Questions, comments or a tip? Let us know.
To the Columbia University Dean of Admissions

Artist: Grace Duffy
As you are no doubt aware, college admissions have become increasingly competitive over recent years. While in the past, strong high school students were all but guaranteed admission to good schools, nowadays, even students with perfect SAT scores may end up on the street, unwanted and degreeless. Students’ chances of gaining admission to top undergraduate schools are further lowered by the onslaught of intelligent, hard-working students from overseas seeking a stateside education. As a result, the outlook for promising students who wish to gain entry to schools like Columbia is very grim.
Many argue that one of the real problems of this increased competition for acceptance is the fact that the decisions that lead to admission are often arbitrary. When criteria such as GPA and SAT scores are all equal, admissions officers such as yourself are forced to determine acceptance based on recommendations, essays, and other information sources that don’t lend themselves so easily to objective comparison, leaving qualified students confused when they aren’t accepted to the appropriate schools.
This needs to stop. We need an objective way to decide between otherwise identical candidates so that we may ensure that only the finest are admitted to our esteemed and noble institution. We need a means of identifying the quick wits, guts, and thirst for glory that typify the ideal American high school student. We need to bring back the epic Nickelodeon game show Legends of the Hidden Temple to use as a final test for candidates for admission.
Don’t laugh. Stanford University did a study that concluded, “Those stalwart champions of Legends of the Hidden Temple, who solved the labyrinth and bested the temple guards, have been shown to have a much higher IQ than the rest of the population and they also go on to achieve much greater levels of success than their peers who did not conquer the Sacred Temple.” (Disclaimer: I am required to state that no such study actually took place. Ever.) I believe that the findings of this masterful, visionary study prove that the best way for us to break those ties in the admissions game is to send high school seniors headlong into Olmec’s perilous temple.
The Stanford study (Recall: there was no study) notwithstanding, this makes intuitive sense. One need only think of Indiana Jones, who pilfered numerous temples in a series of BBC documentaries about his life. What was he doing when he wasn’t raiding sacred grounds for holy relics? He was a university professor. The parallels between this raider of the lost ark and the ideal incoming Columbia student are pretty clear. The skills required to solve the diabolically challenging puzzles in a temple, such as the Shrine of the Silver Monkey, are the same skills that students need to write a last minute paper on Jane Austen for Literature Humanities: quick thinking, intense focus, and the ability to do the manifestly obvious with no sense of shame or humility.
Admittedly, there are some problems with this model. The most obvious problem is that, as we all know, the temple guards are union members. Given Columbia’s problems with unionizing graduate students a few years ago, it’s difficult to believe that Columbia would extend health benefits and satisfactory wages to the immortals who guard Olmec’s sacred temple from pilfering children. After all, why would you provide health insurance to deathless shamans who are unlikely to need check-ups or dental care?
The second problem with utilizing this American game show as a standard for admissions is that it neglects international students. A show about stealing relics from ancient temples is clearly geared toward Americans and this method would significantly disadvantage anyone else. Luckily for us, Nickelodeon has already covered this base with Global Guts. Such a title is obviously suited for an international demographic. Although there was no Stanford study done on Global Guts like there was for Legends of the Hidden Temple (again, I am forced to say that this is not true and I made it up), I feel that a similar constitution is required for finding success on both shows.
Please take this suggestion into serious consideration. All too often, high school students are left in the dust wondering where they went wrong. It’s not their fault—they are currently at the mercy of arbitrary judgment. Bringing back the beloved Nickelodeon game shows of the early ’90s will not only give these students a fair shot at objective consideration, it will also finally give Columbia students and alumni athletics worth watching.
Go Rockies,
Eddie

















"No I can assure you, that Columbia, if anything, places tries to look past the grades and into the depth of character. That said, steller grades don't hurt. But I'll give you an example from my HS. There was a kid that was an absolute genius, finished with a Silver Medal in the International Chemistry Olympiad. He was rejected by Columbia. Accepted by MIT/Princeton, going to MIT now."
Clearly Columbia wants no absolute genius, but really distinguished ones! Leave the commoners to the other schools!
"The current admissions process is a blatantly racist system that literally uses an applicant's skin color to decide how low to set the bar of expectations."
I was waiting for someone to cry racism! Isnt 20% of the school non-white?? Oh wait, the school wont be 'diverse' until it is 100% black! My bad! Dont shoot homey!
Please learn to read - the quote is AGAINST affirmative action. It is complaining about the fact that if an applicant has darker skin, the admissions standards are immediately lowered. Affirmative action is institutionalized racism.
fuck ryan nivakoff, brett loscalzo, etc.
Genius
I'd prefer a 260 lb. dumbass tight-end with a B- average who can catch rather than another "genius." Geniuses can be found contemplating their navels on every streetcorner, generally contributing little or nothing to anything or anyone except impotent braggadocio.
american football is the lamest sport ever.
??? A computer?
No I can assure you, that Columbia, if anything, places tries to look past the grades and into the depth of character. That said, steller grades don't hurt. But I'll give you an example from my HS. There was a kid that was an absolute genius, finished with a Silver Medal in the International Chemistry Olympiad. He was rejected by Columbia. Accepted by MIT/Princeton, going to MIT now.
I also know a kid here (at Columbia) that graduated HS with a 3.2 GPA and 2000's SAT.... except he's literally one of the greatest violinists in the world right now.
"Columbia places tries to look past the grades.." ????? What?
The "genius" with the silver medal had no depth of character, so he went to MIT?
..."steller grades." steller? Perhaps you mean "stellar?"
"A kid WHO graduated..."
Sez who, Isaac Stern?
You sure you're a student here? Basketball?
I agree 100% with this article. My child did not make it to Columbia in spite of having all the credentials and more. They selected students with less academic credentials in some cases and in some cases equal or slightly better grades. There is no method by which a person's overall achievement is judged. Letters of recommendation don't always help unless they are stellar and that is not always easy especially if you come from a large public high school.
Right now my child is contributing significantly to the school's important extra-curriculars and is balancing school and a host of other important extra-curriculars. I have not heard or read about some of the other students' achievements outside the classroom i.e. who were admitted from the same school for reasons that included sports and other extra-curriculars. It seems that they have not contributed to the school in these areas. Perhaps they are doing well in their academics. But academics is not the only important part of a student's overall development nor is it the only accurate predictor of future success.
There is something basically wrong in Columbia' s admissions process. No one bothers to meet with any potential students.The way it works now, you can have a computer pick your new class of students and save all the resources of a maintaining a large admissions staff. This way, it will at least be truly objective since the current system pretends to be so.
Pretty sure the author of this article is joking.
Ma'am / Sir,
You're missing many things and I rather recommend you read the fine print on admissions pamphlets and other resources.
1) Involvment in Extracurriculars (ECs henceforth) do not guarantee admission. ECs only help your kid out if he / she is a ranking member and devotes a lot of time and energy. A "host" of ECs is useless. Its about Quality vs Quantity.
2) Please realize that Ivy league education tends to be a little more rigorous than that of your average high school. Habitat for Humanity at Columbia is comprised of the founders and presidents of high school chapters across the country and as a result they are rather intense about what they do. One cannot carry on with 20 extra curriculars as we could in the past and thus we, as responsible students, withdraw from the ones we are not quite as interested in.
3) There are things that are wrong with admissions. It is biassed towards the upper middle class and a host of other factors. However, you must realize that Universities consider class-building, as it is called, to be of the utmost importance and it is infinitely more complex than you may imagine.
4) Read the fine print. Students who apply have the option of getting an interview but this means you have to sign up for one earlier. So yes, we do bother to meet potential students.
5) Recommendations tell us a lot more than you think. Who wants someone with a flat personality? Vibrant, enthusiastic people are the ones we want. Yes, a good balance between the student who doesn't stop studying to leave his room and the student who gets involved is needed. However, the latter tends to be preferred.
So I humbly beg you to not cast judgement on a system that takes years to figure out. And no, we can't make it simpler. I wish your child the best of luck in the rest of the admissions process.
First of all, everyone knows about "20 meaningless extra-curriculars" so please don't talk down to me. Secondly, I did graduate work at Columbia (as well as some undergrad courses in liberal arts and the sciences) and I don't think that everything here is that rigorous. Ironically, some of the kids you reject are far smarter than anyone you may have studied with in your life. Let's be serious, students from the Bronx HS of Science and Stuyvesant could easily fill your entire feshman class you do not need to look elsewhere. Unfortunately, they compete against themselves since you have to have a cross-section of kids from all walks of life. I understand that. But that should not come at the cost of lowering your admissions standards. Also, many of the private schools do not have a rigorous curriculum (I know because my kids went to these exclusive schools for many years before they decided to get a better education) yet they gain admission to Columbia. In many cases their top 10 students would find it difficult to match up to the bottom 10 at the two aformentioned specialized public high schools. Therefore, it is dishonest to say that this is due to "class building". This is purely and simply a need to get rich kids whose parents can contribute to the alumni fund.There are rich and smart kids at those 2 high schools as well. But their parents choose to send their kids to thes public schools because of the academic rigor and diversity and not with an eye to get into the ivies!
Lastly, I know that many of the students who have made the cut are, as you put it, "someone with a flat personality" and "the student who doesn't stop studying to leave his room". My kid who was rejected is in fact, as you put it, "vibrant, enthusiastic people." In addition this kid had near perfect SAT scores. AP scores of 5, a 95 GPA, 2 extra curriculars in which s/he excelled, National Merit Finalist, etc, etc. But among all this the most important aspect of my kid is his/her "vibrant" personality and leadership skills something which would have easily come through in a personal interview. And, no they would not grant an intervoew eventhough we requested it. They said that it was up to the admissions office to decide if an interview was needed. So your information about interviews is either flawed or they lied to us.
You probably need to track the performance (academic and extra-curricular) of some of the kids you admitted because of diversity, vibrant personalities, other skills, etc to see if you made the right decisions.
With the baby boomer generation taking effect admissions applications will start to decline. When that happens how will your standards change?
You're obviously simple people; why can't you make it simpler?
"So I humbly beg you to not cast judgement on a system that takes years to figure out. And no, we can't make it simpler. I wish your child the best of luck in the rest of the admissions process."
The current admissions process is a blatantly racist system that literally uses an applicant's skin color to decide how low to set the bar of expectations.
To the mom, I can tell you that there are many students here who are disgusted by the whole college admissions process.
Perhaps these are the same students that seem to be "disgusted" by anything traditional in american society, like law and order and morality and a humble christian standard by which we treat others. Pampered, self-indulgent, cry about anything that doesn't go your spoiled-ass way.
So I assume "morality and a humble christian standard" are on the side of institutionalized racism (aka affirmative action)?
instead of talking about it, do something about it.
Post new comment