Amazed at kids Over 2250 SAT Being Denied

Parents Forum
41

<p>My D recently applied to Kenyon. They consider her a first generation student and sent her an application within 2 weeks to pay for 90% of airfare or $50 in gas to visit. Kind of made me feel guilty because she is not in need of this. I am 100% positive there are many kids applying to Kenyon with much higher stats but do they receive this? No. Same at American, she was encouraged to apply for Frederick Douglass scholarship for her diversity. ( she is white, but I guess it is the area she is from plus first generation.)</p>

<p>I can see the other side though. My D did not have access growing up to educational opportunities that exist for kids in amazing high schools or private high schools. We were never told what to do for her. I guess it was the grace of God my grandparents took us in so we weren’t homeless and my D was a smart girl. But did she have a more difficult path? Absolutely, if you look at the statistics for kids born to 17 year olds, Junior in high school.</p>

42

<p>

</p>

<p>Seven years ago, now, my daughter applied ED to Columbia. She was a National Merit Finalist, had the equivalent of 2300 SATs, meaningful third-party (nonschool) regional awards, blah, blah, blah. Her class rank was screwy because she had changed schools in 11th grade, but her GC letter addressed that. She had previously been in the top 10-15 of her class at a school where ~40 went to Ivies or the equivalent.</p>

<p>Anyway, her alumni interviewer, also the president of the local alumni club – someone I had never met or spoken to – called me up when she left his office to tell me that in 16 years of interviewing students he had never met one who had impressed him as much, or had such a perfect fit with what he thought Columbia stood for. It was late in the process, so he was faxing his report that night.</p>

<p>Anyway, she was prepared for the interview, obviously, did a good job, and stood out.</p>

<p>Deferred, then rejected. She knew most of the kids they took locally, and understood exactly what each one offered that maybe she hadn’t. It wasn’t that she wasn’t good; they were really good, too. And plenty of other fabulous candidates she knew also got turned down, including a classmate of hers who was the top African-American in the city’s school system that year. </p>

<p>Today, Columbia’s admission rates ED and RD are just about half what they were then. </p>

<p>And, by the way, all of the students involved in this story – the ones accepted at Columbia, and the ones who wound up going to a different college – loved their colleges. My daughter lives in New York, has a job many Columbia graduates would kill for, has lots of friends and colleagues who went to Columbia, and has never once said she wishes she had gone to college there.</p>

43

<p>

How old were those old days? In my old days, which was about 30 years ago, not many people were getting into the top schools with those scores unless they were really hooked.</p>

44

<p>25 years ago 1200 got my friend in Penn; 1175-1300 got 3 who graduated 3 years before me; 1250 got 1 in Yale; and 2 classes after me - 4 got into Yale, Princeton (athletic hook), Penn and Swat with 1075-1200. We are a poor burb of Philly. No APs. School funding focuses on sports in a very low league.</p>

<p>The one thing to remember for kids with these stats is that they should apply to a wide range in order to have strong back-ups for their IVY dreams. The kids who focus only on the elite schools sell themselves short of choices.</p>

45

<p>“Ivy admissions are a crapshoot for even the most statistically well qualified” - I agree. And it seems true whether the student is hooked or unhooked. My thought is that high school students should do what they love. Yes, they should make efforts to be well-rounded. But I don’t think their ECs should be geared toward collecting impressive resume bullets. </p>

<p>CC serves a good service educating families that acceptances (and money) are not guaranteed to students with stellar stats. That allows them to plan realistically.</p>

46

<p>

</p>

<p>Well maybe not most, but about half at some and darn near half at all. Athletes are 15 plus percent, URMs 15-20 percent, legacies are often 10 plus percent. I haven’t eve included staff kids, connected kids, kids from S. Dakota…</p>

<p>People don’t realize how few seats are left after these institutions fill their own needs.</p>

47

<p>Excuse me, but that’s a silly post, Waverly. Are you really suggesting that “athletes” and “URMs” are mutually exclusive categories? “Legacies,” athletes," and URMs? I have a family in Texas I’d love you to meet, with two Harvard-alum parents of three much younger Harvard alums; each of the latter qualified in all three categories. And kids from South Dakota (or Montana) . . . you really think they are occupying enough beds to count? If they were, they wouldn’t be getting any boost at all.</p>

48

<p>I’ve sent athletes, legacies and URMs to top colleges for a decade and reviewed their applications at top colleges for a decade before that. While some are certainly highly qualified, trust me, as a group they bring averages way down.</p>

<p>As for kids from underrepresented states, add underrepresented countries and the group is significant. Throw in low income, first gen and all the other institutional desires and there’s nothing silly- this is half the class!</p>

49

<p>Off the top of my head (I’m not going back to the thread now that we’ve moved on) of the Stanford admits that people were looking at 2 of the white boys were from Idaho. Again, very interesting sounding kids and greats stats, so not unqualified in any way, but from Idaho which could help move the app towards the top of the pile.</p>

50

<p>College admission, to top schools, is NOT just about great stats. I know that this is disheartening for many, but schools are selecting based upon institutional needs…what I refer to as “Slots.” Great grades and test scores earn applicants a place at the table so-to-speak, but is not the determining factor for admission.</p>

<p>I read many posts that infer a right to admission based on hard work in high school. The most troubling of all is the put-downs of those who are accepted with stats lower than others. There is no right to admission regardless of stats and admission is based on a match of the student and the institution. </p>

<p>Back to the slots concept…for example…every top college needs poets, athletes, math majors, artists, nerds, leaders, diversity, computer majors, and tuba players. They cannot admit 1000 political science majors regardless of stats! If they need a tuba player and the tuba player has a lower SAT score than a political science major…guess who they will accept…the tuba player. No offense to tuba players…just an example to make a point. Demographically…if all of the top applicants are from New York…they will deny many from NY to achieve diversity on the campus! They want to create a community that represents many points of view and talents…which creates the university experience everyone is seeking.</p>

51

<p>

</p>

<p>Schools are quite open about this. When we visited UofC, the dean of admissions said that when he was assistant dean of admissions at Yale, they graduated several trumpet players. The band director came into admissions and said: “get me some trumpets.” As he put it: “that was a great year for trumpet players who wanted to go to Yale. The next year? Not so good.”</p>

52

<p>Also…there is only a minute difference between a 31 and a 36 on the ACT.</p>

53

<p>

Sorry, I disagree. I think there’s a minute difference between a 34 and a 36, but not a 31. Now I do agree that’s just one element that is (and should be) considered.</p>

54

<p>Human nature for me to:</p>

<ol>
<li> Desire that which is rare or difficult to acquire for whatever reason</li>
<li> Resent it when others (no more deserving than I) acquire the rare thing, and I don’t</li>
<li> Keep rehashing the perceived injury in my mind</li>
<li> Try to find meaning in negative events and restabilize my world view</li>
</ol>

<p>It’s nice when you have friends who can help you do #4. Even if you didn’t do #2.</p>

55

<p>From the public data available:</p>

<p><a href=“http://media.collegeboard.com/digitalServices/pdf/SAT-Percentile-Ranks-Composite-CR-M-W-2011.pdf[/url]”>http://media.collegeboard.com/digitalServices/pdf/SAT-Percentile-Ranks-Composite-CR-M-W-2011.pdf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>If you add the cumulative totals down to 2250, there are about 14,700 students with that score. Now, factor in that at every 10 points below that score, there are between 2000 and 2500 additional students. Consider that students talk about their scores by combining the best separate scores from more than one sitting, and its not inconceivable at all that there are 30,000 students, and possibly many more, who have scored above 2250 on a composite basis.</p>

<p>If you add the totals down to the 96th percentile, you add another 50,000 students. </p>

<p>Add the fact the schools are looking for musicians, athletes, actors, etc.</p>

56

<p>*Quote:
We were THRILLED to get a 1300 M+CR…it could get us in anywhere…including Harvard…now a 1300 M+CR is meh…move on.</p>

<p>=================================
How old were those old days? In my old days, which was about 30 years ago, not many people were getting into the top schools with those scores unless they were really hooked. *</p>

<p>My H was accepted to Harvard in 1973 with a 1330…no hooks whatsoever…Sal of his class…from a regular high school…no APs or anything …he never even took CHEMISTRY in high school!!! He was from the Chicago area…so not from a unique region. He wasn’t first gen…both parents college grads and middle-income. H was in need of lots of FA to attend. </p>

<p>But for those who don’t see the “scoring changes” from our days back in the Stone Age (when we tested ONCE with no prep) to now…I’ll give you this example from a student who practiced and who recently was accepted to Stanford!)</p>

<p>SAT: 2040 (11/2010)
SAT: 2150 (1/2011)
SAT: 2320 (10/2011) </p>

<p>So, within a year, this kid raised his SAT nearly 300 points…taking him from a very likely Stanford rejection to accepted.</p>

<p>*Also…there is only a minute difference between a 31 and a 36 on the ACT. *</p>

<p>Don’t think so. I could argue that there’s not much difference between an ACT 33 and 36…may just be an issue with a particular test…</p>

57

<p>I agree the number of students with a 36 is far less than a 31…which produces a significant difference in terms of students. I was referring to the fact that a 31 is in the 96th percentile and a 36 in the 99th…both represent outstanding students. </p>

<p>Of course…when tens of thousands are applying to the world’s top colleges…the scores do provide a quantifiable way of magnifying small differences and differentiating applicants.</p>

58

<p>I got into Penn and UCB in 1985 with 650/640 one sitting no hooks</p>

59

<p>

You can’t tell about hooks or anything like that, but Harvard and Yale post all the statistical data.
Yale’s in here somewhere:
[1976-2000</a>, Yale Book of Numbers | Office of Institutional Research](<a href=“http://oir.yale.edu/1976-2000-yale-book-numbers]1976-2000”>http://oir.yale.edu/1976-2000-yale-book-numbers)</p>

<p>In 1976 I think the median was around 1350 or so with the 75% around 1450.</p>

<p>Harvard’s in here someplace, it’s slightly higher
<a href=“http://pds.lib.harvard.edu/pds/view/2582287?n=22752&s=4[/url]”>http://pds.lib.harvard.edu/pds/view/2582287?n=22752&s=4&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>From official data I’ve seen most of the other Ivy school and top schools are singifcantly lower than that for the median (or average, which is slightly lower than the mediam). Numbers around 1250 -1300 (with some exceptions ).</p>

<p>I could probably find the links but I’m supposed to be working. :)</p>

<p>THere’s some stuff in here (page 51) for folks interested in memory lane.
<a href=“http://www.irs.princeton.edu/pubs/pdfs/409.pdf[/url]”>http://www.irs.princeton.edu/pubs/pdfs/409.pdf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

60

<p>

</p>

<p>It’s hard for me to see how all those hooked applicants are both ‘half the class’ and ‘bring the averages way down’.</p>

<p>Let’s compare Harvard with CalTech. Caltech lacks D1 athletics, is a much smaller school and has a very specific focus. It’s certainly not known for requiring a special ‘hook’ to get in. Yet except for the Math SAT, Harvard’s scores look like CalTech’s.</p>

<p>Harvard middle 50 percentile</p>

<p>690-800 CR
700-790 M
710-800 W</p>

<p>CalTech
690-770 CR
770-800 M
680-770 W</p>

<p>For each section, 75 percent of Harvard’s student body is (about) in the top 6 percent of all test takers. I’m not sure how this translates into total scores.</p>

<p>Are you saying that all of Harvard’s scores should look like CalTech’s math scores–that Harvard student’s should have 770 and above on all sections? What about the kid who scores 800 on both CR and Writing but 690 on Math? (I know a student like that, without a hook). Is that student, if accepted 'bringing the average way down? </p>

<p>Overall, the student body at Harvard is very accomplished with respect to test scores.</p>