NYT: Confessions of an Application Reader (Admissions at UC Berkeley)

[HejKatt]

Thought this might be of interest - an insight into the initial evaluation of university applicants. 

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/04/education/edlife/lifting-the-veil-on-the-holistic-process-at-the-university-of-california-berkeley.html?pagewanted=all&_r=2&

 

Excerpt:

"WHILE teaching ethics at the University of San Francisco, I signed on as an “external reader†at Berkeley for the fall 2011 admissions cycle. I was one of about 70 outside readers — some high school counselors, some private admissions consultants — who helped rank the nearly 53,000 applications that year, giving each about eight minutes of attention."

 

My dc are far from this stage of education, but stories like these unnerve and fascinate me at the same time. The pool of applicants is so large and talented, and the number of places so few. 

[Brigid in NC]

It's very helpful to get a glimpse behind the curtain.  Thanks for posting this.

[regentrude]

Thanks. As suspected, it is like playing the lottery. If it turns out that my students' stellar academic performance is irrelevant, that the extracurriulars my student is passionate about are "not the right kind", and the family  background puts my student in the wrong demographic - there is absolutely nothing I can do. So be it. With the hundreds of colleges in the country, there are many great options. Something will work out.

I am getting very cynical about the entire process. But I refuse to spend four years of my student's life grooming them to look good for admissions- especially since nobody can really define what makes them look good.  They should pursue their passions and live their high school years, not spend them hunting after the elusive moving target of admission to a selective school.

Looks like even the people who decide about admissions don't really know how students get picked.

[JennW in SoCal]

But I refuse to spend four years of my student's life grooming them to look good for admissions. They should pursue their passions and live their high school years, not spend them hunting after the elusive moving target of admission to a selective school.

 

Amen, sister regentrude!   

[Catwoman]

Thanks. As suspected, it is like playing the lottery. If it turns out that my students' stellar academic performance is irrelevant, that the extracurriulars my student is passionate about are "not the right kind", and the family  background puts my student in the wrong demographic - there is absolutely nothing I can do. So be it. With the hundreds of colleges in the country, there are many great options. Something will work out.

I am getting very cynical about the entire process. But I refuse to spend four years of my student's life grooming them to look good for admissions- especially since nobody can really define what makes them look good.  They should pursue their passions and live their high school years, not spend them hunting after the elusive moving target of admission to a selective school.

Looks like even the people who decide about admissions don't really know how students get picked.

:iagree: :iagree: :iagree:

[Sebastian (a lady)]

Thanks. As suspected, it is like playing the lottery. If it turns out that my students' stellar academic performance is irrelevant, that the extracurriulars my student is passionate about are "not the right kind", and the family background puts my student in the wrong demographic - there is absolutely nothing I can do. So be it. With the hundreds of colleges in the country, there are many great options. Something will work out.

I am getting very cynical about the entire process. But I refuse to spend four years of my student's life grooming them to look good for admissions- especially since nobody can really define what makes them look good. They should pursue their passions and live their high school years, not spend them hunting after the elusive moving target of admission to a selective school.

Looks like even the people who decide about admissions don't really know how students get picked.

I very much agree with this. Just as I cannot bow to an athletic association's view of how our school years should look.

 

No my kids haven't gone through severe illness or a family disaster. They have lived on three continents and on the most remote archipelago in the world. They read widely and haven't labeled themselves as not a math kid or not a science kid. They are usually outgoing, funny and generally nice people. Personally I think the world is in rather short supply for nice people. So if my kids end up as alumni from a mid tier state school instead of an elite school that holds academics more cheaply that the "big picture" then ok.

[regentrude]

Adding to my former thoughts: in a sense, this is actually rather comforting (in some morbid way). Because it means we can stop worrying that there would have been something we should have been doing for the last few years and it is because we screwed up and did not do it that our kid does not get admitted. All those articles show me is: there is no such thing.

I remember this article by the MIT counselor:

http://mitadmissions.org/blogs/entry/applying_sideways

 

 

For example:

A few years ago, we did not admit a student who had created a fully-functional nuclear reactor in his garage.

Think about that for a second.

Now, most students, when I tell them this story, become depressed. After all, if the kid who built a freakin' nuclear reactor didn't get in to MIT, what chance do they have?

But they have it backwards. In fact, this story should be incredibly encouraging for most students. It should be liberating. Why? Because over a thousand other students were admitted to MIT that year, and none of them built a nuclear reactor!

I don't mean to discourage anything from pursuing incredible science and technology research on their own. If you want to do it, DO IT. But don't do it because you think it's your ticket to MIT. And that applies to everything you do - classes, SATs, extracurriculars.

There is no golden ticket.

So breathe.

 

I have decided to go with "breathe". If there is no magic golden bullet, it means I have not missed it ;-)

[Candid]

Thanks. As suspected, it is like playing the lottery. If it turns out that my students' stellar academic performance is irrelevant, that the extracurriulars my student is passionate about are "not the right kind", and the family  background puts my student in the wrong demographic - there is absolutely nothing I can do. So be it. With the hundreds of colleges in the country, there are many great options. Something will work out.

I am getting very cynical about the entire process. But I refuse to spend four years of my student's life grooming them to look good for admissions- especially since nobody can really define what makes them look good.  They should pursue their passions and live their high school years, not spend them hunting after the elusive moving target of admission to a selective school.

Looks like even the people who decide about admissions don't really know how students get picked.

 

Call me Pollyanna, but I still think yours is going to be fine. 

 

However, reading Rachel Tours fairly snarky inside admissions books is a good beginning for all new to high school home school moms. While the system itself may change the people (or type of people) in it probably are much less changeable. 

[Laura in CA]

Thanks for posting this ... and I appreciate all the comments above. My son will be applying (as soon as their systems go "live" in a few weeks) to both UC Berkeley and UCLA (which got 99,559 undergraduate applications last year, freshman + transfer -- that's just crazy!). I knew his application wouldn't get much scrutiny, no matter how stellar his record, but this confirms it -- and puts it in perspective.

 

 

Adding to my former thoughts: in a sense, this is actually rather comforting (in some morbid way). Because it means we can stop worrying that there would have been something we should have been doing for the last few years and it is because we screwed up and did not do it that our kid does not get admitted. All those articles show me is: there is no such thing.

 

Yes, thanks for pointing that out -- it IS rather comforting. My other fear (since we DID do high school mostly according to interests and aptitude, and keeping childhood childhood) is that *I* (or my son, who seems at times rather slap-dash about how he is filling in his applications ... grrr 16-year-old boys grrrr :) ) will forget one crucial part of the application and he'll be DOOMED ...

 

8 minutes per application? I thought it was at least 15! That's what I've been telling my son ...  :tongue_smilie:

 

I suppose I should add that these are "backup" schools, not his dream schools ... although I could see him being happy at either Cal or UCLA ...

 

 

ETA: She mentions the engineering school ... even when *I* was in high school, and admissions was, I believe, pretty much strictly by the numbers (not "holistic"), and tuition was $700 a year ... Anyway, even way back then, you needed a 4.0 (unweighted) to be admitted to Berkeley's school of engineering ... 

[Arcadia]

 

Thanks for posting this ... and I appreciate all the comments above. My son will be applying (as soon as their systems go "live" in a few weeks) to both UC Berkeley and UCLA

.....I suppose I should add that these are "backup" schools, not his dream schools ... although I could see him being happy at either Cal or UCLA ... 

 

 

Just a funny. My neighbors whose kids apply for UCB and Stanford are partially influenced by being able to bring home dirty laundry whenever they feel like it.   They really do bring home laundry on weekends :lol:, and some emailed their parents a shopping list for their parents to run their shopping errands for them.

[Laura in CA]

Just a funny. My neighbors whose kids apply for UCB and Stanford are partially influenced by being able to bring home dirty laundry whenever they feel like it.   They really do bring home laundry on weekends :lol:, and some emailed their parents a shopping list for their parents to run their shopping errands for them.

 

That IS funny ... :)

 

I read somewhere recently that college choice really boils down to a few simple criteria:

 

large vs. small

rural vs. urban

& within vs. farther than a day's drive from home :D

 

Both of my boys (who I *think* had pretty happy childhoods  :huh: ) seem eager to go to a college that is MORE than a day's drive from home ...  :confused1:

 

although at that age I was also very eager to strike out into the big world and leave our little town ... And although I ended up (long story) at a college about an hour away from home, I never went home on weekends ... My roommates sometimes did, though, so I had a SINGLE all weekend!!!

 

 

Oh, and here's an article that, like the MIT one, has saved my sanity ... it bears multiple readings: "Young, Gifted, and Not Getting Into Harvard" by Michael Winerip

 

I don't seem to be able to do links like on the old board, so here is the link:

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/29/nyregion/nyregionspecial2/29Rparenting.html

[angela in ohio]

This sounds like most of what I read about college admissions: they want to see students challenge themselves within their particular environment, they want to see something besides the "right grades and list of activities", they can spot fancy application help, etc. And it is no surprise to me that admissions departments can't figure out how to balance a desire to counteract the challenges of race or poverty some student face with the worry about those students succeeding and having the necessary support once they attend.

 

I had a chance to spend some hours a few weeks ago with the director of admissions and a day with another admissions officer from a selective school. What the director stressed was that they wanted to see a few things, and they could find them in multiple places on the application, but they needed to see them. They want to see a passion for something, they want to see a willingness to lead and take some initiative, and they want to see that the student will overcome challenges. (This particular school also wanted to see an ability to collaborate effectively, but I know that is somewhat unique to this school.) I have heard the same things in other places as I read advice about completing applications. So we are making sure that each application shows those things somewhere. We didn't groom them in dd in order to fill out applications; we did it so that she would succeed in higher education and life in general.

 

I still say that if you raise them to be the best people they can be, you can't be disappointed in the college admissions process, because they will always have that (of course, I will know in about nine months whether that is true or not.) Dd ended up on a path to colleges we never thought she could go to, and it all happened fairly suddenly as the unintended culmination of the things she did because they were either the right things to do or because she had a passion for them. There was no overarching plan for college apps, just living her best life and using the talents God gave her. I like to think that this will be evident, and that someone will appreciate her authentic path over a parent-groomed package.

[ThisIsTheDay]

Interesting article, good read, but I still learned nothing more concrete!  I want specific answers!  :)

 

We went through the college application process last year, armed with only information from these boards and Lee Binz. As I read this article, I still am baffled as to how everything worked together in my daughter's favor. What made her stand out in the sea of applicants? She was accepted EA at three of her four choices (and I believe she would have been accepted at the fourth if she'd only shown an interest per their suggestion).

 

She wrote humble essays, describing an unusual passion.

She applied to the "right" schools.

There's that homeschooling "hook" of which I was previously unaware but now am convinced exists.

While we've dealt with a long term illness in our family, it was addressed only in one sentence of my 3-paged counselor letter as the reason why dd did not have a larger variety of ECs.

 

She leaves for college in 13 days.  :hurray:      :crying:

 

[flyingiguana]

ETA: She mentions the engineering school ... even when *I* was in high school, and admissions was, I believe, pretty much strictly by the numbers (not "holistic"), and tuition was $700 a year ... Anyway, even way back then, you needed a 4.0 (unweighted) to be admitted to Berkeley's school of engineering ... 

 

 

And the GPA was ALL they looked at.  A perfect SAT score wouldn't get you in.

[8filltheheart]

I read this article after seeing in linked on the hs2coll loop and posted this reply there. The more I have thought about it, the more annoyed this comment has made me. Actually, it is more than annoyance. When I think about the real suffering......more than most experience in a lifetime, suffered as a child, and then reduced to "seeking sympathy bc of a story of misery," it makes me angry that this individual is out there reading kids' essays. The audacity of comparing dandruff to a rare disease.....I'll stop there before I state my true thoughts on the matter. Anyway, below is what I wrote there.

 

 

I read the article and one paragraph that jumped out at me was this one:

 

Fortunately, that authentic voice articulated itself abundantly. Many essays lucidly expressed a sense of self and character — no small task in a sea of applicants. Less happily, many betrayed the handiwork of pricey application packagers, whose cloying, pompous style was instantly detectable, as were canny attempts to catch some sympathy with a personal story of generalized misery. The torrent of woe could make a reader numb: not another student suffering from parents’ divorce, a learning difference, a rare disease, even dandruff!

 

The paragraph caught my attention bc one of the COmmon Apps questions is about something that is so central to who you are that your application would not be complete wo including it. For a lot of people, that list that this author belittles and connects with an application packager is core to their identity and their application. For example, our dil is an acute myeloid leukemia survivor who lived in StJudes Hospital for almost 2 yrs. She was given a less than 15% chance of survival and literally almost died 3 times. That experience influenced everything in her childhood and her educational experience---including the fact that she was over 2 years older than her peers when she finally graduated from high school.

 

When I read that paragraph, my heart went out to all those kids suffering very real life traumas that they were using to try to explain why they were who they were-- only to be dismissed as "sympathy seekers."

 

How repulsive. I hope there are other application readers out there that are intelligent enough to recognize real experiences and authentic expression of those issues and the validity of discussing them for answering that prompt.

[snowbeltmom]

When I read that paragraph, my heart went out to all those kids suffering very real life traumas that they were using to try to explain why they were who they were only to be dismissed as sympathy seekers.

 

How repulsive. I hope there are other application readers out there that are intelligent enough to recognize real experiences and authentic expression of those issues and the validity of discussing them for answering that prompt.

:iagree:

 

I hope that the numerous threads linking videos/articles from former admissions officers on this board and on hs2coll are not representative of the admissions practices at most colleges. "Repulsed" and disgusted is how I have felt after reading the adcoms' comments every single time.

[G5052]

And the other end of the story is that there are plenty of colleges out there that aren't hard to get into that will provide a solid education.  I sat on various graduate school admission and university hiring committees over the years.  There was a wide range of backgrounds among those that were admitted/hired.  Not everyone went to the very top private schools; many went to solid state schools.  Of course some schools were an automatic no-go.  University of Phoenix was on the list at the time and also several state schools with very small graduate programs.

 

My degrees are from what would be considered "upper middle" state schools, and I had no problem competing professionally.  My undergraduate school admitted 70% of those who applied. I worried about that because most of my high school friends went to out-of-state schools including some to Ivy League schools, but time proved that I did just as well if not better.

[Laura Corin]

Very interesting.  Highly selective universities in the UK only care about academic achievement and potential.  Extracurriculars are only important to the extent that they show that you can handle the workload.  They do not want 'second-rate historians who happen to play the flute'

 

L

[daijobu]

Not everyone went to the very top private schools; many went to solid state schools.  

 

The trouble is, these state schools with their low tuitions and excellent education are often more competitive than comparable private schools that can leave student in serious debt.  This is what I've been hearing from parents who would like to send their kids to state schools in California.  The private schools have plenty of spots...it's the state schools that are hard to get admitted to.

[Arcadia]

 

Oh, and here's an article that, like the MIT one, has saved my sanity ... it bears multiple readings: "Young, Gifted, and Not Getting Into Harvard" by Michael Winerip

 

I don't seem to be able to do links like on the old board, so here is the link:

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/29/nyregion/nyregionspecial2/29Rparenting.html

The below quoted does explain my "relaxed" attitude to the rat race. The bulk of my extended family are self-employed and happy despite some having gone through business setbacks. My maternal grandma who never went to school was a successful SAHM landlord. She knows her 3Rs though. 

 

My dad who is a retired teacher saw mainly people who were successful (outside of family) coming from elite colleges. He does have the viewpoint of attending an elite college being the ticket to high ranking government jobs.

 

"I grew up in an unworldly blue-collar environment. Getting perfect grades and attending an elite college was one of the few ways up I could see.

My four have been raised in an upper-middle-class world. They look around and see lots of avenues to success. My wife’s two brothers struggled as students at mainstream colleges and both have made wonderful full lives, one as a salesman, the other as a builder. Each found his own best path. Each knows excellence."

[Nscribe]

There are so many different ways to be a highschooler (honors at a school with no AP's, selective prep academies, boarding students, AP heavy course loads, IB, homeschool with a huge array, competitive athelete....).  Admissions sort all those pathways and all the nontraditional student types.  I wonder more and more often if there is really any way to say there is one distinct path anyone can really rely on to guide how to prep for admissions.  This is why I lean toward the idea of doing what works for Dd and hoping result will be a match we may or may not currently have on our radar.

[G5052]

The trouble is, these state schools with their low tuitions and excellent education are often more competitive than comparable private schools that can leave student in serious debt.  This is what I've been hearing from parents who would like to send their kids to state schools in California.  The private schools have plenty of spots...it's the state schools that are hard to get admitted to.

 

Yes, there is some of that going on here too.  Most of the 4-year schools that the local community college feed into have raised their requirements because so many are living at home and going to college in order to cut costs.  So even the guaranteed transfer agreements are harder.  That said, the acceptance rate of the local 4-year schools is still 50-70% for the freshman class.

[JennW in SoCal]

The trouble is, these state schools with their low tuitions and excellent education are often more competitive than comparable private schools that can leave student in serious debt.  This is what I've been hearing from parents who would like to send their kids to state schools in California.  The private schools have plenty of spots...it's the state schools that are hard to get admitted to.

 

Many students are racking up large amounts of debt at state colleges, too.  California schools are not necessarily cheap, especially once you add dorm rooms into the mix.  My youngest ditched the idea of attending a UC and instead is quite happy at an out of state private school.  With his merit scholarship the cost of attending that private college is exactly the same as a UC.  

[flyingiguana]

Even if we were CA residents (which we no longer are), the in state UC tuition is about comparable to the tuition my 2nd daughter would have to pay at the school that just accepted her, after scholarships are factored in.

 

And while I happen to know that my daughter is an absolute delight and is going to liven up their campus, I really doubt THEY know that. No AP, no IB, no SAT subject tests, sort of "eh" looking extracurriculars (cause they haven't yet HEARD her play flute or sing). Solid ACT score, but nothing outside the pack of bright kids. No trips to feed starving children in Africa. Not much in the way of leadership unless you count singing solos in choir. No sports. Didn't even have letters of recommendation.

 

And she applied after the scholarship deadline. After the admission deadline. On a whim.

 

It's a solid school providing a solid education. It's just not on anyone's LIST. So they aren't hugely competitive, although they've slightly overfilled their slots for next year. They're not hurting for decent students.

 

My older daughter got even more tuition paid - after going through all the scholarship interviews (which my 2nd one has skipped).

 

 

I'm also convinced that places like Berkeley and MIT and Yale etc are no better than a good solid liberal arts college. The college doesn't even need to be that selective. I've been at a lot of colleges. Unless the student body is really below par, the teaching isn't going to be much different than what you get at a big name place (it may be a lot better, in fact). They all have to cover the same material. The professors all pretty much got trained at similar grad schools. The big difference may be that the research program at the big university might be more internationally impressive (although not always). But more research usually means there's a grad program -- so only the grad students benifit from the research experience. A few undergrads will get the chance, but not many. (My neighbor down the block goes on and on about the ONE undergrad they generally have doing research in the lab at the U where he works. What a great experience he keeps telling me. He doesn't listen when I point out that we have 5 or so undergrads per professor doing research where I work. Virtually any undergrad in the dept who wants to can do research. And many of them end up traveling to national/international meetings to present their own work. His ONE undergrad does not. But he thinks it's a better experience because it's at a big U. I think our undergrads even get paid more....)

 

The grad students are usually also the only teachers of the undergrads at the big U. The undergrads rarely see the big names they went to the big U for.

 

I see no reason -- really NO reason -- to want to go to a big university as an undergrad. Well, unless you are an NCAA Division I athlete.

 

If a student wants to do research as an undergrad, they're better off finding a smaller college that has a good undergrad research program. There's a MUCH higher chance that they will get to actually do research there. These generally aren't the colleges that everyone is struggling to get into. And they often will give enough merit aid that the cost is going to be about the same as a state school.

[regentrude]

I'm also convinced that places like Berkeley and MIT and Yale etc are no better than a good solid liberal arts college. The college doesn't even need to be that selective. I've been at a lot of colleges. Unless the student body is really below par, the teaching isn't going to be much different than what you get at a big name place. They all have to cover the same material.

 

No, I do not think this is entirely correct. The student population does very much determine the level at which classes can be taught, and "have to cover the same material" does not mean the courses are presented at the same level. For example, the level of introductory physics course a professor can teach to students like the ones at MIT will be vastly different from the level of introductory physics I can teach at a public university where one third of my students never have taken any physics in high school and where quite a portion struggles with math. (To be clear: I am not talking about "sub par" students, but a well respected public STEM school). I am pretty sure physics students at MIT will not have trouble with basic algebra. A calculus course where the instructor can assume that every student had calculus at high school can cover a lot more and more challenging material.

 

So no, I do not believe that al colleges are  created equal and that a selective school can not teach more. As a college instructor, I see how much the level of classwork depends on the preparedness, the willingness, and also the raw ability, of the students. Having better prepared and more ambitious students definitely makes a difference.

 

ETA: This does not mean that only highly selective schools provide a good education. But we should not pretend that no differences in quality exist.

[Laura Corin]

 

ETA: This does not mean that only highly selective schools provide a good education. But we should not pretend that no differences in quality exist.

 

There's another factor too.  In a highly selective school, the students will bounce ideas off each other at a much higher level, stimulating each other.  I went to a non-selective university that had one or two very selective departments.  I took classes both inside and outside one of the selective departments.  The difference in the level at which the lecturers could teach and the quality of the discourse between the students was marked.

 

L

[Laura Corin]

The grad students are usually also the only teachers of the undergrads at the big U. The undergrads rarely see the big names they went to the big U for.

 

FWIW, this is rarely the case in British universities.  Tutorials, seminars and lectures are usually taken by lecturers (associate professors) or professors (usually one per dept).  

 

L

[8filltheheart]

I'm also convinced that places like Berkeley and MIT and Yale etc are no better than a good solid liberal arts college. The college doesn't even need to be that selective. I've been at a lot of colleges. Unless the student body is really below par, the teaching isn't going to be much different than what you get at a big name place (it may be a lot better, in fact). They all have to cover the same material. The professors all pretty much got trained at similar grad schools. The big difference may be that the research program at the big university might be more internationally impressive (although not always). But more research usually means there's a grad program -- so only the grad students benifit from the research experience. A few undergrads will get the chance, but not many. ....

 

...........

If a student wants to do research as an undergrad, they're better off finding a smaller college that has a good undergrad research program. There's a MUCH higher chance that they will get to actually do research there. These generally aren't the colleges that everyone is struggling to get into. And they often will give enough merit aid that the cost is going to be about the same as a state school.

I really disagree with this bc simple logic would dictate otherwise. schools with higher admission standards are going to have a higher lowest common denominator.......when teaching to the LCD, when it is higher, the quality of instruction is higher. My 12th grader has attended 2different state universities in 2 different states , and even between those 2 schools he has seen a difference, though he believes the quality of instruction is much better at the lesser known school.

 

But, what I really find interesting is his perspective since coming home from a competitive summer camp. This camp was full of really bright, high-achieving kids. He is now acutely aware of the difference in discussion and instruction between a regular classroom and a select group discussing a similar topic. Before camp, he wasn't sure that "what" school was going to really matter that much, but now he is definitely aware that the "whats" going on inside he classroom are very different. He is now afraid that finances are going to end up controlling the decision and leaving him with the lesser options as the only ones feasible for our family.

 

Eta: I meant to add that even within the public university system huge differences exist. There are schools with labs that exist only for undergrads and grads have their own labs. Undergrad research opportunities vary widely from school to school and you can't make a generalized claim one way or the other. And for advanced students, if there isn't a graduate program, that limits their course selection. There are a lot of factors to consider and investigate when making decisions. Fwiw, our oldest went to a small public tech university, was actively involved in undergrad research and projects. For engineering it was a fabulous school. For physics like our youngest ds wants, it would be a terrible choice.

Edited August 10, 2013 by 8FillTheHeart

[flyingiguana]

Logically, one might think that about a more selective school, but I haven't found, in my experience, that tougher admissions standards really make for a smarter group of kids. I've been at a number of colleges, with and without tough admissions standards.  At any college, there tend to be those kids who work hard and have the smarts to get something out of the education, and those who either could care less or who really aren't up to the challenge.  The only difference I've really seen was at a community college with virtually no admissions.  The latter group of students tended to be a little larger.  But I can't honestly say this really affected the education of the top tier.  There was more providing of tutors and such at the community college.  For some students, this was helpful.  For others, not so much.  The top students didn't need that, but the courses, as presented by the professors, tended to be close to what one would see at a "top notch" university.  Same material covered.  Just more students that fell off the wagon.  Thing is, they tend to stop coming to class, so they're not as noticeable as they might be. 

 

My daughter has also been at several universities.  She found that the school with the lower average test scores (less selective admissions) actually has the brighter students when it comes to finding someone to bounce ideas off for figuring out homework.

 

I think the problem is that grades and test scores are not the best indicators of how a kid is going to do in college.  Thus, a school that admits based on these things isn't necessarily going to get a brighter group.  They may tend to get those kids who are passionate about keeping their gpas up and making themselves look good.  They may actually get a worse student body as a result of that.

 

My daughter's coming home from an undergrad research program at a big research institution today.  200 applicants.  8 got in.  There are 2 from small colleges.  The other 6 are from high power universities, including places like MIT.  She noticed a couple things.  First, the kids from the big name places drop those names CONSTANTLY.  Second, the kids from the big name places  have LESS research experience than she already has.  Third, those kids are not always the sharpest knives in the drawer.

 

And fourth, the quality of research advising she has gotten at her small college has been WAY better than anything she got in this specialized program that was specifically meant to provide that research experience.

 

Logically, none of that should make sense, as you say.  Neither should my experiences.  But the "logical" outcome isn't what either of us have seen (nor my husband, who has also taught at various colleges, large and small, selective and not).

 

This ties in with my skepticism about standardized tests. 

 

However, I'm not making generalized claims about colleges.  I'm just pointing out that you can't expect a selective college to be way better than a non selective one.  Although, a school with a better professor:student ratio will probably give the students more attention.  And schools that mostly use TAs for teaching won't have as qualified a teaching staff (don't get me wrong, there are some great TAs.  But someone who has only taught for a year or 2, as most TAs have, is not going to be at their full potential).  And any school that is huge probably just won't have as many opportunities, per capita.  So if a student knows they're not at the top of the pack, a school with more slots to fill in these research opportunities might be a better bet.

 

I know it sounds iconoclastic, but one does have to consider that there are certain colleges that have been advertising for years -- surreptitiously.  And that most of ads consist of, look, we're so great we had to turn that many people away.  We must be left with the cream of the crop.  This has become part of the American mythology.  I don't know that there's much evidence for it.

 

Also, it's hard to believe a place that Harvard really is the cream of the crop, given that so many of their admissions are legacy admissions.  Just because someone's grandfather was good enough to get in years ago, doesn't mean these legacies would really stand out from the crowd of people trying to get in there today.

[Muttichen]

 

 

 

Also, it's hard to believe a place that Harvard really is the cream of the crop, given that so many of their admissions are legacy admissions.  Just because someone's grandfather was good enough to get in years ago, doesn't mean these legacies would really stand out from the crowd of people trying to get in there today.

 

Sorry, but this is just not true.  My dh got his PhD from Yale, and when my kids applied there, we got a letter saying they give NO PREFERENCE to the children of alumni.  It's true that the admit rates for legacy kids are slightly higher than for the general population, but that is because these kids are better prepared. 

 

On the other hand, preference is given to kids who are first generation college students.

 

Visit Harvard and see -- it is not just the name that makes it impressive.  There are incredible opportunities as well as the chance to interact day in and day out with the very top kids from all over the world.

If a student wants to do research as an undergrad, they're better off finding a smaller college that has a good undergrad research program. There's a MUCH higher chance that they will get to actually do research there. These generally aren't the colleges that everyone is struggling to get into. And they often will give enough merit aid that the cost is going to be about the same as a state school.

 

If your thesis is that at a smaller LAC, an undergraduate is much more likely to be able to "do research" (whatever that means) with a professor, than at a huge big name school, I suspect that you are probably correct.  But why is that important?  Why should undergrads (especially the first two years) focus so much on research?  I would hold that the ability for undergraduates to participate in a research program plays a very small role in the overall quality of a school.  The MIT kids in your example may not have had any research experience, but I bet they caught on very quickly.

 

One knee-jerk reaction to generally poor public education at all levels is the push to do "more advanced work" at every level.  We want our elementary level kids to rush through learning to write and basic math, public school are pushing for (a dumbed-down version of) Algebra for many seventh graders, and high school kids are encouraged to do dual enrollment and gobs of AP classes.  I suspect a lot of the basics are being skipped along the way, and these "advanced" classes are advanced in name only.  "Calculus" sounds like a college-level class, but I see a lot of high school students who have taken this, and not even covered half of what a typical college Calc I class will cover.  I think we should focus making sure the kids know exactly what they are supposed to know at each level, instead of pushing them to skip to some mock version of the next level.

[G5052]

If your thesis is that at a smaller LAC, an undergraduate is much more likely to be able to "do research" (whatever that means) with a professor, than at a huge big name school, I suspect that you are probably correct.  But why is that important?  Why should undergrads (especially the first two years) focus so much on research?  I would hold that the ability for undergraduates to participate in a research program plays a very small role in the overall quality of a school.  The MIT kids in your example may not have had any research experience, but I bet they caught on very quickly.

 

One knee-jerk reaction to generally poor public education at all levels is the push to do "more advanced work" at every level.  We want our elementary level kids to rush through learning to write and basic math, public school are pushing for (a dumbed-down version of) Algebra for many seventh graders, and high school kids are encouraged to do dual enrollment and gobs of AP classes.  I suspect a lot of the basics are being skipped along the way, and these "advanced" classes are advanced in name only.  "Calculus" sounds like a college-level class, but I see a lot of high school students who have taken this, and not even covered half of what a typical college Calc I class will cover.  I think we should focus making sure the kids know exactly what they are supposed to know at each level, instead of pushing them to skip to some mock version of the next level.

 

Where I went to school, the undergraduates "doing research" were primarily on the clean-up crew or doing data entry.  I guess that the exposure was useful, but I decided not to get a job like that, partially because there was other work on campus that paid better because it was more specialized. 

 

And the "more advanced work" issue is my major beef with the local high school.  They have scads and scads of AP classes, but the students tend to not do very well on the actual AP exams, and I've heard of kids who took AP English with an "A" or "B" that had to take developmental English (i.e. pre-college) at the local community college.  One class of AP Latin got all 1's and 2's on the AP Latin exam, and the teacher is still following the same approach with only slightly better results (she had a few 3's this year).

[Nscribe]

GGardner, I am taking a selection from your post to start a thread because I really appreciate what you stated and would like to see discussion of the point made (pro or con).

[regentrude]

If your thesis is that at a smaller LAC, an undergraduate is much more likely to be able to "do research" (whatever that means) with a professor, than at a huge big name school, I suspect that you are probably correct.  But why is that important?  Why should undergrads (especially the first two years) focus so much on research?  I would hold that the ability for undergraduates to participate in a research program plays a very small role in the overall quality of a school.

 

It really depends on the subject. For physics students, for example, the opportunity to be involved in research as an undergraduate is very important. That is when they see what a physicist actually does. And for admission to graduate school, the undergraduate research plays a crucial role, in addition to the GRE results.

Students are aware that this is important; there is a reason why undergraduate summer reserach opportunities have 200 aplicants per position.

 

My DD is currently in the process of choosing colleges to apply. Both DH and I teach physics at a university; we have eliminated all schools that do not offer a strong research program.

 

And no, undergrads are not just the cleanup crew. My DH has undergraduates working in reserach every year. He spends a lot of time on designing good projects the undergrads can completat can be complete and finish with a scientific publication in a peer reviewed journal. Not all students manage that, but a large part do.

[8filltheheart]

Where I went to school, the undergraduates "doing research" were primarily on the clean-up crew or doing data entry.  I guess that the exposure was useful, but I decided not to get a job like that, partially because there was other work on campus that paid better because it was more specialized.

 

 Not where my ds went to school.   He was actively engaged in the research.  He was flown internationally to be present at the presentation of the research to some sort of consortium.    He also had to write his own paper on the research (I don't remember what it was for.   I think a periodical.   I proofread it for him (drier than dust is what I remember!!), but he was definitely not a clean-up crew or data entry person)

[regentrude]

I see no reason -- really NO reason -- to want to go to a big university as an undergrad.

 

Wanted to add one more though about this:

I agree about really  big, but it should be big enough. DD is currently in the process of reseraching colleges. There are nice LACs where she could major in physics. But the problem is that often the departments are fairly small. This means that the few professors will be busy teaching all the required courses, but that there will be a lack of specialized upper level physics electives in the various branches of physics (partlly because there are too few instuctors and partly beause there would be too few students to justify a wide variety of courses). This will be an issue especially if the student transfers in several semesters worth of classes in her major.

Our department has a class of 20 majors per year. Many electives can be offered only extremely infrequently, some just once in three years. That means that some students can never take certain classes because they are not yet at the right level, and that some courses are never offered.

This is definitely something the student needs to research; a small department will mean limited course selections.

[Barbara H]

Regarding the role of TAs in teaching, I would not assume all state universities or big schools use TAs the same way. At our state u, TAs play a very different role than they did twenty years ago. In the past they were very likely to be assigned full classes to teach on their own early into their time in graduate school. Now, in many subjects TAs serve primarily to facilitate once a week practice or discussion sections that allow students to receive additional support. Their calculus course may be taught by a professor in a group of a hundred students and then they meet once a week with a TA to practice problems together. So, it would not be accurate to say students are not taught by professors at all state universities.

 

Students should not assume that because a school is a prestigious private research university, that their undergrad courses will all be taught by professors. Many schools in this category now use some lecturers and TAs in teaching. So this really is a situation where students need to look on a case by case basis at each school. Also, at small liberal arts colleges, it is appropriate to see if the school is relying a lot on non tenure track adjuncts. They can be great instructors, but if half of your department is not tenure track faculty it is more difficult for students to establish really supportive relationships and be on track to engage in research.

It really depends on the subject. For physics students, for example, the opportunity to be involved in research as an undergraduate is very important. That is when they see what a physicist actually does.

 

This also depends on what the student wants to do.  In this physics case, they may get to see what an academic physics researcher does, but I bet that most of your class of 20 physics major never end up teaching physics in a research university.  Isn't there a huge glut of pure science PhDs?  And I bet a goodly hunk don't even end up in a field requiring novel experimental science, e.g. Wall Street Quant, High school physics teacher, computer programmer, etc.

[Wildiris]

Thanks. As suspected, it is like playing the lottery. If it turns out that my students' stellar academic performance is irrelevant, that the extracurriulars my student is passionate about are "not the right kind", and the family  background puts my student in the wrong demographic - there is absolutely nothing I can do. So be it. With the hundreds of colleges in the country, there are many great options. Something will work out.

I am getting very cynical about the entire process. But I refuse to spend four years of my student's life grooming them to look good for admissions- especially since nobody can really define what makes them look good.  They should pursue their passions and live their high school years, not spend them hunting after the elusive moving target of admission to a selective school.

Looks like even the people who decide about admissions don't really know how students get picked.

 

I feel very cynical about the college application process. I've no doubt my child is not ______enough for admissions to many schools that she is academically prepared to attend. The UC system is so disappointing. Although UCB is close, I'm not going to get my feathers ruffled if she doesn't get in even if she does have a perfect score on her SAT math section and has an unweighted 4.0 GPA. The same is true for all the big name schools she wants to apply to. I'm not going to get her hopes up for a school she probably won't get into. The only good thing she has going for her is she is a math girl. 

 

We are just beginning the college search. I am looking for smaller class size with a good math/engineering/physics department.  A college or university doing research sounds like a thing to consider when we are on the ground looking, as well as the academic level of fellow students. I do think being around like minds essential.

[G5052]

 Not where my ds went to school.   He was actively engaged in the research.  He was flown internationally to be present at the presentation of the research to some sort of consortium.    He also had to write his own paper on the research (I don't remember what it was for.   I think a periodical.   I proofread it for him (drier than dust is what I remember!!), but he was definitely not a clean-up crew or data entry person)

 

That's good, really.  

 

When I was an undergraduate, the ratio of undergraduate students to graduate students was something like 5:2, so the graduate students got the "real" jobs and undergraduates were pushed behind.

 

[regentrude]

Students should not assume that because a school is a prestigious private research university, that their undergrad courses will all be taught by professors. Many schools in this category now use some lecturers and TAs in teaching. So this really is a situation where students need to look on a case by case basis at each school. Also, at small liberal arts colleges, it is appropriate to see if the school is relying a lot on non tenure track adjuncts. They can be great instructors, but if half of your department is not tenure track faculty it is more difficult for students to establish really supportive relationships and be on track to engage in research.

 

Just wanted to add one thought here, as I am not sure whether everybody understands this:

 

whether a class is taught by a tenured professor or a non-tenure-track lecturer does not allow any conclusions about the quality of the teaching or the qualification of the instructor. It merely says something about he kind of appointment the person holds.

In recent years, universities have seen financial difficulties; public universities have not received the state funding they were promised but have to educate more students. Consequently, there have been widespread hiring freezes, and departments have not been permitted to fill open tenure track positions. Thus they have resorted to hiring instructors without promising them an opportunity for  tenure. Often those instructors have PhDs in their fields and research experience.

Not all non-tenure track instructors are adjuncts who hold appointments at different institutions and are not easily available in person. Some non-tenured faculty spend the entire day at their departments, just like tenured professors, and it makes no difference to the students. In fact, since they typically are not involved in research, they might be investing more time into teaching.

Lastly, non-tenured does not have to mean a large turnover or short term appointment. Many non-tenured faculty spend years at the same institution and provide the same continuity to students - their appointment status just means they receive a lower salary, have no chances for promotion, and their positions can easily be eliminated.

[flyingiguana]

Thanks, Regentrude, for mentioning that.

 

TAs are different.  They're generally in their first few years of teaching.  A lot of times, the point of having TAs is to teach the grad students how to teach under a professor's guidance.  These days, the guidance may or may not be there.  It varies.

 

But a TA is more of a student teacher.  And usually doesn't have much experience.  While having a few teachers like that is fine, having all TAs all the time may start to impact on the educational quality. 

 

The only way to learn how to teach is to actually do it.  The problem only comes when a place is swamped with student teachers.

 

Having a lot of adjunct professors may tend to impact quality only because the institution may not feel they have to give the adjunct the support they would a tenure track professor.  If the adjunct is worrying about making ends meet because the pay is low, or not having a job next semester because they can be dropped without warning, or wondering how to meet with students because no one thought to give them an office, yes, that's going to impact quality.

 

However, there are colleges that use adjuncts and treat them fairly well (other than the lower pay).  My husband's dept has a number of adjuncts that they have kept on the staff for years.  It shows too.  These adjuncts communicate well with the tenure track professors, so the education of the students is better than it would be.  Unfortunately, the dept has no control over what the pay is.  Sometimes they can take on an adjunct full time so the person gets benefits, but that's about the only control they have.

 

 

[flyingiguana]

Also, on the matter of research being "advanced" work for undergrads.  It's not advanced.  It's applying what you've learned.  This is just another component of education.

 

Hands on research is to science what writing research papers is to many fields in the humanities.  No one would ever suggest holding off on research papers in the humanities because it's too advanced.

 

And there are a lot of science majors who go on to do hands on research in their jobs, whether or not they ever go to grad school.  It is essential training.  And very helpful when looking for a job.  Companies are rightly not all that interested in hiring someone who only ever took science classes and wouldn't know how to program a computer or hold a screwdriver.

[Barbara H]

 

 

Lastly, non-tenured does not have to mean a large turnover or short term appointment. Many non-tenured faculty spend years at the same institution and provide the same continuity to students - their appointment status just means they receive a lower salary, have no chances for promotion, and their positions can easily be eliminated.

 

Particularly in the case of schools with hiring freezes it certainly can be that the professors are around for years and the student experience can be similar.

 

But, I'm also seeing the situation where financially strapped mid tier small liberal arts colleges increasingly rely on people they hire for just a year or two. These are not long term trailing spouses who  probably will still be around years the university many years down the road. These one year folks may be great instructors, right on part with the tenured track faculty in the department. But, if you are in a very small department (just three or four faculty) and they are out of there in a year that is an issue for students to pay attention. It can take away from some of the positives of the small liberal arts experience if your professors aren't accessible to you a year down the road. Of course there are financial realities that are driving this... but it can still negatively affect student experience.

[mommymilkies]

The trouble is, these state schools with their low tuitions and excellent education are often more competitive than comparable private schools that can leave student in serious debt.  This is what I've been hearing from parents who would like to send their kids to state schools in California.  The private schools have plenty of spots...it's the state schools that are hard to get admitted to.

Here In IL, I can on,y think of two state universities where the price and admissions are outrageous. Otherwise, tuition here is cheap, and admission, IMHO, is not very competitive (provided they meet the minimum requirement of GPA or act). It depends where you live. From my limited experience just with College, healthcare, and Science research jobs, the college you go to is way less important that your ability and willingness to actually work or do research.

[8filltheheart]

Here In IL, I can on,y think of two state universities where the price and admissions are outrageous. Otherwise, tuition here is cheap, and admission, IMHO, is not very competitive (provided they meet the minimum requirement of GPA or act). It depends where you live. From my limited experience just with College, healthcare, and Science research jobs, the college you go to is way less important that your ability and willingness to actually work or do research.

This is very state dependent. Our oldest ds's tuition, room board was cheap in TN. In VA, the same cost more than private schools after scholarships for our very avg test-scoring dd. In the state we are in currently, just room and board are a out what we would have pd for our dd at the private schools. Just plain nuts. $12000 just for room and board!!

[mommymilkies]

This is very state dependent. Our oldest ds's tuition, room board was cheap in TN. In VA, the same cost more than private schools after scholarships for our very avg test-scoring dd. In the state we are in currently, just room and board are a out what we would have pd for our dd at the private schools. Just plain nuts. $12000 just for room and board!!

That's crazy! I think it's like $2k at my last university an hour away!

[G5052]

Just wanted to add one thought here, as I am not sure whether everybody understands this:

 

whether a class is taught by a tenured professor or a non-tenure-track lecturer does not allow any conclusions about the quality of the teaching or the qualification of the instructor. It merely says something about he kind of appointment the person holds.

 

 

On a similar note, the community college system I work for has done several studies on adjuncts versus full-time professors.  After a year of teaching, there is no difference at all.  The full-time faculty tend to come up to speed faster, perhaps because they teach more and are on campus more for informal mentoring, but after awhile it really doesn't matter whether the professor is full-time or part-time at the community college.  In my department, the most "junior" adjunct has been teaching for six years at that community college.  I've been there longer than any of the full-time professors at that campus.

 

And some community college professors do research, contrary to what most people think.  It depends on the field and of course the scope is much smaller.

[kubiac]

Also, it's hard to believe a place that Harvard really is the cream of the crop, given that so many of their admissions are legacy admissions.  Just because someone's grandfather was good enough to get in years ago, doesn't mean these legacies would really stand out from the crowd of people trying to get in there today.

 

GGGGrrrr. This assumptive drives me nuts. Highly selective universities are NOT riddled with weak legacy candidates who were admitted simply because they "come from a long line of wood and stone."

 

(For the record I'm not at all talking about myself here. My parents went to a tiny private liberal arts college in the Midwest and a huge state U in the Midwest.)

 

First of all, there just aren't that many legacies, numerically speaking, and second, I would argue that, from what I saw, most legacies were indistinguishable, achievement-wise, from your average highly qualified candidate. Now, I will completely stipulate that the legacy kids probably had money and lifelong privilege and/or a genuine community connection to the school that weren't available to a poor kid from the Indian reservation on the other end of the state, etc., but truth be told, I never encountered a moron who was there strictly because Daddy bought the school a helicopter or something.

 

The most common "legacy" admit, I suspect, is "child of a professor or important figure currently at the school."

 

From what I could tell, the weakest admits that got a bump into my school were athletes. Our school had a strong athletic program and I think they were very soft on academic admissions requirements for athletes in the sports that are shown on TV or if you were an Olympic-level competitor in any other sport. 

 

Sorry, the legacy thing is a bit of bugbear for me, because I think it's a huge myth and/or cause of pre-emptive sour grapes. I just want everyone out there to drop the assumption that they or their kids can't get into Harvard/Yale/Princeton because the roster is already larded with entitled rich kids who are unfairly and maliciously hoarding all the spots. It just isn't so.

 

IMHO/YMMV :)

[flyingiguana]

So this article is all a lie?:

http://www.businessinsider.com/legacy-kids-have-an-admissions-advantage-2013-6