She didn’t mention it directly. She just said it’s mostly driven by the parents’ income.
I found another talk of hers on YT. It’s not the same webinars I attended but I guess she will cover similar material. She has a college consulting business in case anyone is interested.
“Can anyone actually explain what Holistic means? No.” I would’ve defined it as she did - they do whatever the heck they want.
It’s interesting that she says not to do Early Decision unless you must. I would completely disagree. If one of your top choices admits a lot by ED - as Northeastern does - 50% - then if you are in a group where admissions are tight (white/Asian male to CS for example), then your best bet is to apply ED and be grateful not to be doing a gap year. Yes, you have to be able to afford the college, but in the current climate, the colleges want to check boxes of how low-income minorities they have, and ED might be the best way to get admitted [for families who aren’t low-income].
Right. ED is often the best shot a kid has at their reach schools. I think she came to her conclusion for financial aid reason. You don’t know how much aid you are gonna get if you apply ED. And since you are committed to go anyway schools are not incentivized to offer you much.
Her comment about twice as many people with test scores in 2021 got in - ok - c’mon. Who did that ding? low-income students? Maybe not. How about California students? Because we were so locked down with schools closed that there was no way to even get a sitting at an SAT - no one was hosting them. My son’s SATs were cancelled 5 times… We knew people flying to Oregon and Arizona to take them.
I think 2021 is a bad example.
But she’s talking to RSM? Those are families who are more likely to be able to afford tuition.
I have to call her on the “if you are in a school that doesn’t offer much, you’ll look better for doing what you have done” comment. I think that’s BS for top students. The admissions officers don’t care about a middle income student who is a big fish at a small school - that student is screwed. When they say this, what they’re really saying is “we’re going to admit low-income/minority kids from low-income schools in bad neighborhoods by judging them only on how much they could’ve done.” Does anyone really think that the colleges would admit a middle-income non-minority student on the same criteria? I would bet money against it.
Actually I think she has a valid point. CA is barred from using race as a criteria. And the alternative they came up with is discriminate against strong schools like those in PA and Cupertino. They still can achieve the desired effect of letting in fewer whites and Asians, but doing so in a “legal” way.
It’s better for kids to be a star in an average school then be the 30th kid in Paly, even though it’s much harder in the latter case.
That’s what they want to achieve with getting rid of standardized tests.
My experience is decades old but I don’t expect this aspect to have changed: selective colleges are going for as diverse a student body as possible. White/asian males from silicon valley are dime a dozen so yes, getting in is going to be really hard. On the other hand, a white or asian student with straight A’s, great test scores and working class parents from a rural town with a small, average public high school in North Dakota could be a top pick that Ivies are fighting over. The CA kid could run circles around the ND kid academically but the goal of the admissions office is to broaden everyone’s horizons by admitting students with diverse socioeconomic backgrounds from around the country and indeed around the world. Not saying it’s right, just how how they think and how it works. I’ve occasionally wondered whether we should move to rural Alaska before our oldest starts high school… Could make for a fun application essay. 
The private schools though still can judge by race, and they definitely will see the FAFSAs of low-income students, and this is how MIT and other Ivy’s try to justify admitting kids that do not have high academics like those in Paly or private schools.
I’m not even joking when I suggest it to people. If you want to get into the college of your choice, moving to Alaska will guarantee it. It’s really hard to get kids from Alaska. I’ve known people who say “I was the Alaska kid in class of ____”.
PS: I don’t think it has to be rural. Anchorage would be fine.
I knew the one kid from Alaska and one kid from Wyoming in undergrad. The guy from Wyoming’s best friend from high school went to a rival top school. They were both decent students, charming/fun to be around, and very strong athletes. It was great to get to know them. Nothing like typical Bay Area kids.
I had no idea data science was advancing social justice.
Yeah. Forgive me for thinking that it’s just about advertising to people better in order to make more $$.
We hire a lot of data analytics and math majors. No layoffs here at all…
Crazy guy flew to his Berkeley classes from LA for a whole year to save on rent.
https://www.reddit.com/r/berkeley/comments/13hv95y/i_survived_living_in_la_and_commuting_to_cal_by
The official announcement from Berkeley:
It’s a great move. Bringing CS, Data Science and Stat into their own brand new college will elevate these fields. Can also bring in more resources because of the higher prestige a separate college confers. For example Berkeley can sell the college’s naming right to say Zuck for a couple billions or something.
On the other hand it may mean the backdoor to CS major will be completely closed off. Right now kids can get admitted into College of L&S with undeclared major and later transfer, within the same college, to CS major. But if CS is now in its own college, this trick may no longer work. Kids would need to be admitted into this new CDSS college from the get-go.
I think that backdoor went away a couple of years ago. I thought that was posted here - that UCB was no longer accepting internal transfers.
No, the backdoor is still there. They just make it more difficult.