Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Joking aside… what are you teaching your kids if you encourage them this way? That their honest effort at being the best of who they are will not generate a result that is good enough to make you proud? That the ends justifies the means? How can they feel safe taking risks when all that matters is the result?

You are teaching them that the system is arbitrary, opaque, and driven by many other things besides merit. All of which is true. You are teaching them that many other people are gaming the system based on their race and gender - also true. And trying to convince them that it's "wrong" to do this themselves won't get much traction. Or at least you will lose credibility if you tell your son this.

DP. We all find different ways to move through this imperfect world, but in my experience, dishonestly is corrosive, above all, to the self. I have tried to teach honesty not because the world is honest, but because the only real freedom in a dishonest world is the ability to hold fast to truth. But you do you, and good luck out there.

This is beautifully written and a worthy sentiment, and also completely misplaced moral outrage. A high school student’s intended major is not a “truth.” It’s a thought, an idea, a guess in the dark. Often the guess is wrong.

PP. interesting that not one but two posters interpreted my comment as moral outrage directed toward the teenager who offers a best guess (or even wild guess) about intended major. That’s not how I feel. My own kid had to make a best (maybe even somewhat wild) guess, and will likely change course, as I myself once did.

Perhaps I misunderstood the PP’s comment, which I read as a declaration that anything but gamesmanship was for sentimental fools. My response wasn’t so much outrage as it was a reflection about that.

I agree that no kid should have to choose major at 17, actually.

Again, I wish you and your kids the best of luck.

They are definitely majors where it is easier to get in to T20, provided you have ample “evidence” … This is the whole point of holistic, admissions, and hiring an expensive private college counselors. Better to have an interdisciplinary, obscure or niche area of focus as well.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Joking aside… what are you teaching your kids if you encourage them this way? That their honest effort at being the best of who they are will not generate a result that is good enough to make you proud? That the ends justifies the means? How can they feel safe taking risks when all that matters is the result?

You are teaching them that the system is arbitrary, opaque, and driven by many other things besides merit. All of which is true. You are teaching them that many other people are gaming the system based on their race and gender - also true. And trying to convince them that it's "wrong" to do this themselves won't get much traction. Or at least you will lose credibility if you tell your son this.

DP. We all find different ways to move through this imperfect world, but in my experience, dishonestly is corrosive, above all, to the self. I have tried to teach honesty not because the world is honest, but because the only real freedom in a dishonest world is the ability to hold fast to truth. But you do you, and good luck out there.

This is beautifully written and a worthy sentiment, and also completely misplaced moral outrage. A high school student’s intended major is not a “truth.” It’s a thought, an idea, a guess in the dark. Often the guess is wrong.

💯
Most kids changed their majors. I think it’s something over 70%.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Joking aside… what are you teaching your kids if you encourage them this way? That their honest effort at being the best of who they are will not generate a result that is good enough to make you proud? That the ends justifies the means? How can they feel safe taking risks when all that matters is the result?

You are teaching them that the system is arbitrary, opaque, and driven by many other things besides merit. All of which is true. You are teaching them that many other people are gaming the system based on their race and gender - also true. And trying to convince them that it's "wrong" to do this themselves won't get much traction. Or at least you will lose credibility if you tell your son this.

DP. We all find different ways to move through this imperfect world, but in my experience, dishonestly is corrosive, above all, to the self. I have tried to teach honesty not because the world is honest, but because the only real freedom in a dishonest world is the ability to hold fast to truth. But you do you, and good luck out there.

This is beautifully written and a worthy sentiment, and also completely misplaced moral outrage. A high school student’s intended major is not a “truth.” It’s a thought, an idea, a guess in the dark. Often the guess is wrong.

+1,000

DS is a NMSF, applying as a Film Studies major at all his schools. He has 3 years each of Film Study and Creative Writing in high school and 1500 SAT (even split).

Applied to a wide range of schools from Northwestern and Wesleyan to VT and Mason to Oklahoma and Alabama.

We’ll see how it all ends up 🤔

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Joking aside… what are you teaching your kids if you encourage them this way? That their honest effort at being the best of who they are will not generate a result that is good enough to make you proud? That the ends justifies the means? How can they feel safe taking risks when all that matters is the result?

You are teaching them that the system is arbitrary, opaque, and driven by many other things besides merit. All of which is true. You are teaching them that many other people are gaming the system based on their race and gender - also true. And trying to convince them that it's "wrong" to do this themselves won't get much traction. Or at least you will lose credibility if you tell your son this.

DP. We all find different ways to move through this imperfect world, but in my experience, dishonestly is corrosive, above all, to the self. I have tried to teach honesty not because the world is honest, but because the only real freedom in a dishonest world is the ability to hold fast to truth. But you do you, and good luck out there.

This is beautifully written and a worthy sentiment, and also completely misplaced moral outrage. A high school student’s intended major is not a “truth.” It’s a thought, an idea, a guess in the dark. Often the guess is wrong.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I ran some numbers based on the 2023 CDS. Might have changed since then.

Places where the boy acceptance rate > boy application rate:
Middlebury, Williams (slightly), Bowdoin, Wesleyan (large), Villanova

Places where the boy acceptance rate < boy application rate (it is a disadvantage for boys to apply)
Trinity (CT), Hamilton, Colby, Haverford, Washington & Lee, Colgate, Kenyon, Grinnell

Interesting Kenyon is on the disadvantage list since there was a NY Times article several years back where a Kenyon AO specifically said boys had a fairly marked advantage in admissions.

Now, I can’t remember if it was two kids with same stats vs accepting boys with lower stats. If it is the former, then two things can be true at once…that a boy with the same stats as a girl has a big advantage and that boys on average don’t have the same stats so fewer continue to be accepted.

Current Kenyon CDS
3,913 men applied, 4,305 women = applicant pool 47.6% male, 52.4% female

1,058 men admitted = 27% of male applicants
1,466 women admitted = 34% of female applicants

Enrolled class is 42.6% male and 57.4% female

609 applied early decision, 249 accepted (56% of their incoming freshman class)

Seems pretty clear that Kenyon just doesn't want men.

But these stats don't tell us how men and women self-select. Maybe male applicants skew weaker after hearing that "Kenyon wants more men."

They don't break out the test scores and gpa by gender, so we can't say anything about whether the male applicants are stronger or weaker than the female.

You can just as easily argue that male applicants skew weaker because stronger male applicants know Kenyon doesn't want men, and therefore they apply elsewhere.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Joking aside… what are you teaching your kids if you encourage them this way? That their honest effort at being the best of who they are will not generate a result that is good enough to make you proud? That the ends justifies the means? How can they feel safe taking risks when all that matters is the result?

You are teaching them that the system is arbitrary, opaque, and driven by many other things besides merit. All of which is true. You are teaching them that many other people are gaming the system based on their race and gender - also true. And trying to convince them that it's "wrong" to do this themselves won't get much traction. Or at least you will lose credibility if you tell your son this.

DP. We all find different ways to move through this imperfect world, but in my experience, dishonestly is corrosive, above all, to the self. I have tried to teach honesty not because the world is honest, but because the only real freedom in a dishonest world is the ability to hold fast to truth. But you do you, and good luck out there.

Inasmuch as a 17 year old generally has very vague ideas about what they want to major in, and those ideas (even if they are strongly held) very often will not survive contact with college courses in that major, it is dishonest to represent any given choice of major as dishonest. There are plenty of kids for whom one major is as good as any other, as far as they know senior year of high school, and for them, choosing liberal arts because it may confer some admission advantage is not dishonest.

In a more perfect world, colleges would stop asking high school kids "what is your plan for the whole rest of your life, starting with your major then proceeding to grad school and your subsequent career." Even kids who think they know the answer are highly unlikely to end up following that plan.

Kenyon is doing a poor job it seems to me.

They should be admitting 2000 men.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I ran some numbers based on the 2023 CDS. Might have changed since then.

Places where the boy acceptance rate > boy application rate:
Middlebury, Williams (slightly), Bowdoin, Wesleyan (large), Villanova

Places where the boy acceptance rate < boy application rate (it is a disadvantage for boys to apply)
Trinity (CT), Hamilton, Colby, Haverford, Washington & Lee, Colgate, Kenyon, Grinnell

Interesting Kenyon is on the disadvantage list since there was a NY Times article several years back where a Kenyon AO specifically said boys had a fairly marked advantage in admissions.

Now, I can’t remember if it was two kids with same stats vs accepting boys with lower stats. If it is the former, then two things can be true at once…that a boy with the same stats as a girl has a big advantage and that boys on average don’t have the same stats so fewer continue to be accepted.

Current Kenyon CDS
3,913 men applied, 4,305 women = applicant pool 47.6% male, 52.4% female

1,058 men admitted = 27% of male applicants
1,466 women admitted = 34% of female applicants

Enrolled class is 42.6% male and 57.4% female

609 applied early decision, 249 accepted (56% of their incoming freshman class)

Seems pretty clear that Kenyon just doesn't want men.

But these stats don't tell us how men and women self-select. Maybe male applicants skew weaker after hearing that "Kenyon wants more men."

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It depends what liberal arts. My son is in international affairs, and I don't think that's a gender-skewed field at all.

Correct. And history actually skews male. Now, art history is another story entirely...

Look at the numbers for your college by major on college raptor. It’s eye opening.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:FFS, some of our males are actually very interested in the humanities.

It's pissing me off that so many pps are trying to game the system by falsely claiming to want to major in them.

The Admissions team can tell the difference, based on activities over the course of high school. The top ones do not admit by major so it is only a slight boost to have a less-common interest.

We have heard reps at college fairs say "we are very interested in recruiting [humanities] majors" (various subjects, from foreign language to philosophy). So they don't "admit by major" but it's obvious that some departments in the school think they don't have enough students. How much this helps you is unknown. And the only way to find out what these schools "want" is to ask them. And of course, you'd have to know this freshman year for it to matter - you can't suddenly take four years of French when you're a senior, you have it or you don't - and if you did know what they want as a freshman there would be no guarantee it would still be true when you were a senior.

Basically, go do what interests you, don't bother trying to figure out "what Pomona wants".

Have heard similar messaging from private selective schools too.
Have no idea how they make it work, except I do know that the anthropology, philosophy and classics majors from our private end up at T25 private.
Yes, they are smart kids but not always the top.
Good /great ECs too.

Sara H spends a ton of time in her FB group helping families choose less subscribed majors and ensuring there’s enough evidence for major.

From the big name private counselors (NY based) I’ve talked to, I do think major choice (and requisite evidence) matters a lot in admissions decisions. They heavily focus on it when discussing narrative.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Joking aside… what are you teaching your kids if you encourage them this way? That their honest effort at being the best of who they are will not generate a result that is good enough to make you proud? That the ends justifies the means? How can they feel safe taking risks when all that matters is the result?

You are teaching them that the system is arbitrary, opaque, and driven by many other things besides merit. All of which is true. You are teaching them that many other people are gaming the system based on their race and gender - also true. And trying to convince them that it's "wrong" to do this themselves won't get much traction. Or at least you will lose credibility if you tell your son this.

DP. We all find different ways to move through this imperfect world, but in my experience, dishonestly is corrosive, above all, to the self. I have tried to teach honesty not because the world is honest, but because the only real freedom in a dishonest world is the ability to hold fast to truth. But you do you, and good luck out there.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I ran some numbers based on the 2023 CDS. Might have changed since then.

Places where the boy acceptance rate > boy application rate:
Middlebury, Williams (slightly), Bowdoin, Wesleyan (large), Villanova

Places where the boy acceptance rate < boy application rate (it is a disadvantage for boys to apply)
Trinity (CT), Hamilton, Colby, Haverford, Washington & Lee, Colgate, Kenyon, Grinnell

Interesting Kenyon is on the disadvantage list since there was a NY Times article several years back where a Kenyon AO specifically said boys had a fairly marked advantage in admissions.

Now, I can’t remember if it was two kids with same stats vs accepting boys with lower stats. If it is the former, then two things can be true at once…that a boy with the same stats as a girl has a big advantage and that boys on average don’t have the same stats so fewer continue to be accepted.

Current Kenyon CDS
3,913 men applied, 4,305 women = applicant pool 47.6% male, 52.4% female

1,058 men admitted = 27% of male applicants
1,466 women admitted = 34% of female applicants

Enrolled class is 42.6% male and 57.4% female

609 applied early decision, 249 accepted (56% of their incoming freshman class)

Seems pretty clear that Kenyon just doesn't want men.

What’s interesting is when the article was written, Kenyon was trending 62% female and they wanted to get it under 60%.

Obviously, looks like they did that. 60% is the magic number they don’t want to exceed.

Here is the article BTW...https://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/23/opinion/to-all-the-girls-ive-rejected.html

Anonymous wrote:It depends what liberal arts. My son is in international affairs, and I don't think that's a gender-skewed field at all.

Correct. And history actually skews male. Now, art history is another story entirely...