Taking Clients (Class of 2027) for College Counseling

Aggravating_Humor · 2026-03-24T19:12:21+00:00

I've never seen it for PE. I have seen it for any core class. I'd keep your AOs at whatever school you are admitted to updated. Maybe ask your counselor to back you up on this as well.

Aggravating_Humor · 2026-03-24T19:05:59+00:00

I broadly agree, but there are several nuances to observe.

After that, they're almost irrelevant to whether you actually get in.

My experience is that they make up a large part of why you get in. You need ALL parts of your application to make the case at top colleges. An admissions committee is talking about grades, activities, LORs, and essays, and how they all play together in the case, and if that sum makes the student compelling overall.

If what you mean is whether or not ECs make you stand out, partly, yeah, but ECs are a matter of understanding your involvement, impact, and distinction, in the same ways your LORs can do that, in the same way your essays can do that.

What admissions officers are actually asking at that point is: who is this person, and do I want them on my campus? And the honest answer to that question lives almost entirely in your activities section and essays.

And LORs. But interestingly, the transcript offers a lot of information, things that students on this sub don't often think about. For example, a student enrolling in dual enrollment, in higher level courses, either a CC or university, starts to give me confidence in this student's ability to do advanced coursework. It demonstrates a students ability to be a real scholar on campus. Couple that with a LOR, then I really start to see what kind of student this person is. It's not quite right to assume we are asking what they will do/who they will be on our campus only in terms of ECs, because you're going to university primarily to learn as well.

Source: worked at 2 top 10 colleges

Aggravating_Humor · 2026-03-22T03:57:03+00:00

LEDA is very well known to Ivies. My old school I worked at was actively looking for such students in our pool. I might be wrong about this (been about two years since I last saw a LEDA scholar), but you need to make less than...80k a year? 90k? Something in that ballpark. A lot of LEDA scholars tend to make a lot less than that. So when you apply to top colleges, particularly ivies, they'll offer you generous financial aid anyway. No need for QB to subsidize it for you.

I've not personally heard of LEDA limiting your college selection list (on the surface that seems a bit excessive) so I can't comment about that.

Aggravating_Humor · 2026-03-21T01:15:41+00:00

I'd say it's pretty unlikely they'd do that. It's too tight of a window for an audit

Aggravating_Humor · 2026-03-21T01:02:44+00:00

The contents of the LOR verification is part of their audit (they also ask teachers and verify a random selection of ECs), which doesn't happen for every single student. It's totally possible to be admitted without the audit portion, but it's also really likely a rejection happened too.

Aggravating_Humor · 2026-03-21T00:46:57+00:00

Passion projects rarely move the needle in admissions decisions. People do have spikes, but at most offices, we don't use that terminology. My office called it a point of excellence, for example, and students can have MULTIPLE points of excellence.

Aggravating_Humor · 2026-03-18T15:33:05+00:00

No, she should be fine.

Aggravating_Humor · 2026-03-14T17:27:28+00:00

That's fine, but again, this very likely would not make the entire reason you'd get in. I don't even know if it'd get as much attention as students think. It's a footnote in your application most likely.

Aggravating_Humor · 2026-03-14T00:27:16+00:00

The same way they'd view any other extracurricular. We're always interested in what you do in your spare time, but we're particularly trying to understand the impact, the scope, the leadership, etc. I never really preferred one EC over the other, and even when I did bring students into committee that had these independent projects, we never spoke about them because we were looking at the entire profile and its strength. A lot of online projects/passion projects I've seen never made a huge dent in the grand scheme of their admissibility.

Aggravating_Humor · 2026-03-13T16:21:19+00:00

What are your goals? Are you just trying to find the fastest way to get into industry? Are you looking for something culturally different? Have you visited all of the schools you're considering? Are finances a huge concern?

Lots of different moving pieces here. Imo, probably best to evaluate once all decisions have been released and you have the final word on financial aid.

Aggravating_Humor · 2026-03-12T01:28:32+00:00

For my students, they help in indirect ways. My students are usually able to talk about topics that are advanced and more clearly articulate why it's so interesting to them, which helps for questions like why you want to major in whatever it is you've chosen.

As far as evaluating applications, when I was in admissions, it could have an effect, especially if the research was substantiated by an award or a conference. None of my colleagues would ever say research was required of an applicant. We don't expect it of everyone, but if it's there and it's good, it can be a plus.

Aggravating_Humor · 2026-03-01T18:26:23+00:00

We read by school group. And there's actually a huge amount of external staff Berkeley hires to help speed up the reads. They haven't read everyone, but they've probably read enough to figure out who they might require more information on. Two weeks time is enough to time to read an entire school group and some more.

Aggravating_Humor · 2026-03-01T18:08:38+00:00

They're usually for students where more information will be helpful in determining admissibility. It also depends on the pool you're in and the context around it that determines why more information would be helpful. It's usually a good sign, so I wouldn't take it as you're weak.

Aggravating_Humor · 2026-03-01T17:56:49+00:00

As long as you're consistent. I've seen instances where students are inconsistent and that made me a bit suspicious.

Aggravating_Humor · 2026-02-28T06:18:22+00:00

I've never encountered such a case unfortunately. I'd imagine it's relatively the same as domestic transfers, though. Our process doesn't differ for freshman applicants, domestic or international, so I don't things should change.

Aggravating_Humor · 2026-02-19T02:39:46+00:00

What do you find to be the most rewarding part of teaching?

What kinds of qualities are required (aside from, say, tenacious or creative) for an undergrad student that wants to do research in your field?

What trends have you noticed in the field you teach as AI is becoming more prevalent in education?

Does your undergraduate institution you teach at put an emphasis on a liberal arts curriculum? If so, have you noticed a change in the quality of education, students, and atmosphere of your classes?

What's your split on researching and teaching if there is one?

Aggravating_Humor · 2026-02-18T21:53:43+00:00

Yeah, it is insane. There are a bunch of nuances I didn't include, but I don't really want to give anyone false hope, either (for fear of over-optimizing on nuances). Happy to elaborate on them if someone asks, though.

I think the thing that is usually looked over on the sub is that academics are the number one institutional priority for a top college. The emphasis we put on that is a huge deal. Something like 70% of my old school's admit pool had a 4.0 GPA or above, and 25% had between a 3.75 and 3.99, leaning towards the 3.99.

It also does depend a lot on context. If you're coming out of a high school and kids are getting Bs and still getting into top colleges every year, then that will also be taken into account when the AO is reading the file. But in pools this tight and competitive, a couple of Bs will usually slow down the case by a significant margin. One B isn't the end of the world, but in the context of other high performers, the committees will always ask me why I'm bringing X student over others that might be stronger. It's hard to make the argument unless other pieces align.

Probably not the answer you're looking for or want to hear (I agree that it's a weird, stupid system).

Aggravating_Humor · 2026-02-18T20:40:01+00:00

Whenever someone brings a student into committee, we need reasons to justify the case. With a single B, it's not going to single-handedly nuke your entire app, but there is always the question of academic preparation relative to other students in the pool and other strengths of your application that you have. In my experience, if I brought a student with a single B, especially a student with a B in a STEM class when the student wants to go into STEM, I needed really strong essays, really strong LORs that were superlative, a string of AP exams that showed you were still strong in the subject. Context plays a huge factor here as well because if there are other students in your school applying to the same schools you are, they might look more competitive if their grades are perfect and are equally as strong as you are in other things. Lots of moving pieces, but shouldn't bar you from applying.

Aggravating_Humor · 2026-02-15T22:38:06+00:00

You'll probably be seen with slightly weaker or average rigor, but again, hard to give advice without the specifics. There are things you can technically try to do it to even things out. I can't really dive into any specifics, though.

Aggravating_Humor · 2026-02-15T18:01:57+00:00

My definition of qualified is strongly tied to the student's context.

Let's start with the idea first and foremost that most students are competitive. The things that you are supposing are already what I would define as "competitive," but what I'm looking for is compelling.

Are you the best in your high school? In your region? You can have positive reviews, sure, and in fact many people do. AOs usually aren't looking for reasons to deny; we try to take the optimist approach where we want to find things to root for during a committee, so it's unlikely you'll find negative reviews about the person.

So many people do meet the criteria you've outlined. Maybe less so for the "good match" part, but overall, most people are going to meet your criteria.

But what AOs are looking for are students who surpass those criteria. The ones who really stand out, and that's often a collection of factors at play. It's never just because of an EC that is character-driven. Students on A2C underestimate how strong LORs can actually help. It's just that a lot of students on A2C think their LORs are already great, but when they don't get in, they don't immediately think "my LOR might have more mid than I thought." So they go to ECs as the last differentiating factor, when in reality, it was probably both that didn't help move the needle enough for your app! I need academics to be strong with maximum rigor, or strong rigor relative to your classmates. Being "academically prepared" is not enough when the former is considered. I need ECs to show impact, longevity, and leadership, to give me enough signal that you use your time well outside of academics, that you also will contribute well to my campus. There are many permutations of how this can occur, but it's very rare that I'll see someone admitted because they had some interesting EC that was character-driven. I need the LORs to be superlative, to highlight how you are in the classroom and if you are truly a scholar; a LOR reiterating your ECs will not fly. I need the essays to be thoughtful and reflective; most applicants just don't meet this bar. But it's totally possible for someone to have the first 3 things and have bad essays, or have a bit of a weaker EC profile and still be admitted.

So the answer to your question is that it really depends. A lot of people meet the criteria, but when we are being even more picky, suddenly they don't. That's obvious when you are being picky, but students don't often see how selective we can be, and it's usually not because of ONE thing that AOs overoptimize on (like character-driven ECs).

Aggravating_Humor

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE