The application process shouldn't be confusing. Most schools only care about grades, class rank, and SAT/ACT scores. What's confusing is the suggestion that extracurriculars and essays matter -- for all but the most selective 50 or so schools, they don't. If you're student is in the top 10 percent of the class and has a decent ACT/SAT, there are many fine schools outside the elite 50, who will be eager to have you and will be throwing scholarship offers (actually tuition discounts) at you right and left. Life doesn't end if you're turned down at Harvard and have to attend Creighton or Fordham -- just ask Denzel Washington and Bob Gibson.
12
The piece leaves valid hard hits on the table that are richly deserved. Written selection criteria should be provided Before accepting any application fee. Not hard.
4
A great follow-up article would be “why is going to college so expensive”.
14
It distresses me that colleges have been so successful at marketing the need for their product while being so unsuccessful at delivering value. All of us have met graduates who are barely functional and that's now extending into students with "master's degrees" in fields they barely understand.
Meanwhile folks without degrees but with plenty of experience and useful skills are shut out of jobs by incompetent HR reps who attach degree requirements to exclude candidates, as if the skills gained during college cannot win on their own but must be protected against non-degree bearing candidates.
Students take out ever larger loans while the colleges move to fake online courses and vend Master's to anyone whose credit card clears.
It's a sad state of affairs. And one in which colleges prosper in proportion with their own incompetence since the more watered down the BA, the greater the need for the MA and the greater profit for the college. No surprise, the MA is being watered down so much that students can now seek a PhD online!
What a racket.
13
Multiply this by a factor of 100 when applying to graduate school.
6
In the power conferences, the ability of a student to pay tuition and fees so the football coach can get his $5M salary and bonus, is some where near the top of the list
13
The subhead for the article on the NYT front page says, "the problem is that universities disagree on what makes an ideal student." This sounds more like a feature than a bug.
6
I detect a business opportunity, like "LendingTree.com" where you "apply" to one site and THEY go out to the providers and bring you back offers. This business of applying individually to countless institutions is obsolete.
Some nice Chinese kid will figure this out before American Excpetionalism triumphs again. Pardon my sarcasm...
11
The key to understanding college admissions is understanding who pays for the opportunity for the students to learn and earn academic credentials. If the college is funded with public funds, governments and government officials are going to impose requirements which serve political requirements. That means not just taking those with the highest grades, greatest number of honors and other college courses, and the highest test scores but those whose performance in their circumstances shows exceptional outcomes despite the limited opportunities, and diversity is also a big goal. If the college is funded by donors who are mostly alumni, then it's important to allow their children admissions when they apply to retain their loyalty. The admissions criteria will reflect the needs that the institutions must serve to retain adequate funding.
11
I read some applicant folders, before retiring.
When I started, 30-odd years ago, every single kid put in a semester volunteering at a hospital, so I just ignored that -- but I did like the occasional kid who found a volunteer opportunity that was actually connected to what the kid wanted to study.
Back then, it was extremely rare for kids to argue their way into a college professor's research group, and so that counted for a /lot/. Now every kid does it! (I'm exaggerating, but not by much.)
What would really help kids would be for us to break the vicious circle in which kids apply to 20 colleges, and so it's five times as hard to be admitted than back when kids applied to four colleges. The solution is to limit the number of applications a kid can make. Once upon a time a group of universities tried to make an agreement about admissions policy, and lost in court when someone sued them under the antitrust laws. So it'll have to be the government that establishes this limit.
While we're at it, we should limit the number of AP courses a kid takes, or at least limit the number for which we give extra GPA points. The de facto requirement that every kid take every AP course that their school offers does more than anything else, in my opinion, to stress them out and ruin their childhoods.
51
This is academia. The institution is founded on philosophical debate and scientific method. Learn how to make a strong argument. Support that argument with strong evidence. Grades are one data point. Tests are another. There are many others out there though. At the end of the day, your job is to persuade a room full of complete strangers that you're worthy of admittance. Draw on whatever skills or experience you have to work with and do the best you can. The strongest arguments win.
8
I have learned that when you start getting these nebulous-sounding questions, just MAKE SOMETHING UP! It simply doesn't matter what you say, whether it's the truth or not. Why? Because you're being put in a situation where only the most cunning will survive.
All your academic life, so you have been graded. Graded on a results-based system (e.g. you get an A if you studied and filled in the bubbles on your Scantron form correctly). Or, produced a well written report. Fine. Great! That's as it should be.
Now that you're ready for the next step, college, you're asked these GOOFY questions. Questions that may have, at one time, been part of a well-crafted, legitimate set of psychological characteristics, invented by, let's say Daniel Kahneman (Google him!) , but now are used by universities just because "it sounds cool". It also allows the university to arbitrarily pick-and-choose whatever they want, given their mood.
Why? Because they can. Do grades matter? Sure, but "everybody" has good grades, more or less. The bottom line is that grades, and other forms of merit, are being sublimated with "Miss America" types of questions: where you see yourself in 25 years? Late bloomer? Reserve power?
My advise is you need to be/become cunning. They are not performing any salient information gathering, but more of a game. That's it. A game in which you are the pawn, like it or not.
16
Hey, it's not that confusing. There are a lot of different colleges and each has its own standards. Is it clearer now?
9
Equally important to transparency in admissions would be transparency in the financial aid award process. Most colleges and universities do a great job of making sure any student who wants to attend can afford to do so -- but, students and parents are rarely aware of that. If schools better laid out how (and when) financial aid decisions are made, students might feel more empowered to make better decisions and understand their own negotiating power in the transaction.
9
Asian-Americans are well aware that most of the subjective criteria are used to discriminate against them. If the selective institutions are taking public funds for any of their programs, they need to have color blind objective criteria for selection which they can defend in court.
16
First, dump the college essay, a ridiculous and deeply unfair criterion of admission. Supportive and wealthy parents skew college applications in a number of ways - SAT prep, private schools with accommodating teachers to write recs, even mock college interviews with hired pros - but the fraud perpetuated/allowed in the college essay takes the cake. Disadvantaged (and by that we mean impoverished) applicants rarely have a slew of willing readers, editors, and re-writers to suggest content and correction. It's nothing short of scandalous that this particular playing field is so utterly tilted in favor of families with ready cash. If an essay is needed, at least level the pitch slightly - give applicants a pencil and paper and two proctored hours in a room; no clutch of paid advisors waiting in the wings.
54
I would suggest that the parents and the child sit down together and discuss which institutions will truly serve the needs of the student rather than forcing the child to go only for big-name colleges and universities.
I share the horror of some posters here who are appalled by the lack of basic life skills, i.e., writing and math, demonstrated by the younger generations who have already graduated from college, not to mention what it takes to be a good human being who can contribute something to society.
It’s a lot more important if your kid graduates as a mensch, who can read, write and add, than whether you can brag that they went to Harvard. The simple idea that they are honest, considerate of others and can function as a normal human being will, unfortunately, make them stand out in today’s world.
15
We had four rules for my daughter when she was applying for college last year:
1. Your college is not going to bankrupt our family.
2. There are lots of schools that are a good fit so don't hang your hat on just one school.
3. Once you get your first job, people don't really care as much where you went to college. (Related: College does not define your whole life)
4. There is nothing wrong with going to a school that is easier to get into.
She had several great choices in the end and made a decision that reflected a broader view of the opportunities before her and an understanding of the the long-term consequences of student debt. And yes, she said "no" to some high ranked/elite schools because we simply couldn't afford them. Low admissions rates are not the only factor that should be considered.
69
What I understood after extensive application in Fall 2018 is: Education or Higher Study is only for rich people. There are one two exceptions may be.
I had admit from 4 universities including Iowa State Universities, SUNY Buffalo...but I didnt get a single dollar financial aid. They wrote to apply before priority deadline which i followed strictly. But zero financial assistance i received.
So I left my dream of getting into college..because dream doesnt take away hunger...
Wish all the best to rich people getting educated in Five Star casino type education system. If you have chips you can play.
8
Of course different universities have different criteria. That's why there are different universities.
11
As someone who attended college and graduate school in New York, California and England, I strongly advise anyone applying to think very carefully about what they can reasonably afford. The situation with student loans is nightmarish and there will be no reform during the Trump administration. Obama instituted some excelletn reforms but it's possible some of them will be undone in the future. Education Secretary Betsy DeVos seems determined to make the student loan rules even more loathsome than they already are. What looks like a reasonable amount of debt to take on as a freshman may look very different when you're paying it off in your mid-30s. Try to talk to someone who's an expert on this or you may repent later.
As a graduate of the University of California - I also taught there - I want to give UC a shout-out. The non-resident cost of the first year is $61,000 but after that first year, you'll be a resident of California and current yearly cost for residents of California is $33,000. Most of the campuses are beautiful with world class faculty and they do an outstanding job of trying to hook students up with campus jobs. I look back on my time there with much happiness - I never felt lost there and never felt like the school didn't care about me. I know many people who graduated from UC and years later, they all feel like it was one of the best choices they ever made.
6
I don't believe the statement about gaining in-state tuition at a U. California school after a year as a non-state resident is true. Can someone fact check this?
23
This calls for a shout-out to Frank Bruni. If you've not read it yet, get hold of his book: Where You Go is Not Who You'll Be. It's a must-read for a smart, pragmatic look at the elite-driven frenzy (to the other comments here that begin with "who cares.") Bruni expertly and accessibly makes the case that any good college is good enough! From Condi Rice to other examples of kids who turned out all right, it's a wonderful antidote to the angst some of us allow ourselves to create.
13
Here’s how to make college admissions less awful:
1. Impose an 8-college limit
2. Create a truly common application that seniors complete during a proctored session at school, with essay prompts that defy coaching. The application would include fun but revealing questions like, “What’s the nicest thing you’ve ever done?” or “Which book do you recommend to your worst enemy?” The applications go to a central clearing house, then students indicate which 8 schools receive them. Colleges can’t send supplements except for logistical questions (“Intended major?”)
Colleges today impose extra hoops for applicants to jump through in order to discern who will enroll and to make silly hair-splitting decisions among the equally able. But if students confine a college list to 8, admission staff can assume that each school is a contender.
Once students are limited to 8 colleges, those who might have otherwise applied to every Ivy but must now restrict their choices could end up at a slightly less-celebrated school. After several years, when high school hot-shots have landed at Brandeis instead of Brown or at Northeastern and not Northwestern, younger students will have a broader swath of colleges that they’ll view as desirable and thus a less pressured college process.
My “plan” also includes provisions for students who are denied by all 8 initial schools or who don’t receive adequate aid. It doesn’t eliminate Early Decision/Action. But there’s no room here for all details.
19
One thing all colleges can agree on: if the parents can pony up a $5 million 'charitable' donation, the kid will suddenly become an 'ideal' student.
12
No doubt admissions committees have a lot of criteria, but at the most competitive schools, the top three are SAT/ACT scores, high school grades and minority status. And only certain minorities get an advantage; other minorities (Jews and Asians) are actually at a disadvantage because so many apply with excellent grades and scores.
So is this fair? No, but that's life. It's also unfair when you are born into a single parent, poor family that does not value education and grow up in a community rampant with drugs and violence. That's also life for many.
Ideally it would be best if students were evaluated based on their potential for excellence, taking account of their background and upbringing, regardless of their race.
13
Only in a minority of colleges is any of this applicable. Most look at your academics mostly.
8
I don't agree that it would be a good idea for colleges to provide information to the public explaining their strategies.
If they did so, it would drive applicants toward those criteria, in reality or in application, and reduce the chance that the college can see the reality of who the applicant actually is.
The reason it's confusing is that elite colleges are forced to deny large numbers of well qualified applicants because there aren't enough spaces. That leaves applicants trying to find the hot-button which will gain them admission, when no such hot-button exists.
They are trying to build a class. So, it depends on what they need to round it out -- and even they don't know in advance, because it depends on who else applies. I have heard college admission officers admit that they go back and forth about the same application from day to day. Even they don't know what will work, except, presumably, for absolute stars -- and everybody knows some of them who got denied.
The problem is basically that there are a lot of near-random factors at work i a situation where an applicant who isn't an absolute star is trying to get into an elite college.
By "absolute star" I'm referring to valedictorians, science applicants who have already published (not a joke, Columbia has space for it on the application iirc) and others with stellar accomplishments. Put that together with great SATs, GPA, essay and recommendations, and the process will seem less confusing.
27
It's very simple: When you apply to elite institutions, you only compete against other applicants with similar demographics. If you are in an over-represented group, the admissions criteria are much stricter than if you are in an underrepresented category. Whether this is just or not is an interesting question, but there is nothing "confusing" about it.
I can hardly imagine an easier job than admissions officer at such schools. Just sort your applications and take the top kids in each pile.
4
I have a college graduate, a college junior and a high school senior applying to universities now. One admissions officer at a private southern university was quite candid in declaring that it all depends what they're looking for in a given year. This year, for example, the band may need a tuba player, the sociology department doesn't have enough students enrolled and the school hasn't admitted any applicants from Nebraska recently, so an applicant with one or more of those credentials/ambitions may make the cut over some others with equally good or even better test scores. This makes sense but underscores the random nature of admissions.
11
When you apply to university focus on fit and program.
Do your grades and test scores and ranking fit with the universities standard profile?
Can you afford the tuition, room and board if you get no scholarships?
What are the employment prospects, and salaries for students in your selected program? Do they get jobs? What is the average hiring salary? Do they get accepted graduate schools? Is this school known for this program?
College is too expensive for most of us to figure it out along the way. If you are paying you should be making sure that the programs you apply for and ultimately select get your student where they need to go.
2
This is really not a helpful article. My son is a senior and he is finishing up applying to college. Competitive colleges told us at information sessions and open houses that the colleges institutional needs often plays a role in admissions. It isn't personal. You can be awesome and not get it. I don't understand why people don't get his by now. Also, there are so many places a student can learn and be happy. Apply to a balanced group of schools and all will be well.
19
I just paid about $250 to Educational Testing Service to take the GRE AGAIN...Since my scores expired after 5 years (first time around for M.S. programs, this time for PhD). The policy does seem valid as my state of mind has deteriorated rapidly over the last few years...no way I'm getting the same scores as last time.
Maybe colleges should evaluate applicants based on their ability to pay application and testing fees. OR...maybe talk to them?
There was a nice piece on here a few weeks ago about burned out high school students trying to check all these vague application boxes. I suggest a more personal process focusing on if the student will achieve their goals at a certain school. I had the grades / test scores to get in to some 'prestigious' private schools but went to UW-Madison mostly because my dad went there, and we could afford the in-state tuition. Simple. I joined the marching band and had the time of my life at Madison.
2
Talk to them??? Some major universities admit thousands of students, a personal interview is not possible.
1
Highly selective colleges make their (publicly available) criteria fuzzy because they do not wish to be held accountable by governments or people who might sue them. It is a mistake to focus on the criteria, in any case. Judge colleges on the results, i.e. the demographics of the student body. If you find that the student population of Harvard is essentially self-replicating, i.e. students at Harvard are part of the same thin slice of the elite as Harvard's alumnae, and often related, then there's the answer to your question. Harvard's admissions policy works to take the children of the elite, and keep them in the elite. Judge each school's admission policy by who is attending that school, not by mission statements or by what any university administrator has to say. It's in their interest to lie. The federal government should insist on detailed demographics of each class that enters and exits each college. That is how we can learn about admissions policies.
4
This is the sort of corporatized, transactional thinking that we need less of, not more. There is no 'comprehensive explanation' for how students are chosen because Admissions is about selecting a class: the fitness of any applicant changes from year to year, depending on the pool, and that is 1) confidential and 2) impossible to predict. If you have to ask "How can I get into XYZ?" and are spending excessive amounts of time trying to finesse the process, just stop. Admissions officers can see that sort of thing at 50 paces and they don't warm to it.
15
I've always thought that colleges should give up on trying to come up with a granular judgment on individual students. I'd just divide students up into three groups: highly likely to succeed, likely to succeed, and not likely to succeed. Depending on the type of institution, I'd pick the incoming class randomly from those three groups according to whatever mix might be most desirable; say, 50 percent from those highly likely to succeed, 40 percent from those likely to succeed, and then (on the theory that we have probably missed at least some diamonds in the rough in our initial evaluation) 10 percent from those not likely to succeed.
3
Or better yet 100% of those highly likely to succeed, and the rest form those likely to succeed, none from the last category. Assuming the evaluations are accurate. Those not accepted can go to community college to prove they can succeed.
This is very helpful except...... it leaves out athletes. Some elite schools cannot award athletics scholarships, but they can and do reserve slots for their sports teams. The smaller the school ( Williams, for one example) the larger the percentage of its class must be able to compete on the playing field. Of course, some of these athletes are also academically very gifted; but some would be instantly rejected on the basis of their academics. In any case, these athletic admits are thought to make a positive contribution to the class as a whole. I can't judge whether they do or not -- but non-athlete applicants should keep in mind that the actual number of slots available for them may be much smaller than the school publishes.
8
"the fuzzier the admissions criteria, the greater the disadvantage suffered by low-income students"
This goes counter to common sense. The more quantitative criteria for success, the better for high-income students with higher scores, more extracurricular activities and greater obvious propensity for success.
7
Fuzzy doesn't mean "holistic." It just means "not well-defined"
Fuzzy standards mean that those who evaluate have more opportunity to project their own ideas onto what constitutes a good applicant, and that often means "most like me" or at least "well understood by me."
2
The biggest problem is lack of competition in the space of education. If people want more phones or cars or faster internet, there are always companies that will provide it; driving down costs and increasing access.
Not in the case of education. For a country with expanding population and where everyone wants their kids to go to college, we are still stuck with the same dozen or two 'prestigious' colleges. The answer is more good colleges, but that is limited by accreditation (just as the current players want it).
6
Boy, talk about an elitist take on things. There are a large number of *outstanding* educational institutions in the US outside of the two dozen 'prestigious college' to which you refer. Furthermore, lots of people get great educations at those institutions because they are passionate about learning. You don't have to be at a 'prestigious college' to do that. Some (many?) of those at the 'prestigious colleges' you seem so fond of are there logging time until going to work for dad and grandad.
And if you knew anything about accreditation you would know that the accrediting agencies can only make more money when the number of schools that are accredited increases. If anything, there are so many accredited institutions that it has lost its meaning.
2
There are plenty of good colleges out there that, in fact, will give an 18-22 year old just as good an education as they will get at a "prestigious" school. The prestige is pretty much about replicating your place in the social class status, not necessarily the quality of teaching and the courses on offer at the school. It's not all that hard for a student to get into a good college.
6
The anxiety comes from people wanting to most selective colleges. No additional accreditation will fix that. People generally can enroll into a college that will perfectly well serve their educational needs. What they cannot do is be sure that they will get into Harvard or Princeton.
4
As a college counselor and former admission officer, the best success comes when a student finds the right institutional fit. Parents and students need to get over "the name" and focus on where they will be most successful as determined by academic program and offerings available. Students need to enroll in a college or university where they will find success both in the classroom and in the community. College is about being engaged in academics in a meaningful way and being motivated by professors who challenge and inspire. This happens at large state universities, small private colleges, and at the members of the Ivy League. Students need to go where they fit best as based on their academic profile and personal interest, not solely on the desired bumper sticker plastered on the back of the car chosen to impress whomever might see it. Let the admission committee choose the students that they feel best fit their mission and profile, but students need to expand their horizons and consider other lesser known options. Sometimes the best choice is the one they've never heard of!
49
I hear this all the time. But here's the reality: much of what one learns in college comes from the peers in one's classes; much of the professional opportunity that arises when one graduates comes from the connections one made in school. So, of course one wants to attend the school that appears to have the best students in one's chosen field of study. But as our population increases and foreign students flood American universities for great educations, the odds of getting into an "elite" institution continue to fall. Those families with money will deeply research the process, pull strings, make donations, hire tutors and coaches, all to give little Muffy or Ethan a leg-up. Whatever guidance the top schools give to prospective students is just a guidebook for some families to just try to game the system. The current system is, I feel, pretty terrible. That said, I am not sure exactly how to fix it.
3
Applying to a better university isn't confusing at all. If you are rich, they want you. If you are working or middle class, they don't. 60% of the students at the best private and public universities come from the richest several percent of families. And 60% of the children in the richest several percent of families go to the best universities.
Yes, what Ms. Zwick mentions here does matter. But, statistically speaking, it only comes into play once family wealth is accounted for.
9
More nearly, upper middle class and wealthier families can provide their offspring with the environment, especially including better pre-college schools be they public or private, that makes it more likely for the offspring to amass a record that jives with the university's idea of what it wants in its student body. Those families are also much more likely to have what amounts to inside knowledge of the admissions process. In the end, however, the result is as you describe even though the process is not. That will not change until we become a society that devotes much more resources to nurturing all of our people through a serious social safety net so that the young people can take full advantage of seriously capable, well-funded public schools.
3
The proportion of middle class students at all of the better schools has fallen dramatically. Yes, the middle class is likely to be well prepared for college according to the traditional metrics. However, that is apparently insufficient. Given that, Carol's suggestion (below) is not correct. At my own alma mater (one of these schools), middle class students once comprised the majority of the student body. Now at that the school the middle 60% of students by family income account for only 15% of the student body.
carol goldstein writes;
"More nearly, upper middle class and wealthier families can provide their offspring with the environment, especially including better pre-college schools be they public or private, that makes it more likely for the offspring to amass a record that jives with the university's idea of what it wants in its student body. ..."
1
Yeah, the confusion and mortifying efforts associated with applying to college is indeed an elite problem. The bulk of high school seniors out there simply fill out an application to a nearby, not very selective state U., if they are lucky enough to have that in the present race to the bottom among the states to defund their universities and short-change individual students with aid.
6
The powerful myth is that admissions committees can really discern which of those students who have at least good enough grades, scores and recommendations are more likely than their peers to succeed. If they took a random sample of those who meet the initial criteria they would do at least as good a job, if not better, than they currently do at picking a successful class.
11
Some readers might recall the University of Texas study that tested this. The students who were randomly selected from the applicant pool did much better than the average student who had been admitted by the standard process.
13
As a parent of two recent college graduates and having watched many of their friends go through the process as well, the process seems random considering the results. Even the GPA/SAT calculus didn't hold true. My kids got into some schools where they fell slightly below the alleged "cutoff" score and didn't get into some schools where their scores greatly surpassed the mean scores. Bottom line - my kids, as well as nearly all their friends, had positive college experiences and enjoyed the colleges they attended. The few who did not like their initial choice transferred early on and seemed satisfied with their transfer. Don't sweat it parents! The kids will be ok.
64
What I find most interesting is evaluating "how well" students do in their future careers and lives. Do students at Ivy League schools become more successful than those who graduate from a state school? And what are the criteria of success in later life: Money, social status, success of their own children? How does Harvard, for instance, track those they accepted, as opposed to those they rejected? (I suspect that they don't.)
Life is what you make of it; certainly a top 20 school (large university or small college?) is an advantage, but attendance at one of these schools will not preclude spending 3-4 years in the parents' basement, due to inability to cope with reality after graduation.
10
Speaking as a mom who has had three kids go through this process in the last eight years, let's not be naive. Selective colleges--like the Ivies and any other private school in the top 40 of the U.S. News ranking--are looking to fill the "holes" after legacy, athlete, and diversity candidates are chosen. Let's be generous and say that half the class is still up for grabs after these folks are locked in. So, assuming an applicant has achieved the minimum threshold GPA, SAT scores, and exceptional extra-curriculars, then the holes they look to fill might be a first violin for the school orchestra since the current one will be graduating. Or they might need recruits to write and edit the newspaper. Or possibly someone who is a gifted painter. And of course, if one does something truly extraordinary like win the Intel science fair, they would likely be offered a space.
So this really isn't about transparency, it's coming to grips with the idea that in more ways than not, college admissions to the best schools is akin to a lottery. With the number of applicants vying for such a tiny number of places in a freshman class, there will be any number of candidates with comparably impressive credentials and achievements. You just have to be the lucky one that gets picked.
24
As with just about everything in life, luck plays an important role. But you have to make your luck, you have to maximize your chances of being lucky.
Doing so in college admissions means, beyond grades and test scores and a long list of extracurriculars (the vast majority of which will be discounted), having achieved something truly excellent and unusual.
The top schools get enough applications with perfect or nearly perfect grades and test scores, along with the usual-suspect extracurriculars, to populate their freshmen classes at least two times over.
16
As I mentioned in another comment, I do alumni interviews of applicants, and for years I've been telling them all: "it's a lottery". I know my Ivy university doesn't like me saying that, but it's absolutely true. I do it to try to help the applicants deal with the 19 out of 20 chance they won't be accepted by my school. I also tell them there are lots of other places where they will thrive, so being denied admission to my college isn't the end of the world.
Maybe it's because I live in Brazil, where kids are not subject to the same pressures as in the USA, but those I interview seem to have a much more balanced approach to the "lottery" news.
9
"Selective colleges--like the Ivies and any other private school in the top 40 of the U.S. News ranking--are looking to fill the "holes" after legacy, athlete, and diversity candidates are chosen. Let's be generous and say that half the class is still up for grabs after these folks are locked in."
Do you have a factual basis for this statement? It looks to me like an uninformed guess.
Who cares? Talk about a problem that parents drive...
There's a college for everybody in this country. Just find it. I'm sick of hearing all of this whining from elites. Guess what? Our democracy is crumbling. The rich who inherit their money (and now won't even get taxed on it) will keep populating the Ivies, along with a few token poor kids and "minorities." The rest of the country better learn a skill. And, take up Mandarin -- you're going to need it.
71
I agree that schools should be more transparent about how they select their students. I always tell the students who come to my summer program that it is not about their scores anymore, but about their leadership and to do attitude.
I am curious if anyone here has a great website to send to me about 'how to apply for college and write essays.' Please feel free to reply here.
Thanks Rebecca for bringing this conversation to NYT.
Milena
It feels like this article (and commenters) is proposing that admissions become much more formulaic---in my opinion, this would be a mistake. It is part of life that decisions are sometimes mysterious and unclear, and by the age of 18, folks need to get comfortable with that.
Who gets promoted? Who gets the lead? Who gets elected? What car model sells more? Which house do people "like"? None of these items are formulaic or determined by metrics....why would we think that selecting a class of hundreds of students (and by corollary, rejecting others) would fall into neat little boxes?
33
American university admissions is all about skewing the evaluation process in order to manipulate the composition of the student body. It would be so much fairer and transparent to give all students a set of AP-type exams and simply order students by exam scores, ignoring all the "imponderables" that make the admission process so opaque. It the universities want to manipulate their student body composition, they can still do so, but have to be open and honest about it, rather than hiding it behind opaque practices.
10
This is a very ignorant comment. It would be far less fair. Studies show that test scores and high school grades are not very good predictors of college success.
2
Well said. The whole idea behind the 'opaque' process is to give admission to who-ever they want, and have no questions asked.
1
In China, they compete for admissions via the results of tests.
Still think that's a great idea?
1
There are plenty of outstanding colleges and universities in this country, many whose names are unrecognizable to the majority of the population. The problem arises when a student's (along with their family) self-esteem and self-worth depends on their getting into a school they perceive to be at the top of the pecking order. For some students and families It's more than concern about making a living wage or having a fulfilling life. It's about rank, standing, and being equal to or better than those in your reference group.
71
I agree but having a career that provides a decent standard of living is essential to having a fulfilling life. Living on the street is not fulfilling.
1
It would be most helpful to eliminate the college ranking system - colleges inundate students encouraging all to apply in order to score high on "selectivity." I agree with the comment by MS - that "best fit" should guide - not the best ranking. The marketing by schools adds significantly to their budget - all of which is passed along in tuition costs.
38
This is a first world problem compared to the damage the tax bill will due to our education system.
74
True, but when you are a teenager, every problem is "first world problem," in that you lack the abstract thinking necessary to truly look outside yourself. Said another way, what you're saying is correct, but also meaningless to the thousands of graduating seniors who are terrified about what they're going to do next year.
1
These days the answers to most questions lie in these few words: big data and artificial intelligence(AI). It should be fairly straightforward to gather the applicant data, anonymized except for certain attributes, then train a predictive analytics algorithm to identify the students who were ”wins”. The important predictor attributes would fall right out. Now I expect no admissions officers would like to believe they can be replaced with AI. That means that the selection process is arbitrary in many respects. The predictive analytics experiment would also show this up. Let the analytics begin. For those who dare.
2
This is absolutely possible, but two groups would not want this: the special interest groups who rely on "lobbying" to secure spots and the colleges themselves. The process is not based on merit alone. It is also not entirely arbitrary. It is more of an art than a science and the colleges would not want to cede control to a computer.
4
oakman has remarkable confidence in algorithms. I don't. Algorithms can only follow the biases in their design. That includes neural nets, whose design includes the choices made in training them.
2
The system you describe could easily be gamed, which is why Admissions has always encouraged the personal interview. Some people who don't look good on paper have a spark that can't be expressed by an algorithm; others, with superior credentials, turn out not to have anything to offer but a flair for testing well.
3
As an alumni interviewer for an Ivy school, I look for applicants to tell me, preferably without my having to ask, what sets them apart from the tens of thousands of other applicants.
There are lots of things that used to matter, but don't now. One is M/F because that's evened up. Another is geographical diversity--I was one of very few classmates from the State of Indiana--which has now gone global. Another is good grades and test scores--almost half the applicants at my alma mater have 4.0 or better GPA plus SAT scores off the charts--and most of those are NOT admitted.
What does matter? Things like: leadership in establishing a new program at their school; following a broader or deeper course of study than most classmates; overcoming adverse personal or family situations; anything you have done that you really truly cared about, and can explain why.
15
Except almost every kid that applies now knows about the leadership thing and are starting clubs, becoming leaders of the chess club or whatever, starting small businesses ("entrepreneurship"). It's a game, a hoop through which they must jump. So now you have a bunch of over-scheduled,joyless, tired kids who not only need to do 7 AP classes and excel at them, have to play a varsity sport- and not just play it but preferably go to district or state competitions, ace their ACTs and SATs, start a club or be on the student council etc.
I wonder how many adults are managing to do this right now. It's absolutely bonkers.
These kids are 17 and 18 years old-they are not yet fully formed personalities. So much of their growth and their potential lays ahead of them. What sets them apart from their peers may come a decade in the future.
Just reading College Confidential makes me so sad.
116
I agree with you, MT. The leadership thing is now absurd and just another way for kids and parents to try to game this process. In relatively affluent areas, every single kid now starts a club or a business or a non-profit. The truth is that the overwhelming majority of 17/18 year olds do not have leadership skills. Why on earth would they? At that age they should work hard and learn from people who are leaders. I'd look more for kids who are open, curious and hard working.
15
The reason it is so confusing is because America lives and dies by statistics. The US News college ranking is a golden bible when it comes to selecting colleges. Many parents and students don't understand that #1 college on the list might not be a good fit for their child! Your kid might be super bright but not competitive, and therefore, won't do well in a cutthroat culture of many top schools; such kid is better off in a small, personal setting with small class sizes, ability to interact one-on-one with professors and take advantage of everything. My son ended up at a flagship SUNY, something that he wanted, and I hope it goes well for him because I thought he would have been much better off in a small liberal arts school in the PA town you never heard of.
26
How about parents, colleges and high school counselors get together and stop the ridiculous practice of having students apply to 7, 8, 10 schools? It inflates the pool of applicants for colleges and confuses the whole process for students and schools.
20
After seven applications to schools my son actually wanted to attend and could actually gain acceptance to, I refused to get my credit card out for any more application fees. My son then shifted his focus to schools with no-fee applications. I do think my refusal helped reduce the number of schools to which he ultimately applied, but there was only so much I could do to counter the ease of the Common App and the lure of colleges' promotional materials. Many of the brochures and emails he received were from schools that had no interest in a student of his standing, but they wanted his application anyway. It's such a game.
5
Applying to more schools increases the applicant's chance of getting a good scholarship, and for those aiming for the "top" schools, their chance of getting into at least one highly selective school. Asking students to apply to fewer schools is akin to asking them to act against their own interest.
2
I would like to propose an alternative. What if every student pursued activities they were interested in, studied the subjects they thought would be helpful for them in the future, and put in as much effort as they were able to give. Then they could apply to a safety school or two, a stretch school or two and a couple of schools in the middle, and they'd get in where they got in and then make the best of it. Colleges didn't provide any more information 25 years ago when I applied, and I don't recall the experience as an "impenetrable mystery". I don't think colleges should provide more transparency; as another commenter said, it would just make it that much easier for the advantaged to continue to game the system.
75
Noelle and the other commenter say it right: more "transparency" only makes it easier to game the system.
4
In the laye 90’s when my twins and their friends were doing college applications another mom shared an article with me that described a day in the life of an admissions committee at a school back east. After reading it I decided that the entire process is fairly arbitrary and admittance is partly the luck of the draw. The mood of the committee, how their day was going as well as the characteristics of the previous one or two or three applicants were definitely among the factors for determining the chance of admission for the one(s) following.
42
This does a great job of explaining yet another way in which low-income students suffer in the admissions process but expecting businesses to explain how they seek profit is absurd. And that is the problem. Though "non-profit," the education industry is a business, and until it is regulated, nothing will change.
8
That was less of a concern when the majority of the best college-bound students went to their state public higher ed institution and received a quality education at a place like SUNY, Michigan Wisconsin, etc. because sufficient public funding created the highest quality programs in such institutions. Moreover, every applicant wasn't primarily interested in trying to become a future "neo-yuppie" on Wall St., mainly worried about which private school carries the most exclusive reputation.
9
MAmom2 has an excessively cynical view. The education "industry" is companies like textbook and standardized test publishers. Colleges are not like profit-making businesses. Only compare ordinary colleges with for-profit "universities" to see the difference.
3
High school seniors should stop focusing on what school will accept them and focus on what school would be a best fit. So many excellent students go to schools that are less selective or less pricey than the Ivy League but have great opportunities for personal growth. For example, a college located in a major city may lead to great internships. A college in rural New England might have an amazing hiking club. Living with parents and going to a community college for the first two years while working part time might be the best option for some students and open up many possibilities. Better to focus on the type of college experience you want to have than on the mysteries of elite admissions decisions.
32
Geez, mostly it is not hard, for most students. It is hard to apply to the highly competitive colleges, which, you know, makes sense. How about an article on how running 20 miles is harder than running one....
8
Instead of talking about how to get into colleges, talk about how ALL colleges in this country have dumbed down curriculum and standards. The downward trend of basic functional skills (the three R's, amongst other things) in our youth is truly appalling.
A number of years ago I happened to see examples of the work my parents submitted in HS in the mid-1940s (neither went past HS in terms of schooling). I was astounded as to how good it was - fine math skills, intelligent writing with correct grammar, spelling, cohesion and good penmanship. In my 30 years of teaching college, I have seen just a HANDFUL of work from my students that was comparable, and absolutely none in the last 10 years (even from students who went to "good" secondary schools).
Why aren't news organizations like the NYT recognizing this appalling and seemingly unstoppable decline as - with no exaggeration - a NATIONAL EMERGENCY???
90
Yes, absolutely!
3
One should keep in mind that a tiny minority went to college in the 1940's. They were naturally the best students (as well as the children of alumni and donors) and the standards were set accordingly. I don't argue that standards haven't (or have) gone down, only that the applicant pool then was very highly selected.
4
Yes, but... don't forget that schools in the 40's could exclude children of color, poor children, and children who faced various behavioral, emotional or cognitive challenges. And people could reasonably to put in a 40-50 hour work week with a HS diploma and support a family at a reasonable wage, either as a small business owner or a member of a professionalized union. None of those things are true anymore, so it does us no good to romanticize the past, even if we wanted to get rid of the parts of it we don't like.
More to the point, while you may have a point about the writing, but most high school students go way beyond basic algebra and trigonometry, especially in successful districts. As a high school student, I did take calculus, and my students go beyond that.
Finally: penmanship, really? Did you see the republican scribblings in the tax bill? When did penmanship come into this?
5
30% of Harvard's freshman class this year are legacy. Just sayin'.
68
This has more to do with income and educational inequality than just preference for legacy. It is too easy to overlook the systemic issues that we face as a society - the fact that our public education is failing in all but the most expensive suburbs, the fact that the wealthy can afford resources to supplement their children's educations, the fact that sports, once a leveler, now requires commitment far beyond what many middle class families can afford. So let us not be glib about what the real issues are.
26
So? There are reasons for that, more good than bad.
3
What, exactly, is wrong with legacy? This is an entirely serious question. Is Ms. Jackson's assumption that the children of Harvard graduates are unqualified applicants? Perhaps they are more qualified, as a group, than non-legacy applicants.
11
Of course different colleges look for different things. That’s competition for you. So what?
6
Rhporter, you are absolutely right, except that it's not "competition", it's variety of product (if you want a business analogy). It's one of the strengths of American higher education that there is such variety. Foolish rankings like the U.S. News ranking take no account of this strength.
3
oh, but education is a commodity and students are customers...
Transparency would just make gaming the system even more rampant.
41
Here’s another hint. Yale is looking for top students from around the world, not just the US. With a quarter and a third of the world’s population, with what that implies for proportions of brilliance, India, China and other Asian countries are naturally going to be filling many slots in world class universities. Yale and other highly competitive colleges are not just for American scions of privilege any more.
14
Colleges don't tell students precisely what they are looking for because:
1) they don't really know
2) if they do know, they can't really tell from the application who fits
3) if they tell, every application will cater to what they want
4) what they think they want may not be what they actually choose
5) they don't want just one or two profiles
6) they really do have to take into account who can pay
Do the applications. Have a back-up or safety plan. Play the arms race as best you can. And move on. Lots of unfair things shape our lives, from the basic unfairness of wealth distribution, to discrimination, to having the bad luck to have terrible parents, to having poor health....
Our job is to figure out how to cope with it. And that probably will start with college applications.
129
Single most important piece of advice for college applicants: find a safety school that you would really like to go to! Not only does it make practical sense, since getting into the best is so often a crapshoot, even when you're exceptionally well-qualified, but it will also reduce greatly the stress of the application and waiting process.
46
and many youngsters applying to college have not yet matured ino who they will become as adults.
While I appreciate the points you are trying to make, let's call a spade a spade: "holistic" admissions are a fig leaf colleges use to set aside seats for legacies/donor kids/faculty staff kids. And to me, this is waaaay more egregious and insidious than the colleges aiming to diversify their classes by bringing in students from poorer socioeconomic background/of different ethnicities/first in their families to go to college .... of course, given the current way that the courts are stacked, affirmative action as we know it might likely end but when it comes to the former, colleges will likely get away w it.
Children and grandchildren of faculty members (at the local Ivy) who were not even in the top 20% of their grade given admission while the university passed over students in the top 5% of their grades who had stronger test scores and a whole slew more extracurricular activities (some done for over 10 years). Holistic? Or opportunistic?
Jared Kushner at Harvard anyone?
25
This sounds like it comes from personal experience and lots of sour grapes. Even at the very best schools, grades, test scores, and extracurriculars, while important, are not everything. What classes at what school? What extracurriculars? What distinguishes the applicant?
6
When a car salesman plays three card monte with loans, fees, payment schedules, features and options, it's a scam.
When a college presents a confusing and shifting set of requirements, it's their mission at work.
No. College today is a scam. It's time to end it.
So Daedalus thinks "buying" a college is just like buying a car. Daedalus, do you realize what you're saying?
Applicants and parents need to do more independent homework on their own, especially for selective colleges. People erroneously think that colleges should spoon feed data, as though folks are buying a new refrigerator.
First, students should look at whether their desired college accepts students from their high school. For most kids under most circumstances, if a college hasn't accepted and enrolled at least 2 from the applicant's high school in the last 5 years, then the chances get slim. Most selective colleges have established pathway schools. (Naviance is your friend!)
Second, parents should discern how each college's tuition dependence. Hints include the endowment size and the number of international students. If a family can pay full freight, then a lower endowment and more than 15% international enrollment indicates that the school really needs your tuition dollars.
Third, use the Common Data set to figure out the college's application and enrollment gender balance. The will give you a a sense of whether the college needs more young men or more young women.
Fourth, colleges want kids with interesting backgrounds. Admissions officers are drowning in applications from white suburban New Englanders, Mid-Atlantics and Asians. It's even worse for kids from those groups who have applications filled with soccer, Model UN, violin, Spanish and volunteering. Seriously, colleges want and need students with more interesting and diverse pursuits.
26
And if everyone plays the violin, the lone flutist or trumpet player will be the one that gets admitted.
7
The Pew Foundation does surveys of students at various institutions (National Survey of Student Engagement) asking them questions like "How often do you see your prof. out of class?" or " Is the homework relevant?". These are basic things a prospective student may want to know.
For many of the highest ranked schools, this information is not released and is SECRET.
Think about that for a moment.
12
PEW released a great deal of information.
Why not this? Have they been interviewed on this matter?
Colleges are not transparent. As a result students are basing decisions on prestige.
Students are consumers and they need to know what they are buying. Colleges have a huge advantage of students. There is a big informational gap.
Schools need to disclose statistics like class size, teacher status, teacher availability, graduation times, job prospects, etc.
3
It is the notion of students as consumers and universities offering a 'product' that is destroying higher education in America. Students are applicants, not consumers, and if they are outstanding, and lucky, the university will offer them the extraordinary privilege, for a fraction of the actual cost of their college education, of becoming educated adults and members of society.
35
The problem you speak of is schools advertising one standard but delivering another. Additionally the problem is related to the content of the class being dumbed down.
I am speaking of transparency. In a worst case a student attends a lecture with 500 other students while the prof reads from the book. The student never meets with the professor.
If that s the best the school can do then earn the student in advance.
4
I don't disagree philosophically--it's a large ticket item, and you need to do your research to understand your investment. But info is readily available through tools like the College Board's site. Once my son took the SAT, he was bombarded with emails from them on how to research some of these stats.
Stats are revealing, but not the whole picture, especially without context. Visit campus, speak with teachers and students, observe a class, etc. Ask the same questions--you may find the average class size reported is not true for your department, varies considerably between lower and upper level classes. Job placement rates may not accurately reflect the career support that is or is not available. Professors may not all have terminal degrees, yet be wonderful teachers who are extremely accessible. Undergrad opportunities for research may be very limited.
You can get into a school with the 'right' stats, but if it's not a good fit for you, chances are it will not work for you.
I understand campus visits (especially to multiple colleges) are challenging for many disadvantaged students to do. That said, I'm surprised how families we knew who didn't bother to do meaningful research or even visit any colleges until the last minute. That just makes the whole process crazier than it needs to be.
7
If only it were so easy.
There are a lot of pushes and pulls in the admissions process, varying from school to school and year to year. Most schools have little choice -- they need tuition paying students, and not enough apply who can last till graduation. They accept everyone with the basic grades and test scores to seem viable.
Only the very top schools have the ability to "craft" their class. State institutions have unique in-state requirements. Many select the top high school graduates of their states, largely based on class standing, and then accept out of state students who fill needs not met by the in-state students. Those needs can range from particular talents (tuba or football players) to ethnic diversity.
The top private schools have other criteria. They need potential donors, they want the students to succeed in challenging courses, they want diversity.
Now we should look at who are the admissions folks -- they are quite distinct from the faculty and academic deans, often hardly knowing what goes on in classes. They are bureaucrats trying to do their job -- recruit students and follow changing guidelines handed down from the top.
They know that many students get help with their college essay and test prep, and some even have savvy college counselors in their high schools. The admissions officers play a cat and mouse game of trying to outsmart the applicants, filling their classes with the "right" students.
Transparency is not as easy as it may sound.
28
As a faculty member of a top-tier research university, I was a member of the undergraduate admissions committee for many years. From my view the admissions process for an individual student is easier than this article would suggest. Here are a couple of basic considerations for the applicant (and parent) to consider. First, apply to more than one school. Most will offer ample opportunities for intellectual and social growth, so setting your heart on one is a poor strategy. The key to ultimate success is utilizing the diversity of resources that will be on campus; many students do, and many students don't. Second, as to the application, your grades and test scores are more or less set, but they will be interpreted in relation to your class standing and the high school you graduate from. Not much you can do there. Third, chat with the individuals that will write a reference letter for you, but do this before they write. Fourth, the admissions committee will be looking for your ability to handle a challenging situation and to grow from it. Everyone has a personal story, so tell yours, but be sure to grab their attention in the first paragraph, and to use proper grammar. Finally, when the admissions office can not decide about a particular applicant, that application often goes to the admissions committee, on which faculty sit. Most will be asking one question, do I want this student in my classroom? You would be wise to keep in mind their perspective.
97
Look, MIT (the college I know) can put together 3-5 more classes from students they reject as students they accept. Something like a 7% acceptance rate. All top grades, top scores, leadership activities. Try as anyone might, it is a crap shoot in the end. Too many amazing people want in from all over the world. Every snowflake is special and beautiful, but most will melt and one will freeze on your window. That is life. There are many good colleges. Pick any of them that have some majors you might like/suit. Work hard. Make the most of what you've got.
17