I have written repeatedly and I hope convincingly about the random aspect of admissions decisions at highly rejective colleges. I have likened the explanations surrounding the yes and no results to Cargo Cults Here’s a data point that may serve to reinforce my argument.
Zach Yadegeri achieved a 3.9 (out of a possible 4.0) high school gpa, a 34 (out of a possible 36) on his ACT. His extracurriculars were strong, his essay grammatically perfect, cogent, and poignant, his teacher and counselor recommendations attested to Zach’s brilliance, his motivation, his citizenship.
And, oh yes. One more little factoid that appeared on Zach’s list of activities on his applicaiton. Zach’s startup that he began in high school is valued at a tad more than $30,000,000. (Not a typo. 30 million dollars. For context, $30,000,000 is the amount a high school teacher making $50,000 a year would earn in 600 years.)
The reason Zach was rejected at Harvard, Princeton, Yale, Columbia, Dartmouth, the University of Pennsylvania, Brown, Stanford, Duke, MIT, NYU, and the University of Virginia is a subject of much squawking on my side of the street. We’re admissions professionals. We like to understand things, we like to be right, and we like to hear ourselves talk.
What if Zach had scored a 35 rather than a 34 on the ACT? What if his gpa were a 4.0 instead of a 3.9? What if he had taken nine AP courses (or seven AP courses) rather than eight? What if my grandmother had wheels? If my grandmother had wheels, she would be a trolley car. Of that I am certain. I am also convinced that none of the tweaks to Zach’s application–better grades, more extra-curriculars, playing the trombone–would have made any difference. He got an unlucky roll of the dice. Stuff happens.
But you should have heard the post hoc “explanations” of my colleagues at the Independent Educational Consultant’s conference last month in Detroit. No hypothesis was too far fetched: “Harvard doesn’t want students who are already successful. (What?) Dartmouth needs hockey players. (Huh?) Columbia is focusing on their music program. (Give me a break.) Stanford only admits under-represented minorities. (Nah.) Duke only takes legacies. (Oh, please.) As I have often explained, what with everybody being discriminated against everywhere–rich and poor, legacy and first generation, musicians and non-musicians–it’s a wonder there are any students at all on any campus.
To my understanding, Zach was upset. He felt he had worked hard in high school and that he deserved to go to a single-digit admissions ratio college. A snarkier author than I might point out that if the purpose of going to college is to get skills that lead to subsequent employment, Zach is doing pretty well already in the occupation department. And if the reason for going to college is to have a root beer with someone of the female persuasion, a $30,000,000 cushion might allow Zach to swipe right with impunity.
Sports fans talk of basketball players “getting hot” and making a big percentage of three-point shots, of teams having “hot streaks,” winning a bunch of games. On the other hand when a baseball player doesn’t get a hit, they are said to have gone “oh fer,” as in “zero for five.” I’m gong to use “oh fer” in the sense of “oh fer goodness sake, Zach is going to be fine.”
Why won’t my colleagues understand that only death and taxes are inevitable. It would be nice –profitable really–to be able to make perfect predictions about the stock market, the super bowl winner, the location of a roulette ball, the exact temperature outsider your house a year from tomorrow. So against my better judgement, I’m going to go out of a limb and make a prediction about Zach Yadegeri. He’s going to be just fine as an undergraduate next fall at the University of Miami. Your children, dear reader, will be just fine also–especially if you help them understand that their ability matters more than their destination and that good kids do well no matter where they go to college.
