomly.

Why is that so hard to understand?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Honestly, what’s the difference in practice between a random process and one you can barely influence?

Gosh, do you really need that explained to you?

OK.

A random process is one where you can't do anything to influence the event, so you don't. Don't bother with that summer research job. Don't bother doing volunteer work. Don't bother entering the science competition. Don't do extra research on the college for your essays. Don't read one of the many books that can help you make a stronger application. Why bother? It's random. Like the lottery.

A random process is one where you apply game theory and say "I'll apply to 10 colleges with an average acceptance rate of 10% and I'll be likely to get into one!" That doesn't work either.

In this process, with so many qualified applicants, barely influencing your chances is almost always the difference between admission and rejection. So that tiny bit of influence is critical.

No, it’s often not enough. That’s why so many qualified applicants get rejected every year. If it was “almost always the difference,” those kids would get in. Why is that so hard to understand?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The acceptance rates for Ivy League universities are so low that it is irrational to try to figure out how to be accepted by one. I’m not saying this to be mean; it’s a mathematical fact.

However, two things:

1. There’s nothing special about the Ivy League. It’s a football league at the end of the day. There are dozens of schools just as good as the Ivy League.

2. I know plenty of people who went to Ivy League schools. Some of them are successful and many aren’t. It’s about the same as many other great schools. Your kids will succeed or not based on many other factors than whether they go to an Ivy League school.

I definitely agree, which is why I find it exceptional that there are families which send multiple siblings to the Ivy league, despite the low odds.

And again, i am not hung up on Ivy league per se, there are many high caliber schools that I will be happy for my kids to attend and feel they will succeed -- but the ability to get accepted to an Ivy likely means they will get accepted wherever they really want to go.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Honestly, what’s the difference in practice between a random process and one you can barely influence?

Gosh, do you really need that explained to you?

OK.

A random process is one where you can't do anything to influence the event, so you don't. Don't bother with that summer research job. Don't bother doing volunteer work. Don't bother entering the science competition. Don't do extra research on the college for your essays. Don't read one of the many books that can help you make a stronger application. Why bother? It's random. Like the lottery.

A random process is one where you apply game theory and say "I'll apply to 10 colleges with an average acceptance rate of 10% and I'll be likely to get into one!" That doesn't work either.

In this process, with so many qualified applicants, barely influencing your chances is almost always the difference between admission and rejection. So that tiny bit of influence is critical.

Anonymous wrote:OP- you are now "solidly DC middle class" -does that mean you can fully pay for college or will you need financial aid? It really does make a difference at some Ivy-league schools. Think about it, all things being equal they will take someone who can pay full-freight over someone who can't. There might be 3 or 4 Ivy League schools that truly are need-blind but the others really aren't.

The problem about growing up lower/lower middle class is that you don't have a sense of entitlement that people who grew up upper middle to upper class have. I grew up in a upper middle class family and my husband grew up in a lower class family. He doesn't realize you can finagle and push your way into opportunities. He would never ask anything or try to leverage any advantage to help our kids because he doesn't realize it can be done. Our youngest didn't get into a gifted program based on school testing. He accepted it even though he was puzzled because our youngest is clever. I took our youngest to get privately assessed and based on those scores he got into gifted program and is in gifted classes at school. So now he is tracked into a higher achieving cohort.

Same with sports or outside activities. You don't wait around for opportunities to fall into your lap- you go make those opportunities happen for your kid. I had my kids go to Kumon starting in preschool- I really believe it let me connect with Asian parents who value education (we are Latino) and who are knowledgeable about educational programs, who the best teachers are at our elementary school, what opportunities are put there, etc.

In sports my husband coaches at the younger ages. He wants to be completely fair, but I convince him to favor our kids with slightly more playing time, better positions, etc.

Anonymous wrote:

Honestly, what’s the difference in practice between a random process and one you can barely influence?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Yes I’m conceding it isn’t random. What I’m not saying is that you can strategize with great accuracy. You can try your hardest to be the exact type of student a college wants and still get rejected. When you’re looking at a place with a 5% acceptance rate, it’s to be expected.

Listen — I didn’t just read books about this process. I saw what happens with hooked kids because I went to a school with a stellar college acceptance record and, like I said before, my spouse works in higher ed. Without a hook, there is very little a kid can do to influence the process in his or her favor. It’s not fair but it’s true.

Then say that, and don't say it is random. It is dangerously misleading.

Anonymous wrote:

Yes I’m conceding it isn’t random. What I’m not saying is that you can strategize with great accuracy. You can try your hardest to be the exact type of student a college wants and still get rejected. When you’re looking at a place with a 5% acceptance rate, it’s to be expected.

Listen — I didn’t just read books about this process. I saw what happens with hooked kids because I went to a school with a stellar college acceptance record and, like I said before, my spouse works in higher ed. Without a hook, there is very little a kid can do to influence the process in his or her favor. It’s not fair but it’s true.

Anonymous wrote:OP- you are now "solidly DC middle class" -does that mean you can fully pay for college or will you need financial aid? It really does make a difference at some Ivy-league schools. Think about it, all things being equal they will take someone who can pay full-freight over someone who can't. There might be 3 or 4 Ivy League schools that truly are need-blind but the others really aren't.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You all really don’t get it. You can pick between two candidates and have it be an essentially random process. And if it isn’t literally a coin flip, it’s at least a choice based on criteria no one can strategize for.

Read The Gatekeepers or just look at the quote from the NYT article I posted above. Even if random isn’t the right word, the process at the schools with the lowest acceptance rates are, once you clear the GPA and SAT/ACT bars, not something you can reliably strategize for. I speak as someone whose spouse works in higher ed and has had private conversations with deans at top schools about this process.

There is no such thing as "an essentially random process". Something is either random or it isn't.

The fact that you now feel obliged to use "essentially" is a concession.

The fact that you can't strategize for it is also untrue. Most students can't with high accuracy, but if you don't think you can try to be the kind of student a certain college is looking for you are incorrect. Of course, that is doing it in reverse. The proper way is to find out what kind of student you are and find the colleges that are looking for that.

Don't mislead people to think it is random. No one who has actually read The Gatekeepers would think that.