“And if the Chicago ACT score range is 32-35, anyone who thinks that an applicant with a 34 has any particular advantage over an applicant with a 32 just doesn’t understand how the admissions system works, particularly not at Chicago.”
Agreed - They are both in the mid 50’th range which is a perfectly fine place to be. A 35 might be a stronger tester but it doesn’t mean that the 32 can’t handle the workload. At that point a lot of other factors begin to influence college outcomes.
Is this an argument that the “threshold” theory of test scores is correct. Once a certain number is hit, the decision is entirely based on the rest of the application? Or does a 35 still have an advantage over a 32?
The first step of admissions to Ivies for non-hooked candidates is that regional officers are allocated a range of slots and are responsible for selecting a number of candidates from his/her region (race/public/private/gender/SES etc. definitely play a role here). So the threshold is different if you compare the stats of candidates from both coasts and Midwest, etc. Later regional officers present those candidates at the later rounds and finally on the committee table.
For the old SAT, it used to be any score above 2300 is good, even for folks from both coasts. Higher score means higher probability of admissions. That is directly shown in the published data. Just like med school admissions, lower GPA/MCAT combination means the candidate has a lower chance of admissions. See [this table](https://www.aamc.org/download/321508/data/factstablea23.pdf). The correlation is much weaker for college admissions. Nonetheless, the data from at least one Ivy which publishes the data proves it is true.
So yes, statistically 35 have an advantage over 32.
Students at top schools will be surrounded by brilliant people - at times it will blow your mind. It is important to be humble but confident and your classmates will be your best source of learning. No one gets into these schools by accident. Actually only ** one out of about sixteen candidates ** is selected at RD. You must have something on your file others don’t have, obviously those things are not related to academics.
Statistically, most colleges want to maintain a score range, because of impact on rankings. So on a group basis – total number of enrolled students - it’s important to maintain the statistical range. But because of the way the scores are reported, if the middle score range is 32-35, the distribution doesn’t matter. Students with a 36 would be valuable if it was reasonably achievable to enroll more than 25% with that number – but if not, they just aren’t going to show up in the group reporting data one way or another. (And since they can’t know when they admit whether a student will enroll, all sorts of yield factors also come into play. No point admitting high stat kids who aren’t going to attend).
On an individual basis it’s pretty much meaningless. They either fit into a particular bucket or they don’t. The admission decisions will be made on different factors, especially in a school that is admitting only a tiny fraction of applicants. And with the high volume of applicants, these decisions are almost always based on very quick and somewhat cursory review of the student’s application file.
On CC parents like to pose the example of two identical applicants, one with a higher score than the other, but that doesn’t exist in real life. The applications just aren’t evaluated in a way that even provides an opportunity for such comparison.
Another thing that CC parents don’t understand is that when ad coms say they are looking at scores “in context” they really are doing that for schools, types of schools, geographic locations, etc. It’s not just an affirmative action or URM thing. They understand and expect that they will see higher test scores for kids coming out of New Trier or Harvard-Westlake. If you could compare Naviance data across schools you might be able to discern this information, except that a lot of public high schools wouldn’t have sufficient number to support a meaningful database of admissions for colleges in the elite selectivity range. They may have one or two students in any given year who gets into an elite private -while the vast majority head off to state publics, or community college if they go to college at all. For those types of schools class rank is can be a much much more valuable metric or predictor.
When I said “back in the day” I didn’t mean 2015. I meant more like. I know that the admission rates were roughly equivalent then. My daughter was accepted in 2006. EA acceptance rate that year was 35%. RD acceptance rate that year was 35%. There might have been something of a boost for the group like my daughter who were deferred EA and admitted in the spring, as they would show up only in the RD stats – but the general consensus at the time was that there was no particular statistical advantage.
Chicago used to regularly ■■■■■ for more applicants in February, sending emails & paper mail after their application deadline to students like my son, who might have “forgotten” to get their app submitted in time, so were being kindly offered an extended deadline.
The more interesting question is why higher score = greater probability of admissions – is it the score itself or other aspects of the holistic application that are correlated with the score increasing? MIT’s website explains this more eloquently than I can in the quote below:
Of course not every college has the same admissions policy as MIT. For example, Vanderbilt decisions used to show a remarkable correlation with high scores, such that almost any reasonably qualified applicant who had scores at or above their 75th percentile was admitted; but applicants slightly below 75th percentile had a far higher rejection rate. As such, they were able to maintain a really high reported 75th percentile tor a college with their selectivity and applicant pool. For example, since 2015 Vanderbilt’s 75th percentile scores were 1590 and 35. I’m not sure how UoC has historically used scores in decisions…
@calmom : As I pointed out earlier, the number of applicants have more than doubled at most top schools since 10 years ago. The world population was estimated to have reached 7.6 billion people as of May 2018. So if you compare world population to the number of applicants, 2008 is equivalent to 1970s, when PC has not been invented. The tuition has also soared since then. College admissions have changed so much. Most people forgot their examples are not representative of how admissions are working today.
^^Can’t speak to when the EA and RD admit rates began to diverge but guessing Nondorf’s era so 2009 or so when the admit rates started their steep decline. UChicago for the past few years at the very least has had a very large number of early applications relative to other schools. Class of 2021 and Class of 2022 both saw a .5% admit rate for those deferred from the early pool to RD and, based on what @calmom is saying regarding her daughter and other similar tales, it would seem that they have really shifted the priority in the regular round to the new regular apps.
This is mostly do to overlapping application from the same students. In general, college admissions is actually getting less competitive over time:
The problem at the Ivies & equivalent is that many more students are applying to more overlapping schools, which artificially inflates the applicant pool, given that any individual student can only attend one college. At the same time, it places pressure on colleges to place greater emphasis on factors impacting yield in admission decisions – that is, to do their best to admit students who are going to attend. That makes admission seem even more unpredictable for the applicant – but it also incentivizes colleges to rely more on holistic factors outside of ED — because the student’s essays, LORs, activities, etc. often provide a good deal of information about whether that student is likely to attend if admitted.
Just one more reason that might also support Chicago’s decision to go test-optional. That may yield a cohort of applicants who are far less likely to be applying to or getting accepted by rival colleges. That is, 72% of students who get accepted by both Chicago and Harvard will choose Harvard – so it’s in Chicago’s interest to identify and reject or waitlist RD applicants who seem likely to get into Harvard. The same problem would hold true for cross-admits to Yale, Princeton, Stanford, etc. Whereas the numbers are reversed for students who are cross-admitted to U. of Michigan … so Chicago might do very well to try to attract more of those students.
The implementation of SCEA at many of the Ivies may have been a factor.
When my daughter was applying, it was allowed/acceptable for students to apply ED at one college and EA at many others – so the fact of an EA application didn’t convey any information to the college other than that the student was proactive. But when SCEA became more widespread it forced students to choose where to apply – so for example, they couldn’t apply early to both Harvard and Chicago-- and that in turn means that the act of applying EA communicates more yield-relevant information about the applicant. Chicago now knows that the EA applicants have not applied REA to Harvard, and also that their chances of admission to Harvard are diminished since REA does confer a clear admission advantage at Harvard.
@calmom The game theorists must be having a field day with all of these options. I wonder how many each admissions department has on staff.
"capable of doing better "
Yes, able to do better. Let’s say that stem appliant has a 680M, 750 CR. That M is ok, but on the low side. Next try, 750/740. You can see he/she is capable of that 750M, got there, that’s enough, move on.
But it’s ridiculous when these kids with a first result of 750/750 self consciously assure us they’re taking it again to aim for 780/780. Overkill. There’s too much to go through to worry about the college reporting a 780 over a 750.
Don’t forget the trick in the ACTis the sub scores, not compsite. That stem kid with a composite 34 but, say, a 30 math, isn’t “there.”
Still catching up on earlier posts . . .
“The place where I think “superscoring” might actually make a difference in the admission equation is the lower end. Because it may demonstrate that, to the extent that scores are seen as meaningful, a particular student is capable of doing better than whatever might otherwise be viewed as being below some lower end cutoff.”
Also, on the subject of lower ends - and by lower is meant “relatively lower” - a comparison of UChicago’s mid-50 composite ACT range to other per schools shows that most, like UChicago, are at 32 - 35. MIT and Cal Tech have a tighter range: 33 - 35 (MIT) and 34 - 35 (Cal Tech - but its class size is significantly smaller than everyone else). Princeton and Duke show a a slightly wider range: 31 - 35. Columbia’s range is shifted down slightly: 31 - 34. All of these are based on College Navigator (fall 2017).
Looking more closely at MIT shows that the English subscore range of 34 - 36 is a bit higher than UChicago’s of 33 - 35. Not surprisingly, it also had a “better” Math range 34 - 36 vs. 31 - 35. It’s the English score that’s surprising because you’d assume that UChicago would dominate there given the focus on writing-heavy Core classes (which attract some and not others). Perhaps UChicago’s higher International mix accounts for the slightly lower range (?)
Cal Tech also has a better English ACT range than UChicago: 34 - 36. It’s math range of 35 - 36 tighter than MIT’s. Again - very small, specialized class compared to other top uni’s.
So MIT (and Cal Tech) matriculate slightly stronger testers than does UChicago in both English and Math, and have stronger testers at the lower end of the range. MIT’s admission page shows that ACT testers with a composite of 34 - 36 were 80% more likely to be admitted than 31 - 33 testers, and they made up 82% of admitted students who submitted an ACT. And 87% submitted ENGLISH scores in that range! Of 1,200 “low scoring” applicants - so 30 or lower on the the ACT - only 15 were admitted.
Each school is different but one does wonder why MIT is so focused on the top 1% of the ACT percentile in its admissions decision. What’s wrong with 31 - 33? And why insist on strong scores overall, not just math? Finally, why do they provide all this detail about test scores on the admissions page? One has to conclude that to MIT, very high test scores matter.
“But on the upper end, I think that the Chicago admissions department is very much aware of the limitations of the test and the conclusions that can be drawn from it.”
“The first step of admissions to Ivies for non-hooked candidates is that regional officers are allocated a range of slots and are responsible for selecting a number of candidates from his/her region”
Um, no. There is first cut to weed out unrealistics (for various reasons.) Of course an adcom understands the probable instituional number that can be taken from that area, but at that point they are not doing much more than getting the worst long shots out. No coastal diffs. Then the app curculates for a second read (and more.) No one adcom is selecting finalists totally on his/her own. And in the end, there needs to be a consensus- but not necessaily a full table of folks sitting around calling yea or nay. (I do believe Chi, however, will be very conscientious, at first, about how they vet and vote on TO kids. Til they hit the right mechanism that pays back best.)
"Higher score means higher probability of admissions. " Not for any individual. Lol, I feel like we just forgot holistic. When scores are reported and it looks like more highest stats got admitted, it’s only after the strenuous vetting for what else matters. Miss it and your 1600 gets you zip.
According to the MIT stats page, approximately 2/3 of MIT applicants who submitted ACT scored a 34-36 on ACT composite. Assuming that having a high score is correlated with other admissions criteria MIT values, like MIT said occurs in the quote I listed a few posts back; MIT’s 25th percentile score would be 34+ even if MIT did not consider test scores in the admissions decisions. MIT’s actual range is 33-35. The lower 33 likely relates to yield issues and certain powerful hooks.
It’s a similar idea for English scores. 73% of MIT applicants scored a 34-36 on the ACT English. So if MIT admitted applicants through random lottery without considering the application at all; MIT would be expected to have a 25th percentile English ACT of 33 or 34 (assuming no yield issues)…
@Data10 : Your MIT quote at #685 really hit the core of how admissions to top schools works.
As I mentioned earlier, no one at my kid’s HS talk about scores. Everyone has scores. It is the parts in your file which others don’t have distinguish you.
It is laughable that some people are comparing UChicago with top-tier schools. UChicago is the emperor in the story of “The Emperor’s New Clothes”. While UChicago is a good school, by playing all kinds of games, in real world people are looking down on this kind of behaviors, which subsequently reduces its brand value. You just need to look at U.S.News High School Counselor Rankings and immediately you will know UChicago is not perceived to be even one of the top ten. Harvard, MIT, Stanford, Yale are ranked #1. Brown, Columbia, Cornell, Dartmouth, Johns Hopkins, Princeton are ranked #5. Duke, Georgetown, UChicago, UPenn are ranked #11. You might wonder why UPenn is the only Ivy ranked #11. The reason can be found in this [How many times has Trump mentioned his Wharton education?]( How many times has Trump mentioned his Wharton education? We crunched the numbers. | The Daily Pennsylvanian) article. At least to him, he doesn’t want to be associated with UPenn. I am sure if Wharton is ranked separately, it would certainly make it into #5. So why do I mention this School Counselor Rankings? Because in real world that is how most top candidates decide where to apply EA/ED and where to commit in case of cross-admits. The folks at UChicago are smart enough to know that they can’t get tippy-top students if those students have a choice, so they admit the majority of its students in EDs and keep the number as their top secret.
The tippy-top students get their tests out of the way in junior year and never bother to retake it. It is the rest of their files which distinguish them and win them the admissions to top schools. There are a lot more high stats kids than top schools can absorb. I can guess those who choose to commit to UChicago in EDs are not confident that the rest of their file is strongly enough to win admissions to top schools.
I have heard UChicago ,which like Tulane, Vanderbilt,etc., gives out merit aids. Unlike Tulane, which breaks down need/merit aids number (read [this](https://www.wsj.com/articles/prizes-for-everyone-how-colleges-use-scholarships-to-lure-students-1523957400) ), I can’t find how UChicago distributes its financial aids. Tulane estimates it will spend ** $71.5 million on awards this year not tied to financial need, and $64.2 million on need-based aid ** . I guess UChicago needs to spend a LOT of money if it wants to entice truly tippy top students to attend in RD. UChicago’s 57% full pay number is really high. Only 43% got some kind of aids. UChicago never said how much aids are given to people who really need financial aid (need-based aid) and UChicago doesn’t seem to budget any additional money for this round of propaganda campaign. This proves the whole thing is just a fraud to juice up its free applicants number.
@nrtlax33 This is absurd to me. UChicago is certainly a top college to people in the “real world.” When hiring people UChicago has and will continue to be one of the first schools I look to, above many of the schools you listed as better because of counselor rankings, which are almost totally irrelevant.
If you are so closed minded or uninformed that you cannot imagine that across a country with more than 300 million people, including more than 3.5 million high school graduates each year, there might be some difference in individual preference, then that says more about your lack of imagination than any one college or the students choosing that college. Approximately 1700 students matriculate at UChicago each year; even if 100% of that class applied and was accepted in the ED round, if you can’t even conceive that there are 1700 out of 3.5 million that would have UChicago as their first choice, that shows a startling lack of understanding that other people may not have your exact same personal bias.
As for attracting “tippy top” students, since you’ve been arguing that test scores are a key indicator of a top student and should be considered, the fact that Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Stanford all report the same mid-50 ACT range (32-25) as UChicago is an indicator that there’s not a meaningful difference in the quality of the students that are attracted and matriculating to all these fine universities. All of them attract top students and top students make different choices for their own reasons.
This is hard to understand for people with strong personal bias. They have certain beliefs about how things are and how people think and are shocked when others appear to have different beliefs. For some reason, these biases concerning which colleges top students prefer appear to be most prevalent in the coastal New England and coastal Pacific region and among older people. People who live outside those bubbles and are high school aged are much less inclined to be hardwired to believe that only the college their grandpa preferred is acceptable; younger people are looking at all their options and many of them are deciding that UChicago is their top choice. So if you’re an older person and live in one of the coastal bubbles, this may be a shocker to you but the data about where top students are going bears this out.
@lmao2018 : Outcome of any student from any reputable schools depends solely on each individual. While the folks at the UChicago undergrad admissions toast their LaCroix drink from National Beverage Corp. to celebrate, the rest of the world is just laughing at them, maybe laughing at the whole institution which allows them to make UChicago a laughing stock. People at UChicago should do a grand experiment to behave like HYP to see what happens if UChicago wants to be considered a peer to any of the top schools. UChicago does not even have the courage to honestly disclose its admissions data, which makes the institution a total joke. No more news release please before honestly releasing your admissions data.
@milee30 : I am sure any of those top schools can do a rolling EDs to fill all of its class. UChicago is the one which wants people to believe it is #3 by playing all kinds of games to fool those uninitiated people who have no knowledge of colleges. Honesty and integrity is the motto of my family, which is exactly what folks in your undergrad admissions office are lacking.
Yes. I have strong personal bias against people who don’t have honesty and integrity.