Over time, I have seen several people say that highly selective colleges are seeking "well-rounded" applicants, most recently in the "Gifted Girls" thread. What I have heard suggests just the opposite, and thought this would be a useful discussion topic. Specifically, what I have repeatedly heard (from relatives and friends with children that were accepted into these colleges, books on the topic, and college consultants pitching their services), is the following:
Highly selective colleges are NOT looking for well-rounded applicants. They are looking for a well-rounded CLASS composed of individuals that are exceptional in at least one way. To paraphrase what I said another thread, they are ideally looking for a class composed of star athletes, talented musicians, innovative science researchers, highly under-represented groups, kids overcoming considerable adversity, accomplished actors and national math competition winners.
Before going any further, we should make sure we are talking about the same things. What is a "highly selective college"? Here are two useful tests:
1. Its admission rate is below 20%.
2. When JonLaw hears the name of the college, he immediately wants to respond with: "Power! Glory! Awesomeness!" Is the 20% admission rate too high for that, JonLaw?
Note that the 20% admission rate is a very small set of colleges, roughly 40-50 in all, and people can certainly get a fine education outside of them. It is NOT the purpose of this thread to discuss whether or not the competition for admission into these colleges is worthwhile--that is a useful thread topic in itself; feel free to start one.
So with all that, which people think the well-rounded applicant wins consistently over the pointy kid that is exceptional in at least one area, or vice versa?
My impression is that it is actually both--you had better have straight As, superlative SAT scores, the "general package" of expected volunteering/extracurriculars/music/athletics (you don't have to and shouldn't do it ALL), PLUS a "pointy" standout area.
ultramarina,
I agree that exceptional academics is required for almost all applicants, but this too can be relaxed for highly desired applicants, such as D1 athletes.
Honestly, I think that the highly selective colleges want what they want, and they dress that idea up to make it politically palatable while doing what they like behind the scenes. This is my way of saying that I think the whole process is a farce. Following from that idea, I see little value in discussing "what colleges want" without acknowledging that admissions practices may be very different when the wind changes direction in 18 months. Not to mention how toxic they are.
My understanding is admissions are transparent and merit-based in what I'd call a wobbly way (eg accepted applicants from different ethnic groups have different average SAT scores, meaning that the goal posts move for different groups). This kind of thing creates an arms race to overcome the higher hurdles.
A case in point is that admissions committees look for "research scientists" in the applicant pool. There is no such thing as a 17-year-old research scientist unless s/he has already finished a postdoc (in which case, there's no need to apply to Yale undergrad). But we have a fantasy that the Intel science competition turns kids into researchers. It doesn't. It's just a start on a long road.
I'm not saying that teenagers don't dream up amazing ideas. I'm saying that going from there to being a research scientist is a very big leap, and I'm skeptical that a teenager could get there while also amassing credits for 3 years of social studies and PE and English and so on.
The expectations to be "pointy" are just as cruel as the "well-rounded" expectation that has children signing up for 20 weekly activity hours on top of school and study time. And it's just as much a lie: I don't believe that the vast majority of those kids are going to Debate club on MW and Fundraising club on TR while also running track and starting a nonprofit.
I wish more of these college discussions were in the
College forum, rather than
General Discussion, to aid future readers in finding them.
That said, I agree with several points in the
posts on the Gifted Girls thread: that students get accepted into selective colleges to make a well-rounded class, that such students may be well-rounded or pointy, and that stories are anecdotal.
Rather than share more anecdotes, possibly a list of a few of the books with input from selective college admissions and/or based on research, will be helpful:
1)
Getting In: Inside College Admissions (1997) Princeton
2)
The Gatekeepers: Inside the Admissions Process of a Premier College (2003) Wesleyan
3)
What it Really Takes to Get Into Harvard and Other Highly Selective Colleges (2003) Harvard
4)
The Chosen: The Hidden History of Admission and Exclusion at Harvard, Yale, and Princeton (2006)
5)
The Price of Admission: How America's Ruling Class Buys Its Way into Elite Colleges--And Who Gets Left Outside the Gates (2007)
6)
A is for Admission (2009) Dartmouth
7)
The Best Book on Elite Admissions: Uncovered (2011) Stanford (Also see Erinn Andrews' video case studies
here)
To add to this list:
Applying Sideways from the MIT Admissions blog
Cal Newport's
How to Be a High School Superstar
Excellent! "To thine own self be true!" - Shakespeare
Applying Sideways sums it up nicely, without people spending a boatload of money on books which summarize prior years' decision making as to who gets the thick envelope.
The impression I get from watching my friends who have kids at some of these elite schools. The schools who only pick the 'pointy' students are the top 5-10 schools in the country (less than 5% acceptance) not really the top 40-50. And it depends on the school what type of pointy they are looking for. For example MIT or Cal Tech want students who really stand out in math/science for some reason and win science completions. Stanford is known for accepting you if your an athlete that has prospects to make it to the Olympics.
To get into the top 40-50 schools students need that "EXCELLENT" package with the best GPA's (lots of AP's) and top SAT scores and do "general package" of expected volunteering/extracurriculars/music/athletics. The students I know that have gotten into top school, have chosen 2-3 extracurricular activities , do them all four years, and have leadership roles by the time they are seniors. For example band & Latin club where your the Latin club president & section leader in band your senior year. You don't necessarily need to stand out nationally. But you do need stand out in your own school.
I would like to echo snowgirl's recommendation of Cal Newport's book: "How to Be a High School Superstar". Cal's approach is very similar to that expressed in MIT's Applying Sideways. Both say find one or two things that you really passionate about and pursue it deeply. We are taking this approach, and since our kids are doing what they really enjoy, we don't have that much stress in our house (so far anyway).
For DD, who is a sophomore, her deep interests are in art, which she will happily do for hours each day when there is time, and neuroscience, which fascinates her. She has won some awards for her art and teaches at a senior center but doesn't have much else in the way of community and leadership activities, and we are fine with that.
DS is only in 7th grade, and he has found his deep interests (earlier than I would like, as I would like him to keep dabbling in lots of areas) in both math and chess. Both of these activities take a tremendous amount of time and he is the busiest person in the house, especially after just being elected to student government, but he is happy as well.
Val, as always, has written a thoughtful response. I want to focus on a couple of parts of this:
Honestly, I think that the highly selective colleges want what they want, and they dress that idea up to make it politically palatable while doing what they like behind the scenes. This is my way of saying that I think the whole process is a farce. Following from that idea, I see little value in discussing "what colleges want" without acknowledging that admissions practices may be very different when the wind changes direction in 18 months. Not to mention how toxic they are.
Yes, it can become toxic. We consciously try to avoid that by having our kids do what they want rather than forcing activities that others think might look good. But this is worthy of its own topic.
A case in point is that admissions committees look for "research scientists" in the applicant pool. There is no such thing as a 17-year-old research scientist unless s/he has already finished a postdoc (in which case, there's no need to apply to Yale undergrad). But we have a fantasy that the Intel science competition turns kids into researchers. It doesn't. It's just a start on a long road.
This is completely true. However, I think the admissions people are just looking for potential in this area and in other areas. The research that a gifted 17-year old can perform won't be the same as what he/she can do several years later, in the same way that a talented high school athlete won't have the same skills that a 25 year old does. But in both cases, the potential can be seen.
The impression I get from watching my friends who have kids at some of these elite schools. The schools who only pick the 'pointy' students are the top 5-10 schools in the country (less than 5% acceptance) not really the top 40-50.
Yes, I was pondering if the 20% admission rate should have been closer to 15% or even 10%.
And it depends on the school what type of pointy they are looking for. For example MIT or Cal Tech want students who really stand out in math/science for some reason and win science completions. Stanford is known for accepting you if your an athlete that has prospects to make it to the Olympics.
MIT and CalTech will certainly take those kids. But an acquaintance of mine knows a few people in MIT admissions. He says what MIT would really welcome is the talented athlete that is also strong academically. Few of those kids apply to MIT, but many apply to Stanford.
Excellent! "To thine own self be true!" - Shakespeare
Applying Sideways sums it up nicely, without people spending a boatload of money on books which summarize prior years' decision making as to who gets the thick envelope.
from the MIT admissions site is more informative.
If you are seriously interested in MIT, you probably think math and science are serious fun. We offer this abbreviated list of some remarkable competitions, fairs, summer programs, organizations and websites that will challenge your imagination and powers of analysis, connect you with other young people who dare to enjoy science and math, and help you prepare for the rigor and excitement of MIT.
What Val said.
The only way to win the game is not to play.
MIT and CalTech will certainly take those kids. But an acquaintance of mine knows a few people in MIT admissions. He says what MIT would really welcome is the talented athlete that is also strong academically. Few of those kids apply to MIT, but many apply to Stanford.
Because if you want to play sports at university you don't aim to go to MIT. Why would you? Yes MIT does have sports but it's not what people think of about their university. You go because it has a research labs like almost no other university. CalTech plays in NCAA Division III and only has a few teams vs. Stanford playing at NCAA Division I. Sure both CalTech & MIT love a top student who's also an athlete. But if your a top athlete who wants to go somewhere in hour sport your not looking at these schools.
A major difference is CalTech offers a top-notch education plus an outlet for those who are athletically inclined, where Stanford offers a top-notch education that is free for select candidates.
Stanford sets itself apart from the rest of Division I by NOT watering down its admissions standards for athletes, which has had the effect of making it an attractive place for intelligent athletes. There have been a number of articles exploring the effect this has had on its football program:
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefoo...lp-stanford-elevate-itself-in-recruitingStanford's recruiting process is opposite from virtually every other program in major college football and has been for the past few years. The staff doesn't watch film of prospects until after it receivers--and evaluates--a recruit's academic transcript. Many schools these days offer scholarships to kids whose transcripts they've never seen.
Not Stanford.
"We can't afford to waste time," says Shaw. "I need to look at kids who are great players and great students."
1. Its admission rate is below 20%.
2. When JonLaw hears the name of the college, he immediately wants to respond with: "Power! Glory! Awesomeness!" Is the 20% admission rate too high for that, JonLaw?
I don't know quite how to answer that.
The glory that we are looking for really comes from certain highly selective institutions.
For instance, MIT is not a truly glorious university because it's not the right kind of glory. It's kind of technical, which is the bad kind of glory.
There are also the universities that are kind of glorious, but don't quite make the list because they are not in the northeast, such as Duke and Stanford.
War Games!!!!!
How about a nice game of chess?
A major difference is CalTech offers a top-notch education plus an outlet for those who are athletically inclined, where Stanford offers a top-notch education that is free for select candidates.
Stanford sets itself apart from the rest of Division I by NOT watering down its admissions standards for athletes, which has had the effect of making it an attractive place for intelligent athletes. There have been a number of articles exploring the effect this has had on its football program:
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefoo...lp-stanford-elevate-itself-in-recruitingStanford's recruiting process is opposite from virtually every other program in major college football and has been for the past few years. The staff doesn't watch film of prospects until after it receivers--and evaluates--a recruit's academic transcript. Many schools these days offer scholarships to kids whose transcripts they've never seen.
Not Stanford.
"We can't afford to waste time," says Shaw. "I need to look at kids who are great players and great students."
Stanford definitely has higher standards for athletes than Alabama, Oregon, or even Duke, but the minimum academic standards for top tier athletes are closer to those for children of seven figure donors than to those of the average applicant. Stanford's minimum two-part SAT score for athletes is 1000 and the core GPA minimum is a 3.0.
http://news.stanford.edu/stanfordtoday/ed/9703/9703sf03.shtml
A major difference is CalTech offers a top-notch education plus an outlet for those who are athletically inclined, where Stanford offers a top-notch education that is free for select candidates.
Stanford sets itself apart from the rest of Division I by NOT watering down its admissions standards for athletes, which has had the effect of making it an attractive place for intelligent athletes. There have been a number of articles exploring the effect this has had on its football program:
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefoo...lp-stanford-elevate-itself-in-recruitingStanford's recruiting process is opposite from virtually every other program in major college football and has been for the past few years. The staff doesn't watch film of prospects until after it receivers--and evaluates--a recruit's academic transcript. Many schools these days offer scholarships to kids whose transcripts they've never seen.
Not Stanford.
"We can't afford to waste time," says Shaw. "I need to look at kids who are great players and great students."
Yes but if you look at the numbers for Stanford admits.. The students/athletes on average have lower lower GPA/test scores than the average of all the rests of the admits. Being a nationally ranked athlete who is also a good solid high GPA will give you a BIG advantage in their selection process.
But I will admit that they do have a "bottom" line. And only admit student who meet minimum (very high) criteria of academic criteria. In this way they are MUCH better at having true student/athletes than many top sports schools.
Having just gone to DD's high school awards ceremony which had a segment listing the college choice, scholarship, and awards for some of the students, I would say that the kiddos that went to HYPS etc did have the "core" of good grades ( 4.0 un-weighted), IB diploma, AP scholar or better, over 100 hours of community service (at DD's school this does not include the 50 or more done for IB) and leadership in student organizations. Then they went on to do things like qualify for AIME , be an Intel Science Fair finalist, volunteer over 500 hours with local government, etc. So, another vote for well rounded AND pointy.
Have a look at Stanford's admission stats for 2014 here:
http://admission.stanford.edu/basics/selection/profile.html73% of admitted students had a 4.0
95% were in the top 10% of their class
Harvard (see here:
http://features.thecrimson.com/2014/freshman-survey/admissions/) had "only" 54% with a 4.0, but looking at a plot of GPA vs SAT demonstrates that high GPA and high test scores both characteristics of admitted students.
Also, I wish now, that I'd taken DD to a high school awards night when she was in 5th grade so she could see what was possible.
Ok, now I'm just poking around on the Harvard article and there is some poor person that applied to 32 colleges and was only accepted to 2. One was Harvard.
http://features.thecrimson.com/2014/freshman-survey/admissions/Just wondering how accurate this is.
...I would say that the kiddos that went to HYPS etc did have the "core" of good grades ( 4.0 un-weighted), IB diploma, AP scholar or better, over 100 hours of community service (at DD's school this does not include the 50 or more done for IB) and leadership in student organizations. Then they went on to do things like qualify for AIME , be an Intel Science Fair finalist, volunteer over 500 hours with local government, etc. So, another vote for well rounded AND pointy.
73% of admitted students had a 4.0
95% were in the top 10% of their class
Harvard (see here:
http://features.thecrimson.com/2014/freshman-survey/admissions/) had "only" 54% with a 4.0, but looking at a plot of GPA vs SAT demonstrates that high GPA and high test scores both characteristics of admitted students.
See, I find this information to be really depressing. IMO, these colleges are basically saying that there's no room for making mistakes, with B+ grades (or really, even A-'s) apparently counting as "mistakes."
Personally, I believe that our society really, really needs people who screwed up, dusted themselves off only to mess up again, and eventually learned from their mistakes and made something out of them.
This perfectionism-itis is especially bad for STEM aspirants. Given that tenure and grant funding decisions work on basically the same principle as above, the message is, "Don't do anything risky." Which, of course, is where all the interesting stuff is. Oh well.
I wonder how much they accommodate school variations for GPA. Looking at Naviance scatter grams, I can say that nobody in our high school who takes all honor classes has gotten a 4.0 unweighted in the last ten years, including the IMO gold medal winner.
See, I find this information to be really depressing. IMO, these colleges are basically saying that there's no room for making mistakes, with B+ grades (or really, even A-'s) apparently counting as "mistakes."
I don't think it is as bad as it seems, as Harvard at least takes our school kids regularly without the 4.0 unweighted.
Personally, I believe that our society really, really needs people who screwed up, dusted themselves off only to mess up again, and eventually learned from their mistakes and made something out of them.
This works well in the tech industry, where VCs do give people second chances. Sad it doesn't seem to happen in academia.
Interesting yet depressing article that may be relevant to the discussion: Former Ivy League admissions dean reveals why highly qualified Asian-American students often get rejected
http://www.businessinsider.com/sara...an-american-students-get-rejected-2015-6
Asian American girl who did get into Harvard:
http://www.usnews.com/news/the-next...t-looks-forward-to-a-long-future-in-stemA possible cure for cancer at age 17. Now, that's a hook.
See, I find this information to be really depressing. IMO, these colleges are basically saying that there's no room for making mistakes, with B+ grades (or really, even A-'s) apparently counting as "mistakes."
Personally, I believe that our society really, really needs people who screwed up, dusted themselves off only to mess up again, and eventually learned from their mistakes and made something out of them.
As the U.S. population grows while the class size of Ivy League schools hardly changes, inevitably the bar for admission to those schools is raised. Increasing numbers of very bright students will need to brush off rejections from elite colleges. I like MOOCs because students who don't get into Shiny U can still learn what is being taught there. Even without MOOCs, the Internet makes it possible to see what resources students are various universities are using. For example, Harvard physics majors are using books by (or updated by) David Morin for classical mechanics and electricity and magnetism. Before I went to college to major in physics I had no idea what "Purcell" (the classic E&M textbook) was. Now such information is easily available. My children will be playing the selective college admissions game, although I'll try to stay rational about it. But I want them to understand that there is very little that can be learned *only* at Shiny U.
I think what everyone is saying is that you need to be well rounded, an exceptional student and be really gifted at a particular thing. All of this needs to be done by the time you are 17 (or younger if you have grade skipped) but no pressure! All the while research indicated that you will most likely be more successful long term if you are one of these students and choose to go to a less prestiges school where you are in the top 2% versus going to one of the ivy league schools and being in the middle 50th or even the top quartile. Why are people trying to get in these school's again???
I think what everyone is saying is that you need to be well rounded, an exceptional student and be really gifted at a particular thing. All of this needs to be done by the time you are 17 (or younger if you have grade skipped) but no pressure! All the while research indicated that you will most likely be more successful long term if you are one of these students and choose to go to a less prestiges school where you are in the top 2% versus going to one of the ivy league schools and being in the middle 50th or even the top quartile. Why are people trying to get in these school's again???
My guesses:
American love of all things that are "popular"
Lack of critical thinking skills in the general population
Excellent marketing by said shiny schools
Little focus on allowing students to discover life and what they want from it
I have zero interest in DD going to any university except one that a) is the right fit for her b) accepts her and c) we can pay for. I hope that venn diagram has an intersection.
The arms race of college admission is a symptom of some significant economic and social problems here in the US. The environment is unhealthy and that supports unhealthy behaviors. It's a challenge, but a worthy one in my opinion, to try to find balance between making sure your kids are set up for the possibility of a successful life in a broken system and not buying into the broken system more than you have to.
And FYI, my username comes from a plant that I admire for it's beauty and tenacity. Another interpretation never occurred to me when I signed up on the site.
All the while research indicated that you will most likely be more successful long term if you are one of these students and choose to go to a less prestiges school where you are in the top 2% versus going to one of the ivy league schools and being in the middle 50th or even the top quartile. Why are people trying to get in these school's again???
I have seen studies that show those rejected from the highly selective schools do as well as those accepted, but have not seen that they do better. Can you share a link?
As to why, I think some gifted people (me for instance) are at their best when around other gifted people, even if they are no longer the smartest person around. I have accomplished much more at work, and been more satisfied, when working with other smart people. During the times when that wasn't the case, I tended to coast.
As to why, I think some gifted people (me for instance) are at their best when around other gifted people, even if they are no longer the smartest person around. I have accomplished much more at work, and been more satisfied, when working with other smart people. During the times when that wasn't the case, I tended to coast.
This.
I agree 100% and it is the main reason why I have stayed in architectural or application development management roles. The people that I deal with are smarter and more 'best solution possible' orientated than all of the pretenders at more senior levels are (typically).
As the U.S. population grows while the class size of Ivy League schools hardly changes, inevitably the bar for admission to those schools is raised.
What this capacity problem tells us is that, as the Ivies teach an ever shrinking percentage of the top talent in the US, both students and employers should be broadening their searches. The quality of Ivy-rejected candidates continues to improve, which is great news for Flagship State University.
And given that the admissions arms race is so toxic, and the winners often so significantly damaged by the process, it's time for a radical re-think on whether an Ivy education is still desirable, by either prospective students or hiring employers.
One of my friends in another city interviews for Brown. His city/area has a population of about 1 million people. 300 kids applied, and only 15 were accepted. Of the 15 (this is what he told me), 5 were recruited athletes,6 were recruited minorities, and 4 were whites/Asians who were just exceptionally brilliant.
Mithawk read David and Goliath, many studies are sited discussing the lifetime success of students who attend a less prestigious college where they are at the 99th percentile of applicants vs those at the 50th percentile at ivy league schools. Despite the ivy league students having academic performance and test scores that exceed those of the top 1 percent at other schools, the ones at the top do better. Not just in terms of hiring and income but also upward mobility and publications if they are an academic.
Mithawk read David and Goliath, many studies are sited discussing the lifetime success of students who attend a less prestigious college where they are at the 99th percentile of applicants vs those at the 50th percentile at ivy league schools. Despite the ivy league students having academic performance and test scores that exceed those of the top 1 percent at other schools, the ones at the top do better. Not just in terms of hiring and income but also upward mobility and publications if they are an academic.
Chris Chabris, a psychology professor, wrote the following in a Wall Street Journal review of Gladwell's "David and Goliath"
http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702304713704579093090254007968 One of the longest chapters addresses the question of how high-school students choose colleges. The protagonist is a woman with the pseudonym of Caroline Sacks, who was at the top of her class in high school and had loved science ever since she drew pictures of insects as a child. She was admitted to Brown University and the University of Maryland; she went to Brown, her first choice of all the colleges she visited, with the goal of a science degree.
Ms. Sacks ran into trouble early on in her science courses and hit a wall in organic chemistry. There were students in her classes who seemed to effortlessly grasp concepts she struggled with, and she got discouragingly low grades. She switched her major and looks back with regret, saying that if she'd gone to Maryland, "I'd still be in science."
In this conclusion she may be right. Mr. Gladwell reports data showing that, no matter what kind of college students attend, those who start a science major in the top third of the ability range of students at their own college (judged by their SAT scores) are much more likely to graduate with a science degree than those in the bottom third—the odds are about 55% versus 15%.
This is a classic "fish and ponds" problem. Being the Little Fish in the Big Pond can be daunting. "It's the Little Pond that maximizes your chances to do whatever you want," Mr. Gladwell concludes. Ms. Sacks should have gone to Maryland instead of Brown—she would have been a Big Fish, avoided discouraging competition and stayed in science.
This argument exemplifies one of Mr. Gladwell's stock maneuvers. We might call it "the fallacy of the unexamined premise." He starts this discussion by saying that "a science degree is just about the most valuable asset a young person can have in the modern economy." And if you would be a weak student at an elite university or a strong student at a lower-ranked school, the literature says that you are more likely to get that science degree at the lower-ranked school. Therefore you should ignore conventional wisdom and pick the lower-ranked school over the higher one.
The problems here are many: Degrees from different kinds of schools are not assets of identical value, as Mr. Gladwell baldly implies when he writes that students at Harvard University and at a mid-ranked liberal-arts college are "studying the same textbooks and wrestling with the same concepts and trying to master the same problem sets."
As the U.S. population grows while the class size of Ivy League schools hardly changes, inevitably the bar for admission to those schools is raised.
...The quality of Ivy-rejected candidates continues to improve, which is great news for Flagship State University.
And given that the admissions arms race is so toxic, and the winners often so significantly damaged by the process, it's time for a radical re-think on whether an Ivy education is still desirable, by either prospective students or hiring employers.
I'm not sure if the term "raise the bar" is appropriate, and I have similar feelings about the quality of rejected applicants improving. Those terms are conceptually so broad, and yet the criteria they apply to are, in practice, so narrow: high grades and high SAT scores. I'm not convinced that many of these kids are really participating meaningfully in all those extracurricular activities, and I wonder how many are only signing up to check a box ("fencing looks good on college apps; FFA, not so much").
As a group, these kids strike me as being groomed for Ivy League admissions more than anything else. I'm not saying they aren't intelligent and hard-working, because they are. But they're still groomed, and the arms race for college admissions doesn't leave a lot of room for failure, exploration, or taking meaningful risks (as in, the kinds of risks that can help you grow as a person but might bring your GPA down out of the stratosphere).
I can't imagine paying $280,000 for my child to get an undergraduate degree from Harvard, especially when there are hundreds of students in a single freshman class. Rip off! Graduate studies might be worth it.
As the U.S. population grows while the class size of Ivy League schools hardly changes, inevitably the bar for admission to those schools is raised.
...The quality of Ivy-rejected candidates continues to improve, which is great news for Flagship State University.
And given that the admissions arms race is so toxic, and the winners often so significantly damaged by the process, it's time for a radical re-think on whether an Ivy education is still desirable, by either prospective students or hiring employers.
I'm not sure if the term "raise the bar" is appropriate, and I have similar feelings about the quality of rejected applicants improving. Those terms are conceptually so broad, and yet the criteria they apply to are, in practice, so narrow: high grades and high SAT scores. I'm not convinced that many of these kids are really participating meaningfully in all those extracurricular activities, and I wonder how many are only signing up to check a box ("fencing looks good on college apps; FFA, not so much").
As a group, these kids strike me as being groomed for Ivy League admissions more than anything else. I'm not saying they aren't intelligent and hard-working, because they are. But they're still groomed, and the arms race for college admissions doesn't leave a lot of room for failure, exploration, or taking meaningful risks (as in, the kinds of risks that can help you grow as a person but might bring your GPA down out of the stratosphere).
You're assuming that all Ivy rejects played the game, but didn't advance to the final round, where they would still lose, because the only way to win is to not play the game. But what percentage of Ivy rejects never played to begin with? The ones who had less-than-perfect but still excellent SAT scores based on minimal test prep? The ones who lacked the breadth of extracurriculars because they explored the ones they had deeply?
One reason why the elite institutions are rejecting applicants at such elevated rates is because, thanks to the common application, it's nothing but a mouse click to "let's just see what they say."
Heck, back in the ancient days where a college app had to be delivered by an automobile, I sent one such application out. It'd be even easier to send a hundred such out today.
Of course, some of those "for the lulz" Harvard applicants get accepted, and faced with the reality of actually going to Harvard, are tempted to dive into financial oblivion.
Here are two congruent descriptions of Harvard admissions, one by a humorist
Harvard Admissions Needs ‘Moneyball for Life’By MICHAEL LEWIS
New York Times
JUNE 20, 2015
and one by a professor:
The Venture-Capital Universityby Caroline Hoxby
Harvard Magazine
September-October 2011
RESEARCH UNIVERSITIES are the world’s great venture capitalists for investments in human capital—that is, knowledge. Harvard enrolls thousands of students, each of whom is a “project.” Students acquire human capital, an asset that they turn to account as scientists, composers, financiers, politicians. Harvard also supports thousands of studies, each of which is also a “project”—an analysis of Bach’s compositions, an investigation of poor families’ expenditures, the mapping of the human genome. Like venture capitalists, research universities have the expertise to recognize projects with huge potential—the ablest students, the best experiments. Like venture capitalists, they not only fund projects but guide them and match them with specialized resources. Like venture capitalists, they retain an “equity share” in their projects—though they do this in a special way.