“So the scores that look like a match would actually be a reach, and the scores that look like a safety would actually be a match. Is that an reasonable generalization to make?”
Yes, that’s about right. My son’s scores/GPA matched or exceeded 75th percentile everywhere plus course rigor, research, and some atypical national awards. But, no hooks at all, geographic or otherwise, and he only wanted to apply EA at places like MIT that don’t give a boost. He was waitlisted at some top schools (Harvard, Stanford, UChicago), so it’s nice to know he was at least discussed in committee.
(Honestly, his Harvard essay made it clear that he wanted to “drink from the firehose.” I’m sure Harvard adcoms read those essays and thought he’d take half his courses down the road at MIT.)
But do not be scared away from trying for a college that is a great fit and a bit of a reach. Some unhooked applicants not in the top 25% of the college’s student scoring profile DO make it in, especially early decision at the small liberal arts colleges.
I know a completely unhooked, middle class kid, who seems like a typically excellent applicant for Wesleyan, who got into Wesleyan early decision. There is no way to know for sure, but I would guess it was partly on the strength of his recommendations and essay. I hear he is the type of kid who enlivens class discussions, and I bet all his teachers wrote about that. He is a kid who seems very Wes, and they must have recognized that from his application and interview. The “fit” was perfect. I bet he will do wonderfully there and be a great part of the community.
Similarly, I know unhooked kids who are celebrating their early decision admissions to Middlebury, Franklin and Marshall, Bucknell, and Lafayette.
And I know a couple of unhooked kids from two different high schools, who both made it into Cornell via regular decision!
And those are just the ones I thought of during this quick reply.
So do not be discouraged by factors you cannot control, like not having a so-called “hook.”
By guesstimate is that `hooked’ population in top 15 schools is more like 70-75%. Minority: nearly 25-30%. Recru9ted athletes: 10-15%. Legacy: average of 20%? First generation and/or Pell Grant awardees: 15-20%. Women interested in engineering or computer science: probably 10% of the full class (assuming engineering is nearly 20% of the total class size), underrepresented states: some, faculty/staff kids: some, children of rich/famous people: some, unpopular majors: some.
Now, before you try adding them up: remember that these categories overlap.
Then nearly 10% of the class is international.
This is why a candidate with no hook is left competing with somewhere between 15-25% of all seats. And when schools have ED, probably a smaller fraction of RD seats.
@osuprof You just spelled it out very well. I know its impossible to quantify exactly, but sure feels like the odds admission for this type of student at a top 15 school are much smaller than one would think or than even the increasingly scary statistics would indicate.
@TheGreyKing Thanks for the reminder that there are still lots of success stories out there. So many great options, so I have no doubt that it will all work out just fine, but like the idea of keeping expectations in check. And you bring up an interesting point about the LOR. I can see that being a differentiator.
“So the scores that look like a match would actually be a reach, and the scores that look like a safety would actually be a match. Is that an reasonable generalization to make?”
Yup. The problem with the overall average admit stats is that they are an average – they blend a lot of disparate pools of kids into one big pool.
What really matters for your kid is the odds of the particular pool your kid swims in. ED vs. RD. Legacy vs. non-legacy. Recruited athlete or not. URM vs. ORM. First gen or not. In-state vs. OOS (for selective state schools like UMich, UVA, etc.). Male vs. female (at some schools that tilt significantly one way or the other). Over-subscribed major (e.g. Comp Sci) vs. under-subscribed (Greek, Latin). Awesome ECs or typical. Pulitzer caliber essays vs. normal.
The more hooks you have, the lower your stats can be. And not all hooks have the same strength. The studies tell us, for example, that the African American URM hook is stronger than the Latino URM hook. The geographic hook is usually pretty weak, unless you hail from South Dakota.
But if you are an unhooked, white bread, suburban, so-called “average/excellent” kid applying to a top 25, your chances to get in RD stink unless your stats are way above average. If the white bread kid has average to slightly above average stats, you have to play ED/SCEA/REA. If the stats are slightly below average, ED probably won’t be enough to get accepted.
My average/excellent kid got into all the schools applied to ranked 15-25 where the stats were at the 75% level. Got rejected RD by all the schools applied to ranked 1-14 even though the stats were still around 75%. Very likely would have gotten into a 1-14 school if the ED silver bullet had been used or if the stats were more like 90% level.
That’s how it is with all the smart kids across the country all applying to the same 25 schools.
Numbers by @osuprof pretty much sum it up. DS2 is in the “Land of the unhooked” - average excellent student in affluent NJ suburban public school, ORM with no math or science prizes. Just a happy go lucky kid with many interests who likes school, does well, and is not planning to twist himself to a pretzel to get into a “top” school. Judging from the naviance results of his school, their outcomes are similar to Post #25. ED to places like Hopkins/ Tufts/Emory have been somewhat more successful in his school, according to naviance and the grapevine.
@osuprof I’m not disagreeing with you, but confused by the numbers. How do you get to minority representing 25-30%. I assume you are talking about URM and not including other ORM catagories. The black and latino representation at Harvard together is something like 17%. Can you explain where those numbers come from? Thanks!
I don’t know where 17% comes from, I imagine its from self reported sources. Apparently, the above numbers are what the applicants put down in their common apps.
That’s the rationale, but it is a gross oversimplification because there are many different types of “hooks” … and some are individualized rather than general categories. That is, a “hook” can be anything that stands out about a student and is valuable to the college. My daughter got into reach colleges with bottom quartile test scores because of a narrow academic interest & strength in an area that we could project would be valuable to the college. So that was a “hook” we created by doing our research. So that would potentially apply to any student who has a clearly identifiable strength that is unusual at least in the context of applicants to the particular college. And of course you are never going to find statistics to account for those things.
I think the problem is with too much focus on test scores and not enough on the whole package – because every year college are also going to admit many students with below median test scores who do not have obvious hooks. Bottom line, they are admitting students from across the spectrum of their reported score ranges, and many “hooked” applicants also have above-median scores – so it’s not as if they have a special admissions category reserved for lower scoring applicants.
I think the biggest mistake people make is placing outsized important on test scores and assuming that the kid with a 34 ACT somehow has better chances anywhere than a kid with a 31 ACT without accounting for the myriad of other factors that differentiate the kids – which is the part that ad coms are looking at. And I think for the elite level colleges, test scores may be the least important of the factors that are being looked at when making the decision as to whether to accept a students.
@jzducol My numbers were from college factual - describing the making up the student body. But your numbers are more indicative of who they are accepting now. Thanks!
Actually, Carleton gets more students from New York and Massachusetts than from most Midwestern states. Its 2014 entering class had 70 from Minnesota, followed by California 61, New York 36, Illinois 36, Washington State 26, Massachusetts 25, Texas 19, Wisconsin 18, Maryland 16.
Most schools draw most heavily from their home regions, but there are exceptions, and the patterns can vary in idiosyncratic ways. Grinnell—a school of comparable quality to Carleton in a nearby state (Iowa)—draws more students from Illinois (67) and California (39) than any other state, followed by Minnesota (30), then home-state Iowa (29), then Wisconsin and New York (17 each), and Massachusetts (14). The other Midwestern states are pretty much no-shows.
I have no idea why, as between the two schools, nearly twice as many Illinoisans end up at Grinnell while nearly twice as many New Yorkers and Massachusetts residents end up at Carleton. Or why Minnesotans seem willing to attend in-state Carleton but Iowans don’t seem so keen on in-state Grinnell. But I do know that blanket assumptions about these things are sometimes inaccurate.
Many LACS are eager to take kids who are “orm” – because they are not “o” at those schools. I totally agree that it helps to broaden your horizons to include schools that may not be the usual suspects in your zip code.
“that’s a nice explanation…scores are so easy to measure against but they are just one part of the application.”
But you have to rely on something in making a plan.
Having mega-awesome essays or recs is a hook. But since you don’t see anyone else’s essays or recs, how can you possibly know how good yours are? So the best way to proceed is to assume that your recs and essays are average for your stats. Also, schools differ on how much they do/don’t value high stats.
Some schools in the 10-20 range have test scores as high or higher than the 1-10 schools. It is safe to assume that your 35 ACT score is probably going to do more for your chances at Vandy (32-35 range) than at Stanford (31-35). Stanford could easily make their range 35-36 if they wanted to, but they are optimizing for other things.