@lookingforward You just reasserted my point. Admissions is not a crapshoot, but at the same time, there is no hard and fast way of getting the thick envelope. I just think we can’t solely rely on statistics to say that somebody with a 36 v 34 has an objectively better chance of admissions. Unless you are in the admissions room reading the application yourself, none of us has the qualifications to say what exactly one does and doesn’t need (remember, as I stated earlier, I am not justifying that a 1350 has a decent shot at Yale).
A “checklikst of hurdles?” More like various qualities they look for, which may fall into categories.
Benji, you previously spoke of the composite. If your subscores were off in some subject, how it matters is dependent on which major. A kid with low math and sci who wants to be stem is going to have a harder time. How one expresses/shows his fit is important. Part is academics, part is the rest of the app. The why Us is critical. It’s less a gift and more a test.
We’re cross posting. But my opinions are formed by certain experiences. We don’t need to agree further that just a score isn’t the whole bar.
Hmm, you’re right @Benji3025, I did forget about “fit.” But so you know, I wasn’t trying to argue that “GPA, SAT/ACT, ECs, LORs, and essays are the only factors that determine admission,” I was just wondering what other aspects colleges take into consideration that would tilt the scale towards Yes or No.
I guess colleges may also be looking for a certain type of student if they are in need of them that year (like more cellists to fill their orchestra or something), which we obviously don’t know nor can control. Obviously, I feel like we can agree that there are a lot of moving parts in an application. Anyway, I didn’t know you are attending Yale right now (congrats!), which makes more sense now why you’re arguing your perspective; you’ve already been through the whole college app process. And I’m just stuck in that limbo land of college apps where I’m looking for answers to unanswerable questions to calm my nerves haha…
I’m sure you do. That said, I understand this is just several anecdotal data points, but here goes: My son attended Yale and my daughter attended Harvard. Between them, they were accepted to a dozen top US colleges.
Both kids graduated from the same high school (Stuyvesant) with a high GPA, equivalent SAT Subject Test scores and lots of EC’s, which demonstrated commitment, dedication and leadership potential. FWIW: My daughter applied as Salutatorian (ranked 2nd out out 900+ students) with a 34 ACT and was accepted to 5 out of 10 colleges on her list, including Harvard, Northwestern and Wesleyan.
My son, who had a lower GPA than my daughter (and wasn’t an honors student) was accepted to 10 out of 11 colleges, including Yale, Princeton, Brown, Dartmouth, Williams and Pomona.
Why did my son do so much better in the college applications process? The only concrete reason I can point to is that he had a 36 ACT! So while I agree that tippy top schools look at student’s with a holistic approach, I also think they find it difficult to turn down a student with a perfect test score – which kind of means that a perfect test scores trumps pretty much everything in that holistic approach.
@gibby - interesting. Would professed choice of major been a factor as well, or did they major in the same thing?
@JBStillFlying: Not that I’m aware of, as both applied as undecided in terms of major.
@gibby Essays and recommendations are the unknown factors. Plus, different year, different applicant pool.
There is a huge percent of top stat kids who don’t make it. At different times, Stanford, Brown and Dart have published detail. Princeton is the one I find right now: 8% of 4.0 kids applicants admitted, 8% of 1500-1600 (and that’s a big range.) It means 92% of those are rejected. ACT 32-36, also a large range: 7.4% admitted, so 92.6 not. That’s not matriculants, it’s admits. Can’t say stats are the only thing. Or the big hammer. It’s a “concrete” element, yes, but far from all that got him in.
It’s not just essays and LoRs. Every aspect needs to be in line. There are multiple questions in a supp. Kids have a choice in how to list ECs. Overall, something (many somethings) needs to click. It’s not spike, it’s not unilateral, it’s not starting a biz or a non profit or having xxxxx youtube followers. It’s not major awards. The Why Us can’t be generic and shouldn’t be rote or boring. And so on. It’s an app. Not just a review of your hs record.
@brantly: Quite right – as there are a number of subjective unknown factors involved, including different year, different applicant pool etc. However, I’m willing to bet that my son’s higher ACT score was a significant factor in the number (and quality) of his acceptances.
^^The problem with the wide range of those scores - and this is deliberate on the parts of the schools - is that you can bet it’s not an 8% uniform acceptance rate across the range. Most likely a whole lot more 1600’s get in than 1500’s and same for the 36’s relative to the 32’s. Is it 20%? 10%? They don’t say. But a 1600 or a 36 is extremely hard to achieve so if they rank that up there as a “big deal” that would make sense. Obviously it’s not enough since the majority are likely still waitlisted or rejected. But it absolutely has to help.
But this is holistic, not rack and stack. Holistic 101, not just about grades or just a great essay or “my teachers love me.” And there’s a bar- eg, 730 or 750. And a softer one behind that. No one is swooning over an 800. Yale isn’t admitting a kid simply for having a 36. That’s not what holistic is about.
We don’t know the gpa. Or ECs, how he wrote, his nature that came across. He may have said undecided, but they look at the transcript and ECs and see the maybe directions. Of course, a kid can change, but the look is to see the logical pools of strengths.
I don’t know how off track we now are or if this thread has just acceptably morphed. But I think it would help many parents and kids if you could get away from the easy distrust of holistic and then learn enough about it (and what your kids’ targets want) to then use it to your advantage. Dissing holistic doesn’t help chances.
“Significant factor” or “has to help his application” is not the same thing as “simply admitting for having a 36.” @lookingforward, you seem to be downplaying the value of a top score. No one is saying that it’s the only reason someone is admitted (@gibby is doing an “all else equal” comparison betw. his/her two kids which is not the same thing). But surely it’s considered notable? Say you have two otherwise very similar applicants (of which admissions has to see quite a lot, given the thousands of applicants . . .). One has a 36 ACT, the other a 32. Which kid do you think has the higher probability of acceptance?
^^Does “holistic” mean that all attributes are weighted the same? I thought it meant that pretty much everything was on the table. We don’t know how Admission weighs the various components of an application.
All things being equal, the kid with the 36 ACT has a better chance, as that test score demonstrates they will exceed expectations on campus and do well in a competitive environment. Or, to put it another way: A rejected student with a perfect SAT/ACT must have had a luke warm teacher recommendation, GC recommendation or interview report.
“The only concrete reason I can point to is that he had a 36 ACT!” I do thi k this just to concrete.
It helps to get away from the hierarchical notions, that an 800 is more impressive than a 750. Not in terms of chances. A reader can the page and find disappointment.
I wouldn’t discount the importance of getting a 36 on the ACT, only 3,700 testers did it in 2018 which is .195% of 1,900,000 test takers.
You wouldn’t. But both a 750 and 800 are in the zone. It doesn’t matter how few got it. And a 32 is about 1420-1440. Not 1500.
Agreed that a 750 and an 800 are in the “the zone”. The question is whether TWO 750’s are in the same zone as two 800’s.
Yes. I’m calling it 750 to distinguish from an 800/700. Try to see it holistically. It’s rare kids are equal. There are shades. And institutional needs.
1 Like