Would be nice if the folks saying “there are lots and lots of schools out there that will accept those [4.0] students” if they would “just widen their gaze,” and the folks saying “no one has the ‘right’ to be accepted into any school, regardless of stats,” could get together and decide which it is.

No one has the “right” to be accepted into any school, regardless of stats. As others have said, it is not a formula, it is subjective.
We hear on this board “so and so got into school A but was denied at lower ranked school B - how unfair/nonsensical etc. As if there was some kind of injustice. Move forward positively with those acceptances.

Anonymous wrote:I'm the biggest fan of using SAT's and rigor as a huge part of the application...but this guy's essay?

It reeked of "I'm too good for college".

The colleges to which he applied? They merely obliged.

Any kid busting out the word serendipity deserves to get punched in the face.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why?

I think students would have a more realistic idea of their potential pathways if they had access to the data that actually drove university decisions.

It’s all guessing now creating an insanely competitive environment that isn’t conducive to learning or good mental health. I see students with Bs feeling dejected like they have no chance so not even pursuing a number of schools. I see students killing themselves for a 4.0 UW, packing as many APs and leadership positions and then going into depression when they don’t get in but others with lower stats ECs do. I see students dreading college when in my generation we were excited about it.

Yet there are lots and lots of schools out there that will accept those students who are “killing themselves” — but the students have been convinced that that don’t want those schools. It’s wild. The United States has hundreds of colleges and universities. All but a handful have very clear admissions criteria and welcome students with Bs. Instead of dreading just widen your gaze.

Three tiers of schools:

Schools you can’t get into

Schools that think you’re too good for them and so will waitlist you

Schools on the brink of financial collapse

Gee, why is everyone so stressed out?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why?

I think students would have a more realistic idea of their potential pathways if they had access to the data that actually drove university decisions.

It’s all guessing now creating an insanely competitive environment that isn’t conducive to learning or good mental health. I see students with Bs feeling dejected like they have no chance so not even pursuing a number of schools. I see students killing themselves for a 4.0 UW, packing as many APs and leadership positions and then going into depression when they don’t get in but others with lower stats ECs do. I see students dreading college when in my generation we were excited about it.

Yet there are lots and lots of schools out there that will accept those students who are “killing themselves” — but the students have been convinced that that don’t want those schools. It’s wild. The United States has hundreds of colleges and universities. All but a handful have very clear admissions criteria and welcome students with Bs. Instead of dreading just widen your gaze.

Anonymous wrote:What will you do after the vaults are opened and it turns out the admissions offices actually followed all the rules?

Or you find out it’s not the URM who have been cheating but someone else entirely:

https://www.reddit.com/r/ApplyingToCollege/s/TKk6KmZ2Rk

I'm the biggest fan of using SAT's and rigor as a huge part of the application...but this guy's essay?

It reeked of "I'm too good for college".

The colleges to which he applied? They merely obliged.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No, but admissions should be anonymized. Get assigned a number in common app, provide course names with grades,SAT/AcT scores and if applying to a specific major the should be required to take AP subject test.

Schools pick most qualified candidates. Schools have a set number of slots to recruit athletes and other needs, rest of admits based on merit.

That is what they currently do. It is just that your idea of merit and their idea of merit differ.

Exactly.
The way the schools do it now - everyone is not a drone replica of each other (though at some schools it’s getting close)….

Anonymous wrote:No, but admissions should be anonymized. Get assigned a number in common app, provide course names with grades,SAT/AcT scores and if applying to a specific major the should be required to take AP subject test.

Schools pick most qualified candidates. Schools have a set number of slots to recruit athletes and other needs, rest of admits based on merit.

That is what they currently do. It is just that your idea of merit and their idea of merit differ.

Anonymous wrote:No, but admissions should be anonymized. Get assigned a number in common app, provide course names with grades,SAT/AcT scores and if applying to a specific major the should be required to take AP subject test.

Schools pick most qualified candidates. Schools have a set number of slots to recruit athletes and other needs, rest of admits based on merit.

Then all of the same kids get into all of the schools.

Anonymous wrote:No, but admissions should be anonymized. Get assigned a number in common app, provide course names with grades,SAT/AcT scores and if applying to a specific major the should be required to take AP subject test.

Schools pick most qualified candidates. Schools have a set number of slots to recruit athletes and other needs, rest of admits based on merit.

Unreasonable idea. Won't happen.

No, but admissions should be anonymized. Get assigned a number in common app, provide course names with grades,SAT/AcT scores and if applying to a specific major the should be required to take AP subject test.

Schools pick most qualified candidates. Schools have a set number of slots to recruit athletes and other needs, rest of admits based on merit.

I remember about 10 years ago there was a big kerfluffle when UC students found out they could see their application file. Universities fought this in court but lost due to Ferpa. In subsequent years universities stopped keeping the notes.

A bunch of kids reported being shocked and relieved they got in because the readers misrepresented their GPA, labeled top things average etc. many also noticed the time stamps. 8 minutes on the first reader, 2 minutes on the second etc. The lack of time spent on the application was eye opening as well as the errors. These were kids that were accepted.

It made me wonder whether the UCs care at all and that the whole holistic review is performative theater. The UCs only cares that an admit meets a bar that will graduate, sprinkle in a few shining stars and the rest is solely demographic , financial and geographic.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I disagree. The way colleges conduct admissions adversely affects mental health and diminishes high school learning.

Their practices may or may not be legal. Their practices if revealed may hurt their brand. I don’t think these are good reasons to allow them to hide their practices from the public they serve.

Colleges are non profit not profit businesses. Colleges receive substantial state and or federal funding which comes from tax payers. They aren’t even self sustaining non profits. Colleges also market widely and collect sizable application fees.

You pick where you apply. You can opt out of all the Ivies, cut throat admissions and focus on schools which are good schools but easy to get in for your child. There are so many of them!

As someone who works in a high school, trust me, it’s not just the Ivies. It’s the state flagships. It’s the SLACs. It’s the T30s.

But that is fine. Rule all of the schools that you mentioned out; rule out the T100 and there are still hundreds of schools where your child can receive an excellent education.

It’s easier said than done to rule them all out, when there’s a massive industry, including several adults at their high school, all pushing your kid to apply to the most selective school possible.

In average public schools they are just happy you are applying to a few in state. The industry push starts much earlier with where you decide to send your child to high school. You can’t crave prestige and then bemoan prestige being hard to obtain and stressful.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I disagree. The way colleges conduct admissions adversely affects mental health and diminishes high school learning.

Their practices may or may not be legal. Their practices if revealed may hurt their brand. I don’t think these are good reasons to allow them to hide their practices from the public they serve.

Colleges are non profit not profit businesses. Colleges receive substantial state and or federal funding which comes from tax payers. They aren’t even self sustaining non profits. Colleges also market widely and collect sizable application fees.

You pick where you apply. You can opt out of all the Ivies, cut throat admissions and focus on schools which are good schools but easy to get in for your child. There are so many of them!

As someone who works in a high school, trust me, it’s not just the Ivies. It’s the state flagships. It’s the SLACs. It’s the T30s.

But that is fine. Rule all of the schools that you mentioned out; rule out the T100 and there are still hundreds of schools where your child can receive an excellent education.

It’s easier said than done to rule them all out, when there’s a massive industry, including several adults at their high school, all pushing your kid to apply to the most selective school possible.

Are they really? Or, are the parents doing it to the kids? I vote the latter.

They weren't doing that at my kids school which is a solid feeder into the T20 and a big feeder into Stanford and the top UCs.