A few notes from a college admissions seminar (for homeschooling & worldschooling families)

This morning I sat in on a seminar focused on college applications for homeschooling and worldschooling learners. It was led by a mix of specialists and admissions staff, and I thought it was worth sharing a few of the things that came up.

Just to be clear, this isn’t me offering advice or taking a position on it. These are simply notes and reflections from what was shared.

There were three main ideas that stayed with me.

The first was around acceptance rates. One of the universities represented shared that, in their experience, students coming through traditional school systems had around a 50% acceptance rate, whereas homeschooled and worldschooled learners were closer to 65%.

Their explanation was fairly straightforward. These learners often arrive with a broader portfolio, more varied experiences, more independence, and a slightly different relationship with learning. The sense was that universities aren’t necessarily “preferring” one over the other, but they are responding to what feels like a more complete picture of the individual.

The second point was around parental influence, and this one was spoken about quite directly.

They said that when an application feels too parent-led, it can work against the student. Universities are looking for the student’s voice, what they’re interested in, how they think, what they’ve chosen to explore. Even small language cues were mentioned. For example, parents saying “we have an admissions test” rather than “they have an admissions test.” It sounds minor, but apparently it signals something bigger.

The underlying message here was about ownership. The more the process feels like it belongs to the young person, the stronger the application tends to be.

The third point was the role of the portfolio, particularly for learners who aren’t following a heavily exam-based route.

What they look for isn’t just a collection of work, but some kind of direction. Not rigid, not forced, but a thread. If a learner is interested in engineering, for example, then over time you might start to see that come through in the kinds of projects they choose, the questions they ask, the things they spend time on.

This connected quite naturally to the way we approach things. The project work that learners are doing each term is a real opportunity to start shaping that. Not in a strategic or calculated way, but simply by following genuine interest.

A simple example, in Lombok, a learner interested in medicine could have explored traditional and indigenous healing practices, local beliefs, different approaches to health. That becomes something meaningful, not just as a standalone project, but as part of a wider body of work.

The final point they touched on was AI.

Again, this was fairly clear. Using AI as a research tool is fine, but using it to produce work is where problems arise. They said it’s usually quite obvious when something doesn’t match a student’s voice or level. When that happens, it tends to raise questions rather than strengthen the application.

I shared a version of this with the learners this morning before their presentations. Not to put pressure on anything, but just as a reminder of the position they’re in.

They’re not just completing tasks or projects. They’re gradually building something that reflects who they are, what they’re curious about, how they approach the world, what they choose to spend time on.

And from what I heard this morning, that’s very much what universities are paying attention to.