Any college-bound high school senior can attest to the fact that college applications are an exhausting process. From scoring high on the SATs to carefully crafting application essays, thousands of applicants each year wonder what more they can do to guarantee that coveted acceptance letter from the college or university of their choice.Now a controversial new book written by a former College admissions officer claims to provide many of the answers.
The book -- written by former Assistant Director of Admissions Michele Hernandez '89 -- is titled "A is for Admission: The Insider's Guide to Getting into the Ivy League and Other Top Colleges," and is different from other volumes that coach applicants on college admission in that it claims to reveal the "most guarded secrets" of the Ivy League admissions process.
"A is for Admission" takes the reader step-by-step through admissions procedures -- even detailing the thoughts of admissions officers during each step.
In the introduction, Hernandez writes that the book will not only reveal the intricacies of the admissions process, but "will greatly improve your chances of being accepted at an Ivy League or other highly selective college."
Numbers, numbers, numbers
In one of the more controversial sections of the book, Hernandez addresses what she calls "one of the central mysteries of the Ivy League admissions process" -- the Academic Index, which is a number derived from a formula combining the applicant's SAT I and SAT II scores and class rank.
Originally devised as a method of providing a minimum numerical cutoff for recruited athletes, the AI is used solely by the Ivy League to simplify numerical statistics for the admissions officers since grading systems vary with different high schools.
The book is complete with the exact AI formula as well as a class rank conversion tables so applicants can compute their own AI.
At Dartmouth, the computed AI is placed on a master card along with the applicant's vital data in front of the application folder, according to "A is for Admission."
Other numeric systems are employed at schools that do not rely on the AI to rank their applicants. For example, Georgetown University ranks its applicants solely by class rank and grade point average, rather than by a combination of standardized tests and class rank, according to the book.
"Knowing your academic index, along with having a completed understanding of how applicants are evaluated, will give you a good idea of what you chances are for gaining admission to an Ivy League or highly selective college," the book states.
Yet Hernandez reminds readers that although academics account for "70 to 75 percent of the admissions decision," applicants still need "strong extras and personal strengths to stand out from the pack."
Hernandez also writes that stellar SAT I and SAT II scores have a stronger impact on admissions officers than high grades.
"The 'poor tester' excuse is sadly one that is not looked upon very sympathetically by Ivy League admissions officers," Hernandez writes. "After all, they reason, if a student does not work well under pressure and tight time constraints, how will they handle the rigors of Ivy League classes?"
Hernandez says most Ivy League admissions officers equate high numbers with "brilliance."
"There is something undeniably impressive about a student who scores over 750 on the verbal and math portion of the SAT I and who scores in the high 700s on three SAT II subject tests," Hernandez writes.
The target audience
In the first chapter, Hernandez immediately debunks a common myth about the typical admissions officer --that he or she is an Ivy League graduate who is significantly brighter than most of the applicant pool.
"The most natural thing to assume is that you are writing your application so that brilliant Ivy League-educated people can read it and laud your humor, charm, and intellectual prowess," Hernandez writes.
But the book says admissions officers are not "Ivy League hotshots" and "the best of applicants" will often times be brighter than the officers who are evaluating them.
Hernandez quotes former Brown Admissions Officer Harry Bauld, who advised college applicants: "This is your audience. Study them well. Not exactly the Nobel prize panel."
The book states that admissions officers may miss a student's academic potential simply due to exhaustion or careless reading and urges applicants to "avoid being subtle" about their accomplishments.
"Unfortunately, many admissions officers are not expert readers, and most of them are not scholars or intellectuals," the book states. "You can understand why oftentimes subtle points are overlooked even though they can be crucial to understanding a student's academic potential."
Hernandez also urges "privileged" applicants to downplay their wealthy backgrounds because admissions officers tend to favor students who achieved academically despite their underprivileged backgrounds -- "especially if they come from a more modest background" themselves.
'Flags and Tags'
It has often been said that recruited athletes, legacies, and other "special" applicants have their applications "flagged." Hernandez confirms that at Dartmouth, such applications are literally marked with a colored tag on the front of the applicant's folder.
The role of the tags is to aid admissions officers, so they can immediately identify which type of applicant is being evaluated before opening the application folder.
Applicants who are recruited athletes receive purple tags and legacies receive green tags. Minority applicants also receive special colored tags -- blue tags for African-American students, red tags for Hispanic students and black tags for Native American students, the book states.
Hernandez says the tags' impact varies, but concedes having a tag can rarely be negative.
For athletes, the tags' importance depends on "how important the sport is, how high the athlete is ranked on the coach's list, how high the AI is, and how well the officers think the student would be able to handle the rigors of an Ivy League program."
But the average AI of an admitted recruited athlete is generally lower than those of non-athletes, she writes.
Hernandez notes the effect of the green tag for legacies at Dartmouth is a doubled acceptance rate -- 40 percent verses the overall acceptance rate of 20 percent. At Princeton, legacies are accepted at a rate of over 40 percent, while the overall acceptance rate is at 14 percent.
For minority applicants, "officers are willing to trade off test scores for high class rank," she writes, "or higher test scores with inferior class standing."
And for white applicants without tags, admittance to Dartmouth is that much more less likely.
However, Hernandez says "both class rank and scores [of minority applicants] must meet tacit cutoffs for further consideration."
Even applicants who are admitted under "special" applicant status "manage to do fairly well at Dartmouth and their respective colleges," she says.
Hernandez was a member of Phi Beta Kappa at the College and holds a master's degree in English and comparative literature from Columbia University. She worked in the admissions office at Dartmouth from 1993 to 1997. She now lives in Vermont, and plans to teach high school English in the area.
According to an article earlier this month in the Chronicle of Higher Education, Hernandez had decided to write the book early in her admissions career. Hernandez left the admissions office previous to the publishing of "A is for Admission."