Rating: 
Summary: Trent Lott at Wesleyan
Review: Don¹t tell anyone, but the racial discrimination practiced by Wesleyan¹s admission office is very similar to the racial discrimination advocated by Strom Thurmond in 1948. The author dresses up Wesleyan¹s discriminatory practices for consumption and approval by liberals. But the results of both practices are the same: racial classifications. The book is a dictionary of liberal code words for their brand of racial discrimination. Oh, but the liberals claim that their brand of racial discrimination is benign. But tell that to the more qualified white applicant who was rejected in favor of a less qualified black. All racial discrimination is malignant. Lott resigned his post as Senate Majority Leader because he indirectly supported this invidious practice. Why hasn¹t the President of Wesleyan resigned for the same reason?
Rating: 
Summary: untangling the ivy
Review: First off, I'd better admit that as someone who attended a mediocre public high school, and received virtually no help from its staff in my college application process, some of these stories left a bitter taste in my mouth (even after 10 years). Yes, I was slightly jealous; even though half these kids were minorities, almost all attended schools that were outstanding and supportive. Nor did I, like one boy, have a celebrity endorsement from a famous author, nor was I told to start my essays my junior year, nor did my guidance counselor cozy up to the staff of the schools I applied to. Yet, I was accepted where I applied anyway. But standards are higher now, and I wonder if things would still be the same should I apply today.I found this book very intriguing and well-written, a "page turner" as one reviewer mentioned. I admired the subjects who allowed the author to interview them without even using pseudonyms. That's pretty brave, especially when their stories are told warts and all. I believe the admissions staff of Wesleyan does honestly try to do its job well. Yet, I found myself thinking repeatedly how hypocritical these admissions officers are. They tell seniors not to pin their hopes on just one school, and then focus almost all their energy to snare a few prep school stars while ignoring quite a few who could probably do equally as well, given just a fraction of the encouragement and attention they're lavishing on the stars. I knew a lot of people, myself included, who performed fine in high school but really "hit their stride" in college and were much happier and involved with extracurriculars. They also tell students not to use gimmicks, but look at what they do to attract students. They greet the overachieving applicant who's almost too good to be true with hugs and red carpet treatment. They get Chelsea Clinton to endorse the school. They inform a new Wesleyan student via e-mail that he is their "absolute favorite" and that they're going to create a fragrance in his name, and even if it's meant in jest, it's still in my mind, absolutely inappropriate. It's an unenviable job, and certainly I'd probably burn out fast. I'd advise admissions officers not to put all their eggs in one basket when it comes to choosing students for the incoming freshman class. Some of the biggest overachievers are going to make a difference, but some are going to eventually have breakdowns or transfer or drop out. They can woo all they want, but ultimately it's up to the student to figure out how to fit in.
Rating:
Summary: Good News/Bad News
Review: First the good news: A thoroughly engaging book that I couldn't put down. I couldn't wait to find out what happened to the students profiled. The author is an excellent storyteller. I was impressed at how closely the applications are read and considered by the admissions officers.
Now the bad: As a parent of a son in college and a daughter in the midst of the application process, neither of whom are minorities, I was dismayed, actually outraged, at how casually their accomplishments could be dismissed by an admissions officer looking for the perfect blend of "diversity" It's stated blatantly in the book that minority students are given a plane ticket to visit the school, but that this is only offered to non-minority poor kids who are savvy enough to ask for it! One of the student's exotic racial make-up is described as "way cool" by Ralph as he rates the application. I couldn't help but wonder how my Caucasion children would rate--boring. Since I have a Cherokee great-great grandmother, I think I'll advise my daughter to check "Native American" on her application or she won't have a chance.
Rating:
Summary: What is better? The overachieving 6 or underachieving 8?
Review: First, let me say that I thought that this was an excellent book and would recommend it to anyone who is at all interested in the college admissions process. Second, I was surprised at how many of the reviewers seemed shocked--shocked!--that applicants got bonus points for coming from minority backgrounds. Was this some kind of revelation? However one thing that surprised me a little bit is how--even moving beyond race entirely--the more advantages you have had in life, the more disadvantageous it will be for your admissions process. For example, I was unaware that having successful parents would be, in essence, held against you on the theory that more would be expected of you. While other reviewers have (jokingly?) said that they would advise their white kids not to check the "Caucasian" box, I might advise my (still very young) kids to say that their parents have been unemployed their whole life. I suppose that the main issue which this whole process really boils down to is the following: As a college applicant, is it more important to succeed in life relative to the world around you (i.e. relative to your classmates, to others of your race, to others of your geographical area, to your own parents' life and accomplishments, etc.) or is it more important to succeed absolutely and not on a relative scale. This book clearly informs us that the answer is the former and not the latter. Whether that should be the answer is another question. For example, say that a student's entire life could be distilled into 2 numbers each on a sliding scale from 1-10. The first number is simply your academic performance (grades, SAT's, course load, etc.) The second number is your background (race, economic circumstances, gender, etc.) In the case of Wesleyan, it seems clear to me that they would rather have a student whose first number was, say, a 6 if his or her second was a 2 (take Mig for example in Steinberg's book) than a student whose first number was an 8 if the second number was a 9 or 10 (take Tiffany Wang for example). Whether that is the right approach is certainly a legitimate issue for discusion and I'm not saying that it's not. I suppose that one of the things that would be interesting to know (even though one never really can know of course) is whether those numbers will change in the future. For example, if one were to know that Mig would always be a 6 and Tiffany would always be an 8, would that change the analysis as to which is the right approach? I suspect that part of the reason that a school like Wesleyan would favor the overachieving 6 over the underachieving 8 is due to the hope or expectation that those trends will continue in the future and that one day the 6 will actually be ahead of the 8. And maybe that's the way it works. Who knows.
Rating:
Summary: Superb
Review: I actually would have to say that this book was more intruiging on the basis of the way that it "hooked" the readers to the different case studies, cleverly keeping the readers personally involved. It was a worthwhile read...very infomative in an underhanded way about the college process, and led you to form your own opinions upon issues such as racial profiling in college admissions. The case studies was an almost "gossipy" aspect, making the reader feel empathetical on a personal level to their individual scenarios. A quick and enjoyable read! Exquisitely written!
Rating:
Summary: REVEALING
Review: I agree with the reviewer who is an admissions officer that this book could have been about any private college. The methodology and procedures are the same everywhere, I am sure. The book only reinforced what I already believed...that parents of those kids who are not star material are the ones who end up paying the bills for those who are at elite private colleges. I am one of those parents who paid! AS Steinberg says: "To help offset their financial losses due to increased costs for financial aid, colleges initiated an intense search for other 'customers' who could pay full price, whether from the U.S. or abroad." I think the author did a marvelous job of making this a really interesting book, and immediately recommended it to my sister and brother, who both have boys in high school now. I did warn them, however, that what they read might be somewhat discouraging. First, these admissions officers are very subjective (and how could they be anything else?)with a huge caseload to handle in a very short period of time. Second, I was appalled that one of the most important issues for college admission staffs seems to be how their rejection/yield rate is perceived by U.S. News and World Report. And third, the way admissions standards are tweaked for academic stars or to achieve diversity can seem very unfair to those who have sons who fall into neither of these categories (a star or a minority). I think there are many lessons about the college application process to be learned from reading this book. Perhaps the most important lesson is not to set your heart on one school. I suggest this book as "must" reading for parents, students, and high school guidance counselors.
Rating:
Summary: From a director of admission of a small liberal arts college
Review: I applaud Jacques Steinberg on his reporting on the selective college admission process. As an "insider," I was impressed by how much he got right. Substitute almost any selective liberal arts college's name for Wesleyan's, and you'll have a pretty good idea of what goes on. Steinberg did a terrific job researching higher education issues and capturing the personalities of the admission officers and prospective students. The Gatekeepers is an excellent read, and should be required for anyone who works in higher ed or in college counseling.
Rating:
Summary: Don't wait 'til high school to read this book!
Review: I couldn't put this book down. My kids are only in elementary school, but I'm glad I read this book now. No, I'm not a pushy parent who wants my kids to go to an Ivy-league school. But this book gave me a good sense of what my kids can expect when it's their turn to apply for college, and how hard they will need to work in high school if they want to have choices. I don't agree with other reviewers that you're sunk if you're not a minority or a prep-school kid (or both). It just so happens that the author found these students to have compelling stories. But I got the sense that all hard-working students who are compelling in some way, from both public and private schools, get ample consideration. I also got the sense that it is just not enough to have good grades and score well on the SAT. You have to be a person with special qualities, i.e. a special talent, a special interest, proven leadership qualities, etc. to be sought-after by these schools. A fantastic book I wish all my friends would read.
Rating:
Summary: Yield is important: how admissions really works at Wesleyan
Review: I found so fascinating this account of how schools right below the Ivy League recruit and admit students that I bought the book for the head of a high school. While Michele Hernandez's book focuses on the Ivy League process that seems to revolve around how the Ivies pick and choose among those talented kids who apply, the Wesleyan tale talks about how schools at the next level worry about yield in determing who to recruit and who to take. The Hernandez book suggests that it is almost all in the numbers and that differentiating among qualified applicants is very tough. It was fascinating seeing the admissions year through a regional representative and some of the individual students who he focused on recruiting.
Rating: 
Summary: not a REAL insider's guide
Review: I found Steinberg's account interesting for a reporter's perspective -- he somewhat lionizes the director who from all accounts is a typical "try to do the right thing" type of guy. However, after reading about 10 college guides, I have to conclude that the only real "insider's" guide I've read is ... written by a real admissions officer, not a reporter parrotting what admissions officers want him to see. Parents will learn something about the process, but if they want to know real details and a true insider's perspectives, hernandez's book is the real groundbreaking one, with Howard Greene a close second. This book is solid, but nothing really new. Even the term Gatekeepers was coined by a NY Post writer who used A is for Admission's results for the term.
| 
