A college admissions presentation worth sharing
Also from the sfschools blog, I'm reposting a report I wrote on a presentation by college admissions speaker Peter Van Buskirk at San Francisco School of the Arts last April.
April 14, 2007
An overflow crowd of parents, students and guests jammed the San Francisco School of the Arts library Thursday evening to hear college admissions expert and author Peter Van Buskirk explode myths about getting into college.
Van Buskirk’s presentation, and his new book, are titled "Winning the College Admission Game," a name that’s not terribly appealing to "keep it real" types — but the engaging presentation made up for that.
A former admissions officer at Franklin & Marshall College in Lancaster, Pa., Van Buskirk portrays the array of college choices as a pyramid. The Lofty Status Names cluster at the pinnacle, gazing down upon descending levels of cachet. At the bottom are colleges that accept most students and don’t provide a sticker for Mom’s car window that awes the envious populace. Yet there are excellent colleges all over the pyramid, from peak to base, Van Buskirk announces. He suggests that finding your realistic level on the pyramid and then seeking out excellence in that realm is the most effective way to find the ideal college. "Put yourself on the right playing field," he advises — "a place that values you for what you do well."
Van Buskirk made some points so eye-opening that even though I didn’t intend to take notes, I wound up with a scribbled list of nuggets worth sharing.
* The rich get richer. (Well, maybe that’s not such eye-opening news.) Van Buskirk says the buzzword "need-blind admissions" is a myth. "Resource-aware" is the operative concept. That is, colleges may pretend that they don’t take into account whether an applicant will need financial aid, but that’s hooey. Applicants who don’t need financial aid always have a better shot. Applicants who do simply have to work harder and come in with more impressive records to be considered.
* An insider term that’s a useful concept to know is "on the bubble." That’s when you’re "good enough to get in the action but not good enough to dominate the action" — worthy of consideration but not an obvious shoo-in. An applicant who’s on the bubble at one level of the pyramid may be highly sought-after at the next level down.
* Even my teen — a self-proclaimed paragon of purity who spurns anything he views as phony or insincere to tart himself up for college admissions officers — was OK with following this next suggestion. The first time a student makes any kind of contact with a college, the college opens a file on that kid — whether it’s filling out a card at the college fair, visiting the campus or contacting the school for information. Colleges’ "yield" is crucial to them — they don’t want to offer spots to applicants who aren’t likely to accept. "They don’t want to give away spots in the class just because you’re smart and talented," he explains. They look at your level of interest.
If that file is already open when your application arrives, this is a very good thing. If they’ve never heard of you, they’re dubious. The more items in your file, the better — if you see the college’s table at several college fairs, fill out the card every time. "When you visit the campus, where’s the first place you go? The place they’ve got a card to fill out. This is not deceitful or manipulative," Van Buskirk emphasized, staring pointedly at my son sprawled with a cluster of classmates (OK, maybe he was giving that look to the whole group). So go to the college fairs, take the tours, send for the materials, fill out the cards.
* Van Buskirk is not a big fan of the SAT as a predictor of college success. "The SAT is irrelevant," he said. Many colleges say they don’t require applicants to submit SAT scores, and some actually mean it, he says. But with the others, not submitting SAT scores is suicide. He recommends www.fairtest.org as a trustworthy source of names of colleges that will not toss your application onto the "deny" stack if you choose not to submit SAT scores. Those colleges, of course, are also displaying a level of honesty and concern for substance over a gauge that’s of dubious value, which tells us something about their philosophy.
* Colleges want students who are not only bright, but also "motivated and high-achieving." Bright, unmotivated and unevenly achieving is not necessarily what they’re looking for. The bad news for those smart, wiseass kids with erratic grades whom some of us know and love is that this is all about transcripts.
Van Buskirk finishes his presentations with a game in which the audience plays admissions officer. He hands out applications filled in by four fictional applicants to a fictional college, so that everyone in the audience has one of the four. In a lively exercise, he leads the "admissions committee" through a rapid-fire evaluation of the hypothetical supplicants. Some notable points:
If there’s anything even slightly negative or suspect about your transcript that can be explained, make a point of explaining it on your application. Took three years of Spanish but not a fourth? Took the minimum required math even though you claim to be interested in a math major? A strong but not tippy-top student because you have to work to help support your low-income family? Explain these things clearly. Each of these examples was a flaw in one of the fictional candidates’ applications.
One (fictional) girl whose passions were creative writing, the classics and Latin had good but not top grades in tough classes. Her application indicated that she lived with her mother, a self-employed artist, that her father’s address was unknown and that she waitressed 18 hours a week. The admissions committee could divine the situation, but such a candidate would be smartest to spell it out. The "candidate" also attended a huge, largely disadvantaged urban high school, implying that she wouldn’t have access to the intensive college counseling at a high-income suburban or private school.
Play the race card, Van Buskirk advised — though cultural identity other than race can be beneficial too. One hypothetical candidate, a top flutist with impressive musical credentials, checked "Korean" but made no further mention of his ethnicity. An indication that he would bring cultural input to the college would have given him a boost, Van Burkirk said. A Caucasian with strong ethnic or cultural identity (Kazakh? Scots? Cajun from the bayou?) would score points too.
Admissions officers love contests and competitions — a piece of information that does not win favor with the purist 16-year-old in my household. Van Buskirk guided our "admissions committee" to take note of the record of science fair, creative writing, music and athletic awards on our prospects’ applications.
The "admissions committee" made up of SOTA parents and students voted in the waitressing, award-winning creative writer — who happened to be the only "applicant" who needed financial aid. "You just cost our school $35,000 a year!" Van Buskirk mock-chided. A close second, and the overwhelming favorite of the kids in the crowd (all of them artists), was the Korean flute virtuoso.
A kid with a strong interest in the environment, science and math and a top statewide science fair award, but an unexplained light math courseload throughout high school, was third. Last, with a tiny sprinkling of votes, was a regional tennis superstar from a country day school who had lackluster SATs — even though, Van Buskirk told us, the college’s tennis coach has been camping out at our office door begging us to let her in. (A SOTA crowd may be self-selected for lack of interest in sports, as all our kids have sacrificed school sports and P.E. to pursue their art.)
This presentation was so engaging that there was no criticism at all — but instead a stampede — over the fact that Van Buskirk was selling advance copies of his book afterward. Thumbing through the copy I bought but haven’t read yet, I'm not sure the book looks as engaging as the presentation, but if its advice is as seemingly valuable, it’s worth seeking out.
In the spirit of other reports like this, I took note of the makeup of the crowd, which was whiter than SOTA’s overall population. I also observed that Van Buskirk seems to assume that the adults in his audience are college-educated, that he’s not talking to parents whose child hopes to be the first in the family to attend college. Many kids like that — from families that lack "college knowledge" — are likely to be doing this process on their own. So presentations like his aimed at kids — with sensitivity to their socioeconomic diversity — and offered during the school day could be valuable. The SOTA PTSA paid for Van Buskirk’s appearance, including some travel expenses. It would be a worthwhile project for private funders (some of whom I’m convinced are way too susceptible to pouring their money into hype-ridden education fads) to underwrite enhanced college counseling and sessions like this directed at low-income public-school kids.
— Caroline
April 14, 2007
An overflow crowd of parents, students and guests jammed the San Francisco School of the Arts library Thursday evening to hear college admissions expert and author Peter Van Buskirk explode myths about getting into college.
Van Buskirk’s presentation, and his new book, are titled "Winning the College Admission Game," a name that’s not terribly appealing to "keep it real" types — but the engaging presentation made up for that.
A former admissions officer at Franklin & Marshall College in Lancaster, Pa., Van Buskirk portrays the array of college choices as a pyramid. The Lofty Status Names cluster at the pinnacle, gazing down upon descending levels of cachet. At the bottom are colleges that accept most students and don’t provide a sticker for Mom’s car window that awes the envious populace. Yet there are excellent colleges all over the pyramid, from peak to base, Van Buskirk announces. He suggests that finding your realistic level on the pyramid and then seeking out excellence in that realm is the most effective way to find the ideal college. "Put yourself on the right playing field," he advises — "a place that values you for what you do well."
Van Buskirk made some points so eye-opening that even though I didn’t intend to take notes, I wound up with a scribbled list of nuggets worth sharing.
* The rich get richer. (Well, maybe that’s not such eye-opening news.) Van Buskirk says the buzzword "need-blind admissions" is a myth. "Resource-aware" is the operative concept. That is, colleges may pretend that they don’t take into account whether an applicant will need financial aid, but that’s hooey. Applicants who don’t need financial aid always have a better shot. Applicants who do simply have to work harder and come in with more impressive records to be considered.
* An insider term that’s a useful concept to know is "on the bubble." That’s when you’re "good enough to get in the action but not good enough to dominate the action" — worthy of consideration but not an obvious shoo-in. An applicant who’s on the bubble at one level of the pyramid may be highly sought-after at the next level down.
* Even my teen — a self-proclaimed paragon of purity who spurns anything he views as phony or insincere to tart himself up for college admissions officers — was OK with following this next suggestion. The first time a student makes any kind of contact with a college, the college opens a file on that kid — whether it’s filling out a card at the college fair, visiting the campus or contacting the school for information. Colleges’ "yield" is crucial to them — they don’t want to offer spots to applicants who aren’t likely to accept. "They don’t want to give away spots in the class just because you’re smart and talented," he explains. They look at your level of interest.
If that file is already open when your application arrives, this is a very good thing. If they’ve never heard of you, they’re dubious. The more items in your file, the better — if you see the college’s table at several college fairs, fill out the card every time. "When you visit the campus, where’s the first place you go? The place they’ve got a card to fill out. This is not deceitful or manipulative," Van Buskirk emphasized, staring pointedly at my son sprawled with a cluster of classmates (OK, maybe he was giving that look to the whole group). So go to the college fairs, take the tours, send for the materials, fill out the cards.
* Van Buskirk is not a big fan of the SAT as a predictor of college success. "The SAT is irrelevant," he said. Many colleges say they don’t require applicants to submit SAT scores, and some actually mean it, he says. But with the others, not submitting SAT scores is suicide. He recommends www.fairtest.org as a trustworthy source of names of colleges that will not toss your application onto the "deny" stack if you choose not to submit SAT scores. Those colleges, of course, are also displaying a level of honesty and concern for substance over a gauge that’s of dubious value, which tells us something about their philosophy.
* Colleges want students who are not only bright, but also "motivated and high-achieving." Bright, unmotivated and unevenly achieving is not necessarily what they’re looking for. The bad news for those smart, wiseass kids with erratic grades whom some of us know and love is that this is all about transcripts.
Van Buskirk finishes his presentations with a game in which the audience plays admissions officer. He hands out applications filled in by four fictional applicants to a fictional college, so that everyone in the audience has one of the four. In a lively exercise, he leads the "admissions committee" through a rapid-fire evaluation of the hypothetical supplicants. Some notable points:
If there’s anything even slightly negative or suspect about your transcript that can be explained, make a point of explaining it on your application. Took three years of Spanish but not a fourth? Took the minimum required math even though you claim to be interested in a math major? A strong but not tippy-top student because you have to work to help support your low-income family? Explain these things clearly. Each of these examples was a flaw in one of the fictional candidates’ applications.
One (fictional) girl whose passions were creative writing, the classics and Latin had good but not top grades in tough classes. Her application indicated that she lived with her mother, a self-employed artist, that her father’s address was unknown and that she waitressed 18 hours a week. The admissions committee could divine the situation, but such a candidate would be smartest to spell it out. The "candidate" also attended a huge, largely disadvantaged urban high school, implying that she wouldn’t have access to the intensive college counseling at a high-income suburban or private school.
Play the race card, Van Buskirk advised — though cultural identity other than race can be beneficial too. One hypothetical candidate, a top flutist with impressive musical credentials, checked "Korean" but made no further mention of his ethnicity. An indication that he would bring cultural input to the college would have given him a boost, Van Burkirk said. A Caucasian with strong ethnic or cultural identity (Kazakh? Scots? Cajun from the bayou?) would score points too.
Admissions officers love contests and competitions — a piece of information that does not win favor with the purist 16-year-old in my household. Van Buskirk guided our "admissions committee" to take note of the record of science fair, creative writing, music and athletic awards on our prospects’ applications.
The "admissions committee" made up of SOTA parents and students voted in the waitressing, award-winning creative writer — who happened to be the only "applicant" who needed financial aid. "You just cost our school $35,000 a year!" Van Buskirk mock-chided. A close second, and the overwhelming favorite of the kids in the crowd (all of them artists), was the Korean flute virtuoso.
A kid with a strong interest in the environment, science and math and a top statewide science fair award, but an unexplained light math courseload throughout high school, was third. Last, with a tiny sprinkling of votes, was a regional tennis superstar from a country day school who had lackluster SATs — even though, Van Buskirk told us, the college’s tennis coach has been camping out at our office door begging us to let her in. (A SOTA crowd may be self-selected for lack of interest in sports, as all our kids have sacrificed school sports and P.E. to pursue their art.)
This presentation was so engaging that there was no criticism at all — but instead a stampede — over the fact that Van Buskirk was selling advance copies of his book afterward. Thumbing through the copy I bought but haven’t read yet, I'm not sure the book looks as engaging as the presentation, but if its advice is as seemingly valuable, it’s worth seeking out.
In the spirit of other reports like this, I took note of the makeup of the crowd, which was whiter than SOTA’s overall population. I also observed that Van Buskirk seems to assume that the adults in his audience are college-educated, that he’s not talking to parents whose child hopes to be the first in the family to attend college. Many kids like that — from families that lack "college knowledge" — are likely to be doing this process on their own. So presentations like his aimed at kids — with sensitivity to their socioeconomic diversity — and offered during the school day could be valuable. The SOTA PTSA paid for Van Buskirk’s appearance, including some travel expenses. It would be a worthwhile project for private funders (some of whom I’m convinced are way too susceptible to pouring their money into hype-ridden education fads) to underwrite enhanced college counseling and sessions like this directed at low-income public-school kids.
— Caroline
posted by caroline at
7:57 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home