<p>OOPS! My edit time ran out while I was fixing typos. Jeez it's late. I should have said "probable val" or "val/sal" when describing D's "stats". Don't count those chickens just yet, LOL.</p>
<p>"That coupled with a 4.0 and val, and what they see as "great" ec's (that I know are very average for highly selective schools) and they'll announce-she's a "match" with Columbia or Duke or Penn. I don't think so."</p>
<p>But Cur, she IS a match for said schools. I would wager a guess that a number of unhooked applicants with stats and ECs very similar to hers WERE admitted to the likes of Duke, Columbia and Penn. The problem is that there are too many such matches for the number of schools falling in that category. Plus, your "unhooked" D got into Swarthmore---a school very arguably just as competitive as the schools you mentioned.</p>
<p>Ops! Sorry Curmudgeon---I actually confused your D with Interesteddad's D, who is currently enrolled at Swat. But I believe your D would definitely be a competitor at Swat or any of the other schools mentioned. I'd certainly be disposed to admit a stellar student who also lives on a ranch, and raises goats as a hobby---such a very cool hook! Not many of those come down the pike to be sure.</p>
<p>The 25%-75% SAT range calculation that Curmudgeon lays out is quite good. However, I do not think it should discourage a student, i.e. his daughter, from applying to Penn, Duke, Columbia. However, I think he is right, do not expect an acceptance. On the other hand, do not be surprised if one happens.</p>
<p>I think it gets a bit more difficult when you look at other factors. For example, a student with high standardized test scores, good ECs but just outside the top 10%-15% of ther class. For students like this I think you need to look at where their passion lies and find a way to play that up, i.e. math competitions, state history projects, etc. In other words, turn a BWRK into a well rounded lop-sided kid by showing a particular interest in a field they would like to apply thier effort.</p>
<p>In general, I think that the students should apply to 6-9 schools that they love. One or two should be a crap shoot. If they love all the schools that they apply to then the issue of rejection becomes a minor issue.</p>
<p>Curmudeon -
I agree with your model - just don't be afraid to through an outlier or two into the mix if it is a very good fit and the student really likes it. The admissions strategy as a whole should be conservative - every item on it does not have to be.</p>
<p>At what point does acceptance rate change the dynamic? Curmudgeon, I understand what you're saying, but I think it becomes <em>too</em> conservative when applied to schools with acceptance rates in the 60+% range. In those cases, I think an SAT and GPA above the average (not necessarily near the 75% level) would make the school a match.</p>
<p>I think things begin to get dicey around 50%. Look at the decisions roster for Brandeis on that forum - they are around a 44% overall admissions rate. Some of the results were unexpected. Also, the more kids taken ED, the lower the effective RD rate - another factor to remember.</p>
<p>Carolyn ~ </p>
<p>Just to amplify your point, the 2005 US News shows the 25-75% range for UCLA as 1160-1410. I think this is the range for enrolled freshmen. I recently read that the mean score for all enrolled undergraduates at UCLA was 1289, which seems believable as it is comfortably in the middle of the reported range. However, I'ver also read (but can't confirm) that the average UCLA applicant had a score closer to 1335. While all the UCs have their own peculiar features regarding the SAT, including using single sitting scores, you can see that in this case, there is a significant gap between admitted and enrolled student scores, just as you suggested.</p>
<p>Curmudgeon ~</p>
<p>I agree with your model of seeing a match if the applicant is above the 75% mark on the SAT scores. And of course, there is always doubt since the scores are definitely not perfect indicators of admission. However, there's another issue that should be explained. Most colleges (but not all) use the best combination of verbal and math scores. Often they report the scores individually, so an applicant can see if she is in the top 75% in Math, and in Verbal as two parameters. But this practice creates a very false impression for schools that work this way. The 75% mark for math for enrolled students plus the 75% mark for verbal for enrolled students is definitely NOT the 75% mark for enrolled students. A huge pool of applicants are above the 75% mark for only one score, and are below the 75% mark on the other score.</p>
<p>In real life an applicant at the 75% mark for both verbal and math tests would be closer to the 85 or 90% mark for total score at many universities. With the advent of the new SAT, this effect is magnified (three scores), and we are even more in the dark because so little has been revealed to date about the score distributions and the admissions performance of the new SAT score recipients.</p>
<p>curmudge,</p>
<p>Looking at your daughter's stats, I agree with you on top dozen schools (though I would say she has more than a "shot", but shouldn't think "match" for next group after HYP). After that, it seems like she would have excellent odds with good interest, essay, etc at her choice of schools. Wouldn't you agree?</p>
<p>yep audiophile, I'm not saying any school is impossible for someone with her stats, but to be competitive at Duke, Penn, Columbia (which are presently NOT on her list) she needs to nudge that score up closer to the 1500 range. At that point she is in the same stack as all the other lemmings.</p>
<p>This thread isn't about her chances .I just used her and her stats as an example. I would agree with posters who think I am too conservative when you drop substantially in selectivity range to schools that accept 70% or so of applicants.</p>
<p>I have to confess I do have a sense that Mudgie has a hook in her rural Texas life on a ranch stringing barbed wire. The question is, does she have anything approaching your gift of gab? Can she describe that life so she gets the "Adcom nickname?". Ranchgal? </p>
<p>I do think you are doing the right thing for setting expectations but I also think she should apply to any reach school she wants to set that ranchhand heart on and just see what happens.</p>
<p>Did you read the post from Ben Jones at MIT? I forget which thread it's in but he talks about passion and joy.</p>
<p>Carolyn, other end of the process: getting kids packed <em>out</em> of the dorm rooms at the end of the year.</p>
<p>D is now shifted into her summer quarters at Smith. But you should have seen the scene in her regular house....</p>
<p>Reasonabledad makes a very good point, which I have tried to make before, about the 25-75% total scores not actually being accurate measures of the 25th and 75th percentiles for the student body.</p>
<p>Thanks, token*-- I have been wondering how many high schools there are in the US, through this whole process. This means, of course, that there are 38,000 valedictorians, class presidents, yearbook editors, and team captains.</p>
<p>Curmudgeon,</p>
<p>I will use your daughter as the example but my intent is more generic. Sometimes students do not realize that they hae a hook. For example, if she applied to Duke as a engineering student she would have a hook because engineering schools are generally 2/3 male and 1/3 female. The same goes for males in other areas.</p>
<p>I am not advocating that she or other students apply just to get in. I think within the applicant pools you can identify areas where the odds of acceptance goes up. However, this is a second order look at a student's chances after the first order analysis that you provided.</p>
<p>Eagle said
"However, this is a second order look at a student's chances after the first order analysis that you provided."</p>
<p>Very important point. If you do it right and get lucky, the value the student provides the college and the value the college provides the student start to converge.</p>
<p>I made a post in an ED thread yeaterday, on this very question of 25%-75%: </p>
<p>
[quote]
Remember that the 25%-75% figures can be hard to analyze. Imagine a scattergraph of the following scores: 1600, 1600, 1550, 1550, 1550, 1500, 1400, 1300, 1300, 1300. </p>
<p>25% is 1300, 75% is 1550-- but really a kid with a 1300 is actually <em>way</em> low for this school. Even a 1400 is on the low side. 1500 would be the 50% score-- an it is <em>not</em> halfway between 1300 & 1550. So do your homework on the actual spread of scores at the school.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>No highly selective schools taking 10-20% of applicants and turning down hordes of high-stat applicants can be considered "matches," even if the applicant has the 75% type stats. However, I would call this sort of school a "realistic reach" for a kid with the 75% stats.</p>
<p>I made my post because I think people see those 25%-75% numbers and wrongly assume the 50% number is the average of 25 & 75. It is usually MUCH closer to the 75% number.</p>
<p>annelise,</p>
<p>Man, and just consider that some schools base the valedictorian status on GPA, meaning everyone with a 4.0 is val. That might mean 10 or more valedictorians!</p>
<p>Sometimes numbers are just numbers, folks.</p>
<p>My sister was rejected from some schools (not ivies) where her SATs were at the 75-85% range (maybe the adcoms thought she would not attend). </p>
<p>My cousin (with the same GPA and high school curriculum) had some unusual ECs (NOT SPORTS) and was accepted to the very schools that year which rejected my sister. His SATs were 300 points lower!!!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That's an important point. Moreover, I think that is one reason why most universities don't report aggregate SAT scores for their entering class. They know that they can look more impressive by reporting separate section score ranges and relying on the public to add wrongly.</p>