Abrome

Broken dreams in pursuit of an educational brand: Stanford becomes the first university to dip below 5% admit rate

The Stanford University Office of Undergraduate Admission just released their application numbers for the Class of 2020, and for the fourth consecutive year they earn the enviable but not necessarily laudable distinction of being the most selective college in America. Also, in a first for any of the schools that jockey for position in the US News Rankings of best colleges, Stanford has seen their acceptance rate dip below 5%.

Stanford received 43,997 total applications this year, up 1,510 applications from the previous year. And if that bump wasn’t enough of a hit to the dreams of this year’s Stanford-focused applicants, Stanford admitted only 2,063 candidates this year. A decrease of 81 offers from the prior year. Stanford’s continued rise in terms of prestige and perception (it is now Harvard vs. Stanford, not Harvard vs. Yale or Princeton) is leading to a marked increase in their ability to win over a larger percentage of dual-admits to peer universities such as MIT, Yale, and most notably Harvard; and the recent miserable East Coast winters haven’t hurt. As Stanford’s yield goes up, their number of acceptances will continue to go down.

While we do not have Harvard’s final number of admits, we do know that they received 39,044 applicants this yearcompared to last year’s 37,305. If we assume that they accept the same number of applicants as they did last year, they would have a 5.1% acceptance rate this year. It’s fair to assume that Harvard will join Stanford in the under 5% club in the next year or two. And in the coming years, we can expect to see the other uber-selective universities (e.g., Yale, Princeton, MIT, Columbia) also joining the club. And in doing so, no one will be better off for it. Not even Stanford or Harvard.

The ever-dwindling acceptance rates at the top schools do not represent an increase in the quality of education available at those schools, nor do they represent an increase in the quality of the incoming class at those schools. The ever-dwindling acceptance rate at the top schools merely represents the ever increasing priority placed on education brand or prestige by the parents of the young people who are applying to these schools. No longer can it reasonably be said that even a significant minority of the students applying to the top schools are concerned most about specific educational opportunities or fit of the schools. No, the only thing that matters in this dog-eat-dog world is how my kids compare to yours … and if my kid gets into Stanford and yours gets into Brown then my kid is supposedly better.

The ever-escalating admissions arms race leads to more parents paying more people to help their kids apply to college, after four years of micromanaging what classes their kids take, how their kids are doing in those classes, and how much time they invest into various extracurriculars that are vetted by the parents. Young people are not masters of their own universe, they are simply expected to excel in the space that is carved out for them by their parents. In the race to get our children into the top schools, our children have lost the opportunity to decide for themselves what experiences they will engage in, how much time they will invest in those experiences, and even whether or not they should try to figure out who they are.

And when young people are not given the opportunity to forge their own dreams, especially when their aspirations are being defined for them by their parents, then even if they get into their [parents’] dream school, they will fail to take advantage of the opportunities available at those schools that would uniquely benefit them and their dreams. This will lead to an ever growing population of over-coached, over-prepped, over-tested, privileged upper-middle class young adults (because these schools are still largely off limits to lower socio-economic young people who don’t have the opportunity to prep and pad their experiences from the age of 13 in anticipation of college admissions) graduating college completely lost at how to take on the world.

It’s a shame that Stanford’s admit rate has dropped below 5%. This is not a good sign of things to come.

What good is emancipated learning if a child cannot get into Harvard or Stanford?

A year and a half after I graduated from Stanford, I started a search fund to look for a company to buy. Although I was industry agnostic, I kept finding myself focusing on companies that touched the academic space for children, such as curriculum providers, charter management organizations, and tutoring services. This made sense, I had already centered most of my non-work efforts around children throughout my career. I coached baseball, basketball, and football teams; I led an effort to help clothe children in Kosovo; I mentored children in multiple countries; I organized college fairs for West Point and Stanford; and I was on the board of a child bereavement non-profit. I realized that any future professional success would most likely have to be tied to my long-running desire to help children.

However, the more I dove into the companies that were operating in the space, the more I became frustrated at their inability to actually help children. Even the thought of running my own charter schools seemed destined to cause more harm to children than good. I quickly came to the conclusion that virtually the entire education industry was being operated for the benefit of adults at the expense of children. This realization led me to authors such as John Holt and John Taylor Gatto, and a broader homeschooling and unschooling movement. I was faced with a dilemma: do I keep looking for an education company to buy that would undoubtedly harm children, or do I throw myself into promoting options where I couldn’t make much money but where I could actually help children? It wasn’t much of a dilemma; in late 2010, I packed up and moved from New York to Austin to try to grow the homeschooling movement.

While working to liberate children from traditional schooling, I found that I was lacking two credentials that vocal critics of homeschooling, unschooling, and other forms of liberated learning grabbed onto: I did not have teaching experience and I did not have an education degree. So I chose to work as a teacher for Bronze Doors Academy (now Skybridge Academy) for two years, and then I went to the Harvard Graduate School of Education for a master’s in education degree (Ed.M.).

At Harvard I began to work on a new platform for education that would allow all children to lead remarkable lives. It was intended to be a community of self-directed learners that would benefit from a broader network of learners and mentors online. It avoided the worst aspects of traditional schooling (e.g., curriculum, testing, grading, homework), but it also failed to provide parents with what they saw as some of the benefits of traditional schooling (e.g., a place for their kids to go during the day, a ready network of peers to interact with, social validation from friends and family). Time and time again, parents would agree with me as to why they should opt out of traditional schooling, and how their children would be far better off outside of a traditional school environment, yet far more often than not they would still opt to keep their children in school. It was apparent that most parents, as much as they loved their children, just could not take the risk that their children might fail outside of a school environment, whereas if their kids failed in the school environment, at least they would not be entirely responsible for the failure.

While I was unable to recruit many families to join my virtual community of emancipated learners, I was able to keep the lights on by providing college admissions services. Over the past decade I have been helping people apply to college and grad school, and I have gotten nearly 50% of my clients into Harvard and/or Stanford, and 75% of my clients into schools ranked in the top ten. Because of a combination of my success rates plus the time I invest into each college admissions candidate (which takes away the time I can work on emancipated learning), I charge a significantly higher price for college admissions consulting ($25,000 during senior year) than I do on an annual consulting basis to help children lead remarkable lives ($6,500/yr). And I would be flummoxed if I was not willing to accept that most parents (although they will not admit it) would eagerly put their children through hell during their primary and secondary years if they could assure that their children would gain admission into Harvard or Stanford.

My goal is not just to get a bunch of kids into Harvard and Stanford. College admissions consulting is a great lifestyle business (it is fun, it is easy to do really well, and it is seasonal), but it does not fundamentally undermine the injustices of our society that are rooted in and reinforced by traditional schooling. In order for me to be able to emancipate children from the tyranny of the status quo, and in order for those emancipated learners to go on to take down the tyranny of the status quo and improve society for all, I recognize that I cannot at this point separate the two–parents need a sure bet that their children are going to be able to lead remarkable lives and gain admission into top colleges and universities, although the latter does not in any way validate or lead to the former. A virtual community is not sufficient at this moment in time, so keep your eyes open for exciting new developments from Abrome in the near future.

UPDATE: We have launched a school to address the dilemma of parents being much more willing to pay for college admissions than for helping young people lead remarkable lives. 

How hard is it to get into West Point, Annapolis, or the Air Force Academy?

While most high achieving secondary students have their eyes set on the schools at the top of the US News Rankings, there is a smaller subset of students who are focused on gaining admission into a United States Federal Service Academy.    

The big three U.S. Federal Service Academies are the U.S. Military Academy (West Point), theU.S. Naval Academy (Annapolis), and the U.S. Air Force Academy. A smaller, lesser known service academy is the U.S. Coast Guard Academy. These four academies all have admissions rates that make many of the US News top 25 colleges and universities envious, with both West Point and Annapolis being in the single digits. Additionally, these service academies require no room, board, or tuition from their students; it’s “free”! Upon graduation, every person attending one of these academies is guaranteed a commission by their respective service, and they then receive further professional training that will help them in their careers, in or out of the service. Additionally, the alumni networks of these academies are extremely strong, and their placement rates into top business schools are matched historically by only Harvard, Yale, Princeton, MIT, and Stanford.

With zero cost of attendance, a highly regarded education, a guaranteed job, and great prospects beyond the military, one would wonder why more high school students aren’t gunning for admission into the academies. The most obvious answer is war. There are legitimate risks to military service, and while West Point and Annapolis take on the heaviest burden in war in terms of casualties, none of the services are immune from injury or death. Another answer is fun, or lack thereof. When freshman show up at most colleges, they party and socialize. When freshman (otherwise known as Plebes or Doolies) arrive at the academies they get harassed and hazed. No drinking, plenty of studying, and too many parades. Many academy graduates consider their four-year college experience as a hazing experience. A third answer is long-term indentured servitude. Many 17 year-olds aren’t ready to commit to four years of a less than fun college experience in addition to an eight-year service commitment on the other end. This commitment helps many recognize that the academy experience isn’t really “free.”

However, for tens of thousands of high school seniors, the plusses outweigh the minuses and they throw their hat into the ring of Academy admissions. Having assisted applicants through my college admissions services; having previously been a Field Force Admissions Representative for West Point, with responsibility for two congressional districts; as well as having gone through the process myself as a 17-year old; I am amazed by how stressful the process seems to applicants when gaining admission to one of the academies is actually quite simple relative to gaining admission into a school ranked in the top 10-25 of the US News rankings. All it takes is proper planning. While there are far more requirements to an academy application, including Congressional nominations, fitness exams, and medical exams, all of them are easily accomplished, if given enough time.

As with getting young people into Harvard and Stanford, getting young people into West Point or Annapolis is substantially easier the earlier one begins preparing. If I can begin working with someone by the time they are a freshman, short of a medical disqualification, I can virtually guarantee they will gain admission if they are willing to put in the time and energy necessary to meet the many requirements of admission.

The key to admission to one of the academies is consistent investment into academics, athletics, and leadership throughout the high school experience. Unlike Harvard or Stanford one does not need to be an academic star to get into a U.S. Service Academy, but they do need to produce. Likewise, they don’t need to be a recruited athlete or the youngest person ever elected mayor in their hometown, but they need to hit certain benchmarks with regards to athletics and leadership. Through proper execution, one can position themselves for a near guaranteed admission into a fraternity that will open up doors in ways that most regular colleges cannot.

The decision to apply to a service academy is a heavy one with heavy consequences, and no young person should be pressured into applying by their parents or teachers. However, if a younger person chooses to go down that path, and if they commit to the process early on, they can easily gain admission. If your child wants to get into a Service Academy then contact us at 989-31-ADMIT.

     

      An Analysis of Turning the Tide; Harvard Education School Report Calls for Reforming Admissions Practices

      On Wednesday, a less than impressive report was released by the Harvard Graduate School of Education (full disclosure, I am a graduate of the institution) that suggested various tweaks to the college admissions process that would supposedly benefit society and the lives of applicants in various ways. The report was not unimpressive in terms of what their stated goals were; it was unimpressive in terms of the recommendations they laid out and those that they left out.      

      In short, the report was an effort spearheaded by the Making Caring Common Project at Harvard that understandably served to promote their broader mission in a manner that would predictably garner significant media attention. They investigated ways in which the college admission process could be altered to compel college applicants to become more socially engaged, aware, and valuable contributors to a more ethical and humane society—ambitious and commendable goals. As a benefit to the people they collaborated with and in order to gain broader appeal (in a pretty obvious afterthought sort of way), they also touched upon how to make the high schools years less stressful for students

      Virtually everything of value was provided in the executive summary, with the body of the report adding little to no value. Their general thesis was that the college admissions process weighs heavily on the minds and influences the actions of high school students to such a large degree that it can be leveraged to influence the actions of those students for the betterment of society (and make life easier on the students in the process, again, as an afterthought). The report then lays out three broader ways in which the admissions process should be altered.

      1. Promoting more meaningful contributions to others, community service and engagement with the public good.
      2. Assessing students’ ethical engagement and contributions to others in ways that reflect varying types of family and community contributions across, race, culture and class.
      3. Redefining achievement in ways that both level the playing field for economically diverse students and reduce excessive achievement pressure.

      Associated with each of these three areas were more specific recommendations. I will address each of the three areas more broadly, and touch upon some of the specific recommendations in my analysis.

      Community / Public Service:

      The first area of focus revolves around community or public service, and is clearly the primary listed concern for the Making Caring Common Project. They want to promote authentic, meaningful, sustained community service that deepens appreciation of diversity, and develops gratitude for the past and a sense of responsibility for the future. That’s a lot to chew on.

      The idea of using the admissions process to transform 50 million students from self-absorbed, achievement-oriented gunners into generous, outward facing, compassionate, society-first contributors to society is appealing. It’s also naïve. Such remarkable change cannot be driven through a process that a minority of the student population seriously concerns themselves with, and for that minority, often not until 11th or 12th grade.

      Image from the cover of the Harvard report

      Image from the cover of the Harvard report

      The report encourages meaningful and sustained community service that is authentically chosen. It should be obvious that meaningful and sustained service is unlikely to be realized if it isn’t authentically chosen, because it is exceedingly difficult for most people to invest significant time and energy into something they don’t really care about. In fact, the only students who are likely to excel at doing so in an unauthentic sort of way are the same students who are currently neurotically achieving perfect GPAs in spite of their personal interests. Meaning that nothing will really change in terms of who will gain admission if the recommendations associated with community service are implemented. The report states that they want to “reward those who demonstrate true citizenship, deflate undue academic performance pressure and redefine achievement.” But their efforts will mostly result in a mere shift in the pressure or burden on students from academic achievement to “service.” Granted, the authors seem to suggest that even such a superficial change would be beneficial to society, but that (ignoring that this won’t ever replace academic achievement for college admissions) is hardly the type of societal shift that would be meaningful.

      In reality, these recommendations, even if partially implemented, are going to lead to really shallow outcomes in terms of service. Take the suggestion that students commit to an activity for at least a year. On its face, that is insulting to those who deeply engage in social activism or organizing. Those who are seriously concerned about the social condition of society, or the environment, or other causes, are able to invest significant time measured in effort per hour invested, in hours invested per week, and in years spanned.

      Also, the reality is that rich families and overbearing parents (e.g., helicopter parents, Tiger Moms) will continue to buy experiences for their children or fully execute on them themselves while allowing their children take the credit for such efforts. I have found that some of my wealthier (and more insufferable) former clients unfortunately could not stop themselves from hiring people to do work on behalf of their children just so that their kids could put it on their resume and talk about it in their essays. Nothing that this report offers would alter that reality—it would only lead to more privileged families buying up more opportunities, further squeezing out those who sincerely engaged in issues of broader public concern.

      Assessment of Student Contribution:

      The second area of focus is intended to help influence college admissions committees on how to assess contributions to society (through public service or service to one’s family), or at least how to couch it so that schools can perpetuate the illusion that they are eager to fill their school with socio-economically and experientially diverse groups.

      This section is largely a waste of space. Despite their claims, most colleges have no real interest in forming classes with a socio-economic and ethnic/racial makeup that mirrors broader society or focuses on those least served (a notable exception is Berea College). Most colleges are interested in having more academically “accomplished,” privileged, and wealthier student bodies that are overwhelmingly white, Jewish, and Asian. They will not soon prioritize contributions to one’s family or the burdens a candidate faces in their daily life so that it offsets the tremendous advantages already bestowed upon the privileged.

      There is space for students from the lower rungs of the socio-economic ladder and from more diverse racial and ethnic groups at top colleges, but that space is severely limited. However, obtaining those spots is relatively easy because of the surprising lack of quality competition to acquire them (in terms of desired forms of accomplishment and in terms of number of qualified applicants). Because most of these candidates receive horrible guidance and go to substandard schools, those who understand the admissions process and are able to focus on leading a remarkable life easily stand out to admissions committees that are already starved for candidates who lead remarkable lives. I’ll touch upon how candidates can lead remarkable lives later in the essay.

      Reducing Achievement Pressure:
      The third area of focus is intended to influence colleges to reduce the emphasis on extracurricular activities, testing, and admissions consulting, or at least how to couch it so that schools can mask what they are looking for as they construct their incoming freshman classes. All five recommendations laid out by the committee in this section warrant discussion.

      The first recommendation they offer is to prioritize quality over quantity in terms of extracurricular activities. I agree that schools should do so in their marketing materials and in the layout of their applications. They suggest that schools should encourage students to list only their most meaningful extracurricular activities, but their best suggestion is to limit the space allotted for the listing of extracurricular   activities, which will at least force students to prioritize experiences. However, in terms of assessment, the most selective schools already prioritize quality over quantity, and this is not unknown to knowledgeable parents, guidance counselors, or admission consultants. At Abrome, we discourage clients from participating in experiences in which they are not interested or willing to deeply engage in. We encourage experimenting with experiences to identify what is most meaningful, but shallow engagement is a significant lost investment in terms of opportunity cost. It not only wastes the time spent on less meaningful experiences, but takes away opportunities to more deeply engage in other experiences.

      The second and forth recommendations they offer focus on testing. The second recommends reducing the emphasis on AP/IB courses and testing, while the fourth recommends limiting the overwhelming pressure of the SAT or ACT. I fully endorse these recommendations. In fact, with AP courses I encourage clients to take only a few AP courses, and to only take them if they are going to score a 5 (out of 5) on them. Taking fewer AP tests is more easily accomplished by my homeschool clients than it is by my traditional schooled clients, because in traditional schools failing to take AP courses can lead to lower GPAs or signal to colleges an unwillingness to take the most rigorous courses available (an important point that the report fails to address). With regards to the SAT or ACT, I would love to see colleges making these tests optional. The tests have been shown to closely correlate to family wealth, and do not serve as any better of a predictor of future academic success than high school GPAs do. Unfortunately, we won’t see most schools embrace a test optional admissions strategy until the Harvards and Stanfords of higher education do so, or at least until colleges stop participating in college rankings. Short of abolishing the requirement for SAT or ACT scores, schools could take a law school approach to standardized tests. Many law schools discourage multiple sittings of the LSAT, and inform applicants that they will look at all of their scores. In doing so, these schools make clear that multiple LSATs can signal suspect decision making, and that they will not only look at the highest score, but also focus on the lowest score, as well. Unfortunately, many colleges currently tell applicants that they will focus on the best score (i.e., take many tests!), or even accept a candidate’s super score (meaning taking the best score in each section of the SAT or ACT, and ignoring all others).

      The third recommendation discourages “overcoaching,” which comes just short of overtly telling applicants not to use admissions consultants. They shy away from suggesting that because they know that that is a surefire way for the report to be reflexively dismissed. The reality is that admissions consultants provide a significant advantage to those who use them because the admissions process is a game. Even if all the other recommendations in the report were embraced, there would still be significant benefits to using admissions consultants (which again benefits those who come from wealthier families). I agree with them, however, “that authenticity, confidence, and honesty are best reflected in the student’s original voice.” My Abrome clients are pushed through many iterations of their essays so that the essays are perfect products that remain theirs. We are explicit in communicating that we are not essay writers, and that we have no interest in writing applications. However, many admissions consultants are eager to provide a service that many wealthy families expect—writing the full application for the applicant. For us, our least successful engagements have been with families who refused to comprehend that the application is not ours, but the applicant’s. The second part of the recommendation is just as useless as the first. They suggest that admissions offices ask applicants to reflect on the ethical challenges they faced during the application process. This becomes akin to the “what are your greatest weaknesses” question in which good applicants spin strengths into a weaknesses. Those who are the least ethical (i.e., who lie or allow others to write their applications) are going to be the ones who are least willing to answer the question honestly.

      The fifth recommendation encourages admissions officers and guidance counselors to emphasize that there are many excellent colleges and that students should focus on fit. This is something that admissions officers already spend significant time focusing on (lower ranked schools want to argue that they are just as good for applicants as higher ranked schools, and all schools focus on fit in order to differentiate themselves and to better manage yield). Guidance counselors (and admission consultants), however, could certainly spend more time driving this point home. Unfortunately, guidance counselors and their schools are in many ways judged by the portfolio of colleges and universities their students matriculate into, and the greater the number of students that matriculate into colleges at the top of the US News rankings, the better the counselors and schools look. Top public and private schools with high numbers of academic stars and/or wealthy students already tend to do a great job of pushing many students toward great liberal arts colleges and public ivies (e.g., Berkeley, UVA). As for Abrome, parents often hire us with a single-minded focus on getting their children into Harvard and Stanford, and that is often what we do. But we do so via helping their children lead remarkable lives, and in doing so their children often realize that their dreams are better realized at schools that give them added freedom to create unique opportunities for themselves.

      Abrome’s alternative suggestions:

      Applicants and their parents should deal in the reality of the admissions process today, and in the admissions processes of the future. Some of the recommendations put forth in the report may be acted upon (although likely only partially, and superficially), but the general application process will always remain one that is easy to game and that is slanted to benefit the privileged.

      It’s important for applicants and their parents to not be fooled into thinking that the Harvard report is the new reality in college admissions. The reality of the admissions process that will not change is that it is predicated on a pyramid shaped society. In each high school, there is the general student body that forms the base of the pyramid. These are the low achievers (in an academic achievement sense) and the so-called average achievers who are going to go into the military, trade schools, or local/public schools. On top of that base is a slightly higher performing group that (depending on the socio-economic makeup of the school) is going to be able to go to higher ranked public or private schools. And at the very top of the pyramid are a select group of students that will be celebrated for their academic and extracurricular accomplishments that (depending on the socio-economic makeup of the school) will be in the running for admission into the more exclusive or elite college or universities. The top of the pyramid at a given high school will then compete with those at the top of the pyramids at the ~40,000 other high schools for the limited number of slots in the freshman classes of the various colleges and universities. And the colleges themselves form their own pyramid, with Harvard and Stanford taking pretty much whoever they want; with Yale, Princeton, and MIT taking mostly who they want; and so forth on down through the Ivy League universities, as well as Chicago, Duke, and Cal-Tech; and then further through the top liberal arts colleges and top public universities; and then continuing down through the US News rankings.

      However, an outward focus on serving society and a reduced focus on excessive academic accomplishment and extracurricular involvement is in fact already an advantage in the admissions process, if certain benchmarks are met. Abrome focuses on helping young people lead remarkable lives. In doing so, we help them focus on identifying what their unique needs, goals, and interests are, and we help them identify deep, meaningful, and enduring experiences that will help them get there. In order to lead a remarkable life, an Abrome Learner will contribute to society as a means to personally valued achievement. But by focusing on leading a remarkable life, as opposed to engaging in experiences for the benefit of college admissions, it is much more likely that an Abrome Learner will become consumed by their efforts, and contribute to broader society in a meaningful, significant, and impactful way.

      Academic achievement by way of testing is currently the expectation and is unlikely to change for any child alive today. We see testing as a required (not necessary) evil that must be taken seriously if a young person cares to attend an elite college or university. However, in agreement with the report’s recommendations, we encourage applicants to take a limited number of tests. But we go further in encouraging them to severely limit the tests they take (because of opportunity cost of time investment), and to only take tests they are going to knock out of the park. For AP tests, that means take one to three of them, but score a 5/5 in each one. For the SAT, take it once or twice, but prepare early enough that you score at least a 1500/1600 (1550+ for HYPSM).

      Finally, it is exceedingly difficult to lead a remarkable life and do extremely well in a traditional school. In order for a traditional schooled student to take the most rigorous academic load available (a requirement for applicants to elite colleges without hooks), to be deeply engaged in extracurricular activities, and deeply engaged in community service, they must sacrifice too much in terms of sleep, personal and family relationships, personal development, and mental health. The report touches upon the depression, drug use, and anxiety that currently weighs heavily on high performing students and high schools, but it doesn’t provide recommendations that would effectively undercut those problems. Even if colleges shifted focus from academic and extracurricular performance to public service, as I have previously stated, the burden would still weigh heavily on these students. The reality is that the best hope children have of eliminating the pressures associated with college admissions, as well as academic and extracurricular excellence, is to opt out of the traditional schooling system. Families can do so by homeschooling their children, allowing their children to be unschooled, or sending them to alternative progressive schools with zero testing and zero homework. Preferably, the alternative progressive schools would have zero required classes, as well. At Abrome, we encourage most of our clients to opt out of school because we know that is the best path toward young people leading remarkable lives, and as a nice little benefit, it is also the best path through the college admissions process and into the most exclusive colleges and universities.

      The Academic Index at Ivy League Schools

      Student athletes who hope to be recruited to play a Division I sport in the Ivy League* sooner or later come across the Academic Index (“AI”). The Academic Index was originally developed to ensure that the eight colleges of the Ivy League didn’t excessively lower their academic standards for recruited athletes in order to field competitive athletic teams. Since then, their use by admissions committees has bled into the general applicant pool, which is unfortunate for the larger pool of applicants. 

      The AI is a combination of a student’s GPA, SAT scores, and SAT II scores. Every candidate to the Ivy League is given an AI number, even those who are not recruited athletes. The AI ranges from a low of 60 to a high of 240. At the most selective schools (Harvard, Yale, and Princeton), the average AI for each admitted class hovers around 220. The AI formula is not publicly available, and they regularly review and tweak it. People can make fairly good approximations, as I will below, but the AI formula is held close to the vest by the various athletic departments and admission departments at the Ivy League schools.

      Let’s imagine a hypothetical candidate “Tim” who wants to play football at Harvard. Tim may not have spent much time focused on school work or SAT prep while in high school, but all of a sudden the coach at Harvard has shown interest in the candidate. The candidate was previously considering other FCS (Football Championship Subdivision, formerly known as Division I-AA) schools, but the prospect of going to Harvard has brought it to the top of his list.

      Unfortunately for Tim, he has SAT scores of 670 M, 600 R, 590 W, and a 3.6 GPA, which means his AI is around a 196.

      So does a 196 AI mean that Tim stands a good chance of being accepted through the admissions process? Not really, but the chances of getting in given a certain AI score depends on the athlete. The pool of recruited athletes from all sports at a given school needs to have an AI that is within one standard deviation of the student body’s AI at that school. Because the academic standards at the Ivy Leagues are pretty robust to begin with, the AI doesn’t give recruited athletes nearly the advantage that many would hope for in the admissions process. However, because the average only needs to be within one standard deviation of the student body mean, coaches are able to get candidates with lower academic records in, depending on their pull with the admissions department and the priority a coach puts on those individual candidates.

      Also, not all sports are created equally. The tennis team is not going to get many (if any) favors from the admissions department. The football and basketball teams do. Hockey at Yale does, and lacrosse at Princeton does, as well. 

      Even with the pull the football team may have with admissions, not all positions on the football team are created equally. Lineman are not going to get many favors from the admissions department unless the lineman are highly rated recruits. Impact players such as quarterbacks and cornerbacks, however, may be given priority by coaches. In the Ivy League, football coaches are only allowed to present 30 recruits to the admissions committee. Further, they are limited on where those recruits fall according to their AI score. According to numbers previously put out by two different Ivy League football programs, about 7-8 of those 30 recruits must fall in Band 4 (the top band), which is above the campus average. Another 12-13 football recruits must fall in Band 3 or higher, which goes down to 1 standard deviation below the campus AI (should be above the athletic AI). Another 7-8 recruits must fall in Band 2 or higher, and perhaps another 1-2 can fall in Band 1, which bottoms out at a score of 176.

      Now, let’s talk specifically about Tim. If Tim was high up in Band 4 (the highest one), he might get some consideration as someone who could pull the overall pool up, but he isn’t there. He can’t change his GPA so no amount of SAT prep will get him there. Tim seems to be somewhere in Band 2 or 3. Band 3 is a good place to be if one is a recruited athlete. 

      Let’s assume that Tim studies really diligently and scores a 730 in each of his SAT II tests. That would bring his AI up to around a 206. If we also assume that on top of that, Tim is able to boost his SAT score to a 710 M, 650 W, 630 R. That would jump his AI up to around 211. All of a sudden, Tim becomes a little more attractive to the Harvard coaching staff because they don’t have to pressure the admissions department to let him in, and he will help move the team AI up a little bit, allowing them to take more risk on an impact player.

      Unfortunately, the Ivy League’s attempt to ensure a certain level of academic integrity in admissions for recruited athletes has only dumbed down what should be a holistic process where SAT scores and GPA are nothing more than markers to consider. The Academic Index’s emphasis on test scores and GPA means that not only do amazing athletes get turned away in the admissions process, but non-athletes who could add considerable value to the universities are also given a handicap on top of a handicap in the process. In the long run, this undermines the admissions departments’ efforts to put together the most diverse, talented, and intellectually curious classes in a way that may be even more pernicious than the focus on SAT scores for the US News rankings. 

      * The Ivy League is an athletic conference consisting of eight of the oldest research universities in the country. All of the schools consistently rank in the top 15 of the US News rankings. The schools are Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Columbia, Pennsylvania, Dartmouth, Brown, and Cornell.

      Are college admission consultants worth the price?

      When I meet with a prospective client (a young person and his or her family), I am far too eager to tell them what colleges look for in applicants, what steps they need to immediately take in order to be able to demonstrate those attributes to college admissions departments, and then I tell them it typically costs $20,000-60,000 to retain me. They often believe that once they know that colleges want to see intellectual vitality, excellence, academic achievement, and diversity; and that if they execute on my initial “must act,” prescriptive steps; that they will have their children on track for admission into Harvard or Stanford. At that point, they often believe that they no longer need an admission consultant. They are often wrong. In this post I will talk about the reasons why a given family may benefit from a college admission consultant, and whether or not it makes sense to pay me tens of thousands of dollars for consulting.

      A good college admission consultant is multifaceted – serving multiple functions. Most provide reassurances to parents that they aren’t squandering opportunities, or worse, ruining their children’s lives, and they help simplify a sometimes confusing and almost always stressful admissions process. Most help provide guidance on course selection and what extracurriculars to engage in, as well as which summer programs to attend. Many help construct a list of reasonable colleges to apply to, with safety and reach schools thrown in, and some (not many) even focus on making sure that the schools on that list are aligned with the interests of the child. And almost all will help with essay writing and editing.

      Like those who are generally considered the best consultants, I conduct an audit of past experiences, and provide guidance on how to build an academic portfolio that colleges will respect. I also provide guidance on standardized testing and extracurricular activities. During the college admissions process, I help clients identify colleges where they would thrive, and then I help walk them through the application process. I help them find their voice, as well as a common thread that will tie together every component of the application. However, unlike most college admission consultants, I help manage the recommendation process, and I edit up to dozens of turns of the essays for the applicant in order to make the essays perfect.

      In the case of Abrome, I also uniquely serve as a coach who helps young people lead remarkable lives. I help them identify their needs, goals, and interests, and then I help them structure for themselves deep, meaningful, and enduring learning experiences that allow them to demonstrate remarkable lives led. It is not sufficient for a young person to articulate what their goals and objectives are; they must be able to implement a plan of action to satisfy those goals and objectives. I help young people use project management and leadership tools to make their goals and objectives a reality, so that they can lead a remarkable life well before the age of 18. When young people are able to construct remarkable lives for themselves, admission committees are typically able to see excellence and intellectual vitality through the experiences that those young people invested their time into. I am the only college admission consultant, that I know of, who focuses on helping clients lead remarkable lives, which is why about half of my clients have gotten into Harvard and/or Stanford, and why 75% of my clients have gotten into a US News top 10. I don’t try to help my clients play the game better than everyone else, I focus on helping my clients create lives that convince college admission offices that they cannot afford to not accept my clients.

      Whether or not I am worth the price I charge, however, is dependent upon a given applicant and their family’s circumstances. If the student is solely focused on getting into a state school, where they expect to get straight A’s in order to get into medical school or law school, then they do not necessarily need to pay me, or any other consultant, tens of thousands of dollars to help them. Getting into most state schools is simply a matter of execution – good grades and good standardized test scores. For a small group of highly competitive state schools such as UC-Berkeley, UCLA, and UVA, the Abrome approach allows clients to rather easily gain admission where a sizable majority are denied.                 

      Whether or not I am worth the price I charge is also dependent upon the timing and goals of an applicant and her family. I have consistently placed clients in schools that are a tier or two higher than where they could get in without my assistance. For that reason, I am able to benefit clients who come to me in the Junior or Senior years of high school who need a boost to be able to get into a school that is slightly out of their reach. If they would have been able to get into Texas State without my help, I can reliably get them into the University of Texas at Austin. If they would have been able to get into UC-Irvine without my help, I can reliably get them into UC-Berkeley or UCLA. If they would have been able to get into Rice or Vanderbilt without my help, I can reliably get them into Dartmouth or Duke. If they would have been able to get into Brown or Columbia without my help, I can reliably get them into Harvard or Stanford. If getting into a school that is one or two tiers higher than that which they could get into on their own is worth $20,000, then families are wise to retain me.             

      Alternatively, short of a cognitive disability, if someone comes to me in 7th or 8th grade, I can virtually guarantee admission into a top ten school if the young person wants to go that route. By retaining me while they are still in middle school, I am able to help them use the time they have to create deep, meaningful, and enduring learning experiences that will ensure they are able to demonstrate excellence and intellectual vitality, while avoiding the pitfalls and red flags that most applicants are forced into. Specifically, I am able to help the client focus on activities that allow him to strengthen his reading, writing, and numeracy skills so that he will have a strong base to build off of for other academic pursuits, while setting him up for extraordinary SAT scores. I am able to help the client transition into a homeschooling or alternative schooling environment where she is not burdened by a destructive and neurotic time consuming focus on perfect grades at the expense of learning. I am also able to help him avoid engaging in extracurriculars and activities which many believe are necessary, but that are actually just a time sink with no benefit. I am, on the other hand, able to help them create over the span of four to six years a life that the overwhelming majority of adults would covet, because most adults were pushed into a system where they were dissuaded from focusing on capitalizing on their unique interests and talents so that they could play a game where most people are classified as under-performers. If leading a remarkable life and getting into a top college is worth $40,000 – 60,000, then families are wise to retain me. Especially considering that the average tuition at a top college prep school is usually double the average annual cost of Abrome, or more.

      There are situations in which I am most certainly not worth the price I charge. The primary one is that in which a family is unwilling to give their child the time and space to invest in deep, meaningful, and enduring learning experiences. It is easiest for me to work with homeschoolers, or with alternative progressive schoolers who have little homework and no tests to worry about. Those families who insist their children attend a traditional school, get perfect grades, and heavily engage with multiple extracurriculars, however, are often not too keen on the idea of helping their children carve out dozens of hours per week to invest in new hobbies. Unfortunately, these parents are buying into a system that usually guarantees failure, while leaving their child only a few hours a week to focus on creating a remarkable life. When young people are given only a few hours a week to create a remarkable life, they usually fail to do so. A remarkable life led is not some sort of extracurricular. A remarkable life led is not something that can be sprinkled on top of dozens of hours in class, plus dozens of hours studying, plus dozens of hours invested in clichéd extracurricular activities per week. A remarkable life led typically involves a person investing the majority of their time into something that they love, something they care to develop for intrinsic reasons, and something that they enjoy more as the challenges become more complicated.

      For those parents who are ready and willing to give their children the space necessary to flourish, I am eager to help their children do so. I am ready to help them get into Harvard or Stanford. And far more importantly, I am eager to help them lead remarkable lives.

      Update: Abrome is opening a full-time learning center as an alternative to school. We will operate in West Austin and work directly with young people over a period of years so that they can lead remarkable lives, and get into top colleges if they choose. We will still work with the families who previously retained us and those who are applying to college for matriculation in 2017. However, we will begin to move away from college admissions consulting as a business over the next couple of years. We encourage families who are near Austin, TX to consider enrolling their children at Abrome.

      There are no shortcuts to leading a remarkable life

      Leading a remarkable life is hard work. However, leading an unremarkable life is also hard work.

      We live in a society where we convince young people that they must play the hyper-competitive game of schooling and extracurriculars in order to one day get into top colleges, so they can play the game again in college in order to one day get a high stress, high paying job (often with an additional stressful stop at graduate school). If young people do not excel at this game, they are often deemed failures and we assume they will be forced to struggle for the rest of their lives as they try to catch up. Neither option seems terribly exciting or remarkable, but both will require a lot of hard work.

      Abrome wants to help young people lead remarkable lives, today. In doing so, they will be able to create futures for themselves that are most remarkable, wherein they will still work hard, but they will do so on their terms leading lives they love.

      However, each week we speak with skeptical families who want to know how we can confidently assure them that their children can gain admission into private universities such as Harvard or Stanford, or flagship public universities such as Cal-Berkeley or UT-Austin. After we explain to them that getting into those schools is easy if their children are able to lead remarkable lives (while also being able to demonstrate academic competency), they oftentimes choose to allow their children to continue on their current paths that will lead them away from admission into their top choice colleges, and more distressingly, toward unremarkable lives.

      Many of these families fail to understand how much time and effort must be invested in order to lead a remarkable life. It’s not a matter of allocating two hours a week to doing something remarkable. When we have the opportunity to work with young people while they are still in middle school, we are able to help our clients dive deep into learning experiences that consume them and that span years. Through those long-term learning experiences, our clients are able to document their remarkable lives allowing them to get into their dream college, or start a company, or start a social movement, etc.

      If you are thinking of using Abrome in the future, we urge you to consider calling us today to discuss how we can help your children lead remarkable lives, today. (989) 31-ADMIT.

      You should apply by November 1st if you want to get into Harvard or Stanford (or Yale, Princeton, MIT, Penn, Columbia, Dartmouth, Brown …)

      In our previous post, we tried to drive home the harsh reality that college admissions is not a meritocracy; it is a game. And if you plan on attending Harvard, Stanford, Yale, Princeton, MIT, Columbia, Pennsylvania, Dartmouth, Brown or any other elite school, and you haven’t already begun working on your application, then you are already losing the game. Early Action and Early Decision applications for the most competitive schools are due on November 1st, meaning you have less than 60 days to take advantage of your best hope to get into one of these top colleges.

      The Common Application was initially devised as a tool to ease the stress of college applicants, so that applicants would not have to work so hard to apply to multiple schools. However, that has backfired and now applicants are more stressed than ever as they apply to more and more schools each year, shooting up the number of applications to each and steadily decreasing the admissions rates. Very few schools can focus entirely on bringing in the best class possible. Even the Harvards and Stanfords of the world must concern themselves with acceptance rates and yields; else they lose ground in the U.S. News & World Report college rankings.

      In years past, applicants needed to manage multiple unique essays, manage recommenders and fill out school specific administrative data for each school. The common app has simplified the recommender and administrative data requirements, and greatly reduced the number of essays that must be written, though many schools require supplemental essays (e.g., PrincetonStanford).  Trying to keep their admissions rates low, elite colleges continue to employ early admissions policies despite acknowledging that such policies disproportionately benefit the rich and privileged at the expense of the poor and disadvantaged. Early Action and Early Decision typically restricts each applicant to apply to only one* school in the fall, so schools know that those applicants that they accept early are much more likely to attend than those applicants they will accept in the regular decision round. Likewise, applicants who know how to play the game recognize that by committing to apply to a school Early Action or Early Decision that they can greatly improve their chances of admission at that school. With the exception of MIT, an applicant’s chance of admission through EA/ED relative to regular decision is at least 2.5 times greater at all of the top colleges and universities. And at Harvard, an EA/ED applicant is over six times more likely to be accepted than a regular decision applicant!

      Those applicants who do not apply EA/ED to a school that they would be eager to attend are doing themselves a great disservice. Furthermore, those applicants who plan to write their essays in the few weeks before the admissions deadline are also doing themselves a great disservice. The clients we work with typically complete one dozen to two dozen turns of each essay, meaning that a client will be drafting, writing, editing or re-writing at least one essay a day for well over a month. The clients we work with will be working on their administrative data and will be managing their recommenders during this time, as well. This is why we insist, if you haven’t already begun working on your application, then you are already losing the game.

      If you want to get in the game, we can help. Please refer to our admissions consulting services page and reach out to us if you are ready to apply to a top college or university. We will help you identify the school that you should apply early to based on your credentials, your goals and your fit with the school. We will then help you craft a story (with perfect essays and great recommendations) that will best position you for admission. Additionally, our services cover unlimited applications during the regular admissions cycle – although if you play the game right there’s a good chance that you’ll know where you are going to attend college by the end of December.

      Contact us today if you want to get into Harvard, Stanford, Yale, Princeton, MIT, Penn, Columbia, Dartmouth, Brown …

      * Because MIT is the most obvious exception to the restrictive EA/ED policies at other schools, it effectively is no different as applicants can’t apply to any other elite schools under their EA/ED policies.

       

      College admissions is not a meritocracy; it is a game

      College admissions is not a meritocracy, it is a game. Those who know how to play the game began years ago. They have donated consistently and substantially to their alma maters, they have provided their children with ample opportunities to stand out in the admissions game through their experiences, they have provided the support necessary for their children to get top grades and they’ve paid for SAT prep courses. The college admissions season is nearly one month in; the Common Application went live on August 1st. Those who know how to play the game have already paid an admissions consultant to help their children craft their essays, and their children are cozying up to their recommenders and getting ready to submit an application to their dream school (or their strategic reach school) via Early Action or Early Decision. If your child (or you) plan on attending a highly selective college or university next year but have not started the application process, you’re already behind the curve.

      This past year, only 2,145 out of 42,167 (5.1%) of the applicants were accepted at Stanford69 percent of Stanford’s applicants from 2008 – 2012 with SATs of 2400, the highest score possible, didn’t get in. Over 24,000 of the applicants vying for one of Stanford’s 2,145 offers had a 4.0 or higher GPA. The odds at Harvard weren’t much better, where only 2,048 out of 34,295 (6.0%) of the applicants were accepted. It is said that Harvard rejects four out of every five valedictorians who apply, and this past year over 3,400 applicants who were vying for one of the 2,048 slots were ranked first in their class.

      Many guidance counselors will claim that the admissions process is random and that every applicant who wins a spot at one of these coveted institutions is extraordinarily qualified for admissions, but that is a lie. There is nothing random about the admissions process, and the admissions process is not fair. Many people falsely believe that where the process is the least fair is that athletes and underrepresented minorities have an advantage at the admissions game. Schools need to balance the need to field winning sports teams and to ensure that their classes are sufficiently diverse*, but athletes who are among the best in the country (e.g., Stanford football or tennis, Harvard crew or squash) who also are outstanding students can hardly be considered unworthy, and while underrepresented minorities get a small benefit in the admissions game, the ones who are admitted are typically well-qualified (the average SAT score of black students in the Harvard class of 2017 was 2107).

      Where the process is less fair is in the advantages it offers children of professors and alumni. These connected students are essentially double dipping, having benefited from their parents’ education and/or source of income, and then receiving the added bonus of being able to gain admission over better qualified applicants. However, where the process is least fair is in the benefits that underqualified children of the very wealthy, corporate elites and the politically connected receive. This benefit is so large that “[r]esearchers with access to closely guarded college admissions data have found that, on the whole, about 15 percent of freshmen enrolled at America’s highly selective colleges are white teens who failed to meet their institutions’ minimum admissions standards.”

      So what can you do now that it is almost the 11th hour to play the game well and ensure that your child gets into his or her dream school? Sadly, if you haven’t been giving your child the opportunity to lead a remarkable life by allowing her the space to dive deep into areas of interest, allowing her to develop and demonstrate her intellectual curiosity, which would have allowed her to attain excellence in ways that are relevant to her life, you are behind the eight ball. But, I have specialized in helping students who are behind the eight ball get into top colleges and universities for years, and there is plenty of gaming that can be done even in this late stage.

      First and foremost, your child must be able to tell a story that convinces the admissions committee that they have led a remarkable life filled with excellence based on what he has experienced in his life. He may not have started a company, done graduate level research or started a social movement, but he should have unique interests that he can speak to. The process of doing an audit on one’s life experiences and then organizing and presenting those experiences in a compelling way through the essays is time consuming but necessary. In the admissions game, packaging is as important as substance; without either the chances of getting into a top school are zero, but with one there is a chance.

      Second, applications to the elite schools must be as perfect as possible. GPA (if they go to a traditional school) is set and SATs are unlikely to shift much. However, the candidate has full control over their essays (their story) and they have significant control over the recommendations. Those essays must be perfect because they are the most important part of the application. Unlike law school where a perfect GPA and LSAT will get you into Harvard, a perfect GPA and perfect standardized test scores are no guarantee that you will get into a top 5 undergraduate program. The story that comes through in the essays (and to a lesser degree in the recommendations) must accompany the numbers in a way that convinces the admissions committee that they need a particular applicant in their incoming class. That story is much simpler for the children of Senators and Fortune 500 CEOs than it is for an upper middle class child, but not even Harvard or Stanford can fill their class with development cases, legacies, children of professors, recruited athletes and diversity candidates.

      Third, your child must begin working on their applications, today. Creating those perfect essays and ensuring that the recommendations are perfect takes time. It is not uncommon for my clients to do up to twenty turns of an essay before they are ready to submit it. Every single word must add value to one’s story, even articles and conjunctions. And they must begin today because they must submit an Early Action or Early Decision application this fall, before they submit the bulk of their applications by the regular decision deadline for most schools. Those who play the game know that the chances of admission skyrocket through Early Action and Early Decision. At Harvard, for example, a candidate had a 21 percent chance of being accepted through Early Action, but only 3.1 percent of regular admissions candidates (which included deferred Early Action applicants) were accepted. Stanford, meanwhile, accepted 10.8 percent of their Early Action candidates compared to only 4 percent of regular admissions candidates.

      The time to act is now if you want your child getting into Harvard, Stanford or another top program. If your child is applying this year, they should be working on their essays each day, working on their recommenders, and continuing to excel academically and at extracurricular activities. However, if your child is not applying this year, and they have several years to prepare, then they can play the game by simply focusing on living a remarkable life, today. Those clients are the ones who are always the easiest to get into top programs.

      * Diversity is measured in many ways, not just along ethnic or racial lines. Diversity can also come in the form of family circumstance, socio-economic status, geography, nationality, religion, sexual preference, life experiences, and academic and extracurricular interest.

      Abrome Learners are set up for Success in their Careers

      A societal by-product of compulsory schooling has been the extension of childhood up to and beyond the age of 18; young people have been segregated from society and have been largely stripped of responsibility. Before the age of 18, young people have limited freedoms in buying and owning certain goods or assets, consenting to certain personal or medical activities, and entering into certain contracts. Well-intentioned but misguided laws have also been put in place that restrict their ability to gain meaningful work experience, and various certification and degree requirements postpone their ability to gain other work experience.

      By treating young people like children well beyond childhood, we make it difficult for them to transition into adulthood. Most 18-year-olds are ill-equipped to become productive members of society who are able to engage in the market economy in a self-sustaining or prosperous manner. Without the opportunity to engage in meaningful work while they are young, they lose precious opportunities to dabble in various fields until they can find one that they are passionate about. This significantly increases the chances that the young person will spend their twenties or thirties bouncing from one career field to another in a society that judges harshly those who cannot develop a track record of success early in their career.

      Additionally, their lack of work experience means they lack the knowledge and skills to position themselves as talented professionals, and society’s discrimination against youth exacerbates their predicament. Without such knowledge and skills these young professionals often have few employment options, resulting in dead-end jobs where most of the surplus that they create is captured by their employer.

      Learners at Abrome, however, are able to better prepare themselves for sustainable or prosperous careers because they are able to identify their strengths, interests and passions earlier in life, and then purposefully work toward them. Abrome Learners do not typically have to provide for themselves, allowing them to take risks testing out various functions and industries earlier in life while being supported by their guardians. By immersing themselves in the psychologically safe Abrome learning community, they have the ability to shift their focus time and again. This allows them to identify what work they are most skilled at and what work makes them happiest.

      When young people can find a career that brings together their natural talents with their passions early in life, and when they are freed from arbitrary demands on their time that are not aligned with their needs, goals and interests, then they can invest inordinate amounts of time developing the experiences and skills necessary to attain excellence. This may result in Abrome Learners mastering a trade that allows them to be paid as a skilled expert before the age of 18, ensuring that they do not lose the majority of the surplus that they create to their employer or contractor. Likewise, Abrome Learners may leverage the support of the Abrome learning community to launch their own entrepreneurial ventures well before the age of 18, allowing them to bypass society’s expectations that young people wait their turn and defer to more seasoned professionals. Finally, if higher education and certifications are required in their chosen profession (e.g., law, medicine), then they will be able to tailor their learning experiences so that they will be better prepared to perform in those academic and testing environments, in addition to developing the skills that they’ll use after they complete the required education and certifications.

      The way in which young people are treated in society today discourages learning, inhibits their ability to identify the careers that will make them happiest and most successful, and delays their progression from childhood into adulthood. At Abrome, we treat young people as adults; allowing them to transition into adulthood more effectively and more quickly.