<p>AdOfficer, what is interesting is that we know a number of kids who are excellent students at rigorous school who just do not excell on the SAT. My friends daughter who is graduating BC law school is one. She graduated from a top NE boarding school in the upper ten % ( the schools' estimate as they do not rank, but her GPA was high for such a school) taking a rigorous course load. She managed to get mid 1300s on her SAT. The college counselor cited the SAT as the reason she was waitlisted at most of her selective schools. She graduated summa cum laude from a major state school, honors college, double major with straight A's. Was not accepted to any selective law schools; waitlisted at Columbia and Georgetown. Went to state law school, transferred after first year to BC with a straight A average which she has maintained. Has received multiple offers from major law firms at $150K a year. My other friend's daughter, again from a rigorous independent school, with very good grades. In fact, the kids with her grades at her school are all going to super selective colleges. She did not get into any of the more selective colleges that required SATs, but did get into all of the colleges where the scores were not required, not sent. The counseling dept of her school recommended this route for her because of her scores. Both girls have had every educational advantage including test prep and tutoring. Both excellent, diligent students who learned their academic subjects without extra help. But, for whatever reason, they could not get those SAT scores up to match the grades.Looking at the spectrum of colleges, these girls applied to, the merit money they applied for, and the lack of success due to the low test scores, you wonder what selective schools' admissions offices really examine, and how much thought they do give to each app. It seems to come down to the test scores since both girls' peers at their respective schools (peers in terms of grades, courses and activities) all got into highly selective schools where they could not get any entry.</p>
<p>AdOfficer, it is true that the analogies were removed because of their cultural bias. However, it has been shown that the gap between white and minority students is actually larger on the other parts of the verbal section than it was with the analogies.</p>
<p>prettyckitty, </p>
<p>One reason may be because only 50% of black high school students take English composition classes while over 67% of white and Asian-American students do...this is a problem with course selection, which often times is the result of poor counseling...white students have been shown to be given better and more counseling in their high schools than their black peers, even at the top schools that place a premium (literally $$$) on their counseling services. </p>
<p>Also, there are direct correlations between family income and performance on the SAT. One of the studies I did in graduate school actually was on this - I looked and SAT scores, admissions outcomes, income and race of students at a variety of high schools in the Boston-area and was utter disgusted by the correlation...Regardless, if you actually look at the demographics of test-takers in this country (available from the College Board), about 20% of the black students taking the SAT are coming from families earning less that $20k, while only 5% of white test-takers come from this income distribution; only 7% of black test-takers come from incomes above $100k, compared to 27% for white students. Income is not the cause, necessarily, for the testing gap (there is simply a correlation). However, high schools that are predominantly black do, in general, tend to get less funding than predominantly white schools and attract less-qualified teachers than predominantly white schools. Additionally, black students tend not to take the same courses in high school that white and Asian-American students take...there is still plenty of prejudice out there and assumptions made about the abilities of black students, leading many teachers and counselors to underestimate black students' potential. Thus, many are not placed in the advanced classes that they should be and their preparation is not as good...</p>
<p>cptofthehouse:</p>
<p>The one important things testing does is provide a standardized tool with which to consider a student. However, we do read into the scores a lot, based on the background, experiences, and opportunities a student has had, in addition to the quality of the high school a student has attended. It concerns me when schools do not look at test scores within the educational context of each individual student. However, most highly selective schools do do this and put a lot of time into reading each file...much more than most people imagine. In addition, we spend A LOT of time talking about each kid. Each school has its own process for reading and decision-making, but most highly selective schools do truly give each applicant their fair shot. Do all highly selectives do this - no. But most do. To me - and a lot of others in admissions - not doing so runs counter to the social and philosophical missions of these institutions. </p>
<p>It is very frustrating, though, to hear/read comments like yours when people compare one kid they know to another or talk about a certain student and try to understand why they did or didn't get in to a certain school...it's nothing personal, it happens all the time, believe me. Most people don't really look at admissions at individual institutions from a macro level, which we in admissions have to do. What you have to remember is that that one student you are talking about or that one student you know - however great they are - is competing with thousands - maybe even tens of thousands - of other students with academic and EC profiles, talents, perspectives, and experiences that are all equally impressive, though in different ways. I cannot stress this enough - most of the kids applying to the "top" schools in this country are amazing in a variety of ways...this is one of the reasons why I don't agonize for weeks over making my decisions - I know that if I reject a kid with a wonderful high school record and wonderful scores and a wonderful record of ECs and talents that they are going to get admitted elsewhere, probably do well, and be a success anyway (just like the kids you are talking about). In a way, most of the applicant pools at the top schools are self-selective and as such are uber-competitive. At times, it can be frustrating to understand (even for me) because there are so many inconsistencies in what we do. However, every decision is made with a lot of thought behind it at most places, who are trying to construct a community of learners who will benefit from the education offered at the school, but also benefit from each others' experiences, talents, and perspectives. Stellar GPAs and high testing really aren't rare at our highly selective schools, nor are impressive EC profiles...what <em>is</em> rare is finding a student who actually expresses WHY what they have done in school and out of it is important to them. Kids that do this and have the smarts are the most successful in college admissions...</p>
<p>AdOfficer: Thank you for your insightful and thorough posts. However, I'd like to comment about one of your posts.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I'd also like to add that standardized testing has severe limits...there's a lot of educational research out there suggesting that there are serious cultural biases in the exam, not to mention ridiculous costs associated with it, a variety of problems in the administration of the test, and the fact that it only really measures your analytical achievements, not your creative, experiential, or other forms of learning...
[/quote]
</p>
<p>While the SAT is indeed flawed, one can also make a case that high school GPA measures are equally flawed. Frankly, GPA is a much better measure of how skilled a student is at regurgitating information than it is a measure of a students' potential to learn. In addition, there have been many problems with GPA such as rampant grade inflation and different grading standards between schools.</p>
<p>As I said before, I believe the SAT does have some flaws but at the same time, equally flawed GPA's need to be standardized somehow. In this sense, the SAT can give admissions counselors a more complete picture of an applicant (and I see in the post above that you acknowledge this). It would be better if a test could measure things like "practical intelligence", but how exactly does one do that?</p>
<p>Adofficer -- I have a question -- just curious. I understand why you have not disclosed which highly selective college you work for (makes a lot of sense!) -- but can you disclose whether your college is (a) in the northeast and/or mid-Atlantic, and (b) general size (small LAC vs. mid-size college vs. larger university)? I'm asking because it might give some context to your comments -- I do have the impression that smaller colleges are able to take a much more holistic approach than a larger university.</p>
<p>sfgiants, I think AdOfficer's point is that the colleges are not looking for a standardized instrument of comparison -- it is NOT a contest to find the smartest students. Almost all of the students who apply are smart and highly qualified, and the ad coms do have information from school profiles or class rank that give a good indication as to where a student stands in relation to their peers. Studies have shown that high school GPA's are far more predictive of college success than SAT scores -- that is NOT because all the GPA's represent the same amount of academic achievement, but rather because a high rank and GPA provides an indication of the student's work habits and their attitude toward school work. The students who are willing to go the extra mile for A's in high school probably take that attitude with them to college. </p>
<p>I think they really want students who have distinguished themselves in some way. I don't think that means the kid has to have won an olympic medal or done groundbreaking research .... but the most selective colleges are looking for something that makes the student stand out. It could just be an unusual hobby or job or an extraordinary essay -- but the point is, there is something that makes that student seem intriguing. When just about every kid applying has 6-10 AP courses, when they all have weighted GPAs above 4.0, when they all have packed their schedules with the most difficult academic course load their high school offered.... then they all kind of look the same. Participation in typical in-school activities or EC's doesn't really stand out, by itself, because when there are hundreds of other applicants with the same set of activities.</p>
<p>Notre Dame is notorious for accepting too many legacies...or so I hear..</p>
<p>Haru07--Wrong! and to those of you that think being Catholic helps-Wrong! Son was accepted EA last year--no legacy, not Catholic and did not even play one sport in HS. He did however, have great grades, SATs and ACT scores. He wrote a very passionate essay and paid attention to adcom info when preparing that application. As to why kids are admitted or rejected, Who Knows? Son suffered rejection also, from Ivy to West Coast. But, I can tell you that ND has been a perfect fit for him so far. I honestly believe that grades, scores, essay must be used as a cutoff point for most colleges these days. Keep in mind people, applications are up everywhere-last year was a real shock. I also think that ND is being very careful this year with admit #s because of overcrowding. Finally, everything does work out in the end--what is meant to be will happen!! Good Luck!</p>
<p>Notre Dame AL, there are a number of Catholic schools that do enjoy prefered acceptances from ND, as there are for GT and BC. I have seen a 6 year record and it does stand, and the college counselors will privately tell parents that this is so. It's not a flagrant thing, and you are not going to see much in the way of discrepancies among other accepted. It's just that kids who meet the threshholds are not as often surprises rejectees. Though I may use individual kids as examples, I am also bring in the highschool counselor's take on the situation in general so that the example is not an anecdotal exception which happens in any situation at times.</p>
<p>That is why I asked about the hardworking, excellent students with low SATS despite favorable background who are heavily recommended by the counselors at schools known for their rigor. Counselors in a number of those schools (and they seem to know the score here, as some of them have been in college admissions at one time) are not optimistic about those kids. They tend to be waitlisted, is what I, and the parents I know were told, and that is exactly what happened in the cases I know. It seems to me that those accepted at the very top schools, rather than being able to communicate their desires in academia, are the ones who have glaringly obvious special skills or talents or situations, that these college want. When I look at the lists of who was accepted where with what attributes at a number of highschools, it is the asteriked (to denote special category) kids who tend to get into the top schools. Other than that, you have the typical very top student with very high test scores, and very high grades in the hardest subjects. I don't see any wiggle room for someone without that profile who also has even the most noble, most admirable motives for going to college.</p>
<p>In other word, I see alot of kids who well express WHY what they have done in school and out of it is important to them. It 's the definition of the smarts in terms of course rigor, grades, and TEST SCORES, that starts separating the wheat from the chafe. Even those are set aside to some degree, if the kid falls into a category where he has something the school wants.</p>
<p>calmom - </p>
<p>I work at one of the most selective private colleges in the country; I have worked at a variety of institutions: small, non-selective, larger, most-selective, and most-selective LAC. I have also worked in the northeast and on the west coast; all the schools I have worked at are private. I do think that small schools - like the most-selective LACs - probably can be a little more thorough in their readings and evaluations of students; however, my experience with certain Ivies (attending two, working at 2, knowing folks who work at 3) is that they, too, use a fine-toothed comb as well. Remember, the staffs at the Ivies are huge compared to the LACs. Hope this gives you some better context. </p>
<p>sfgiants - </p>
<p>GPAs can be flawed, but one of the things I spend a lot of time on in reading a file - and a lot of officers I know do as well - is picking apart the high school transcript. what is more important than the actual, numerical GPA is the courses the student took and the grades/work they received/did in those classes. Right now I'm reading a file where a student is the valedictorian based on an unweighted GPA, yet he is only taking honors classes while many of his peers are taking AP and IB courses. Unweighted, they are slightly lower in GPA than he is, but A-'s in AP and IB courses are more impressive than A's in honors courses. We know all the schools in our territories well - if we read an application and don't know the school well, be make phone calls, talk to other colleagues or peers at other schools, or call the school and ask questions directly to understand what a student's transcript really represents. Even doing this homework, we do find that most of the kids applying can do the work at our schools, thus, to echo calmom, we are looking for students who have distinguished themselves in other ways.</p>
<p>First of all, I"m sorry your daughter didn't get in. What strikes me is that if her stats were so high, I'm surprised she didn't get deferred. Anyway, </p>
<p>you posted...</p>
<p>I have fairly good reason not to doubt what our GC was told. As I said earlier, she was not asked by the denied students or their families to inquire as to the reason for denial, so there would have been no reason to soften the blow.</p>
<p>I would think the GC has a lot of reasons to potentially not be as upfront as you think. If the record of getting kids into top schools is not very strong then it would be better for them to have a score cut-off from a school as opposed to something that they could/should control such as things that reflect poorly on the school. Granted, I am a Notre Dame person, I just don't believe that the score thing is true.</p>
<p>I"m sorry your daughter didn't get in either. EA is rough--sometimes it works out, but it can be really demoralizing for these kids when their first exposure to the world of college admissions is "thanks but no thanks."</p>
<p>I also tend to doubt the reason is as simplistic as a score cutoff, because if it were true my D. would not have been admitted. She didn't take the ACT at all and her SAT's were only in the middle of the range--in fact after I read how conservative ND is with EA I assumed she'd be deferred. We are west coast though, and kids here just do NOT want to go to South Bend for 4 years, so if they have any geographical diversity goals that would have helped her. She also has nothing against a really structured curriculum with lots of requirements. Although on the surface her choices are very different, they are all schools with "core" requirements. I think a conservative, structured, traditional school is a great fit for her, and I"m really REALLY curious to see how ND teased that out of her application, unless it was from her teacher recommendation.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I'm surprised she didn't get deferred.
[/quote]
I know absolutely nothing about Notre Dame admissions, but I'd like to note that the chances of getting in after a deferral vary widely at different colleges. A deferral can really mean that the ad com is undecided and wants to see midyear grades before making a decision.... but it can also be a polite way of saying "probably not".... and a deferral in fall to be followed by a rejection in the spring isn't really doing anyone any favors. </p>
<p>So yeah.... it sucks .... but at least the rejection gives the student the opportunity to move on and commit emotionally to other schools on their list... as opposed to simply being disappointed twice by the same school.</p>
<p>S (who got admitted to several Ivies) was wait-listed from a high-ranked Catholic university last year. His social studies teacher, a graduate from and alumni interviewer for said school, was pretty upset about it because S was a "best in career" type of kid. Worse, a student from the same high school who did get in was definitely not as qualified but was a legacy (and Catholic). The teacher and his GC both offered to call the school and push for admission if S wanted them to. He politely declined. Another student from the HS also got in. Well-qualified, but no more than S, but also Catholic. We couldn't help but wonder if the religious aspect hurt, especially after we heard stories about parochial school principals and bishops calling on behalf of kids.</p>
<p>I wanted to add that I didn't think the OP was complaining at all. This, and many, many other threads on CC, just expresses the frustration parents and students feel with this process: the crap-shoot factor; the lack of transparency about cut-offs that seem to exist but are overridden for legacies and hooks--which we all agree the school has a perfect right to do but it's frustrating that no one knows what hook has the potential to get a student in for any given admission year; the fact that some excellent high schools can't break in to certain top schools despite having stellar applicants while other high schools (usually expensive prep schools) send many students each year (our HS, for ex., can't get anyone in to Harvard or Yale, and almost never Brown), and so on. In other words, we like to be in control of our destiny and this process is simply not within anyone's control as far as admission to any ONE school is concerned. I think this fact needs to be emphasized again and again to parents and students to avoid hurt and disappointment. The most disappointed tend be the students who have been brought up to believe that numbers are the ticket. Last year we saw quite of few of them shocked by their paltry admission results. After all, they worked extremely hard only to watch the mediocre-by-comparison-student who's an athlete or was popular enough to be elected class president, get in to Princeton over them (has happened at our HS several times). It's no one's fault, I don't think it can be changed, but I do think that the arbitrary nature of admissions needs to be stressed a lot more to kids and parents. Until I started reading CC, I thought the process was a little more straightforward.</p>
<p>GFG, I have not seen any difference in how nonCatholics have been treated in the admissions process here vs Catholics within the same school setting. Not saying it is does not happen, but I honestly don't see it. I do see certain schools enjoying a definite boost in admissions to certain schools, and that is the case for certain Catholic schools. </p>
<p>Adofficer, I am not doubting that you or other admissions do not see the whole picture better than any of us who are only dealing with small areas at a time. It was an eye opener to me when we moved from the midwest to the northeast. We now live in an area where the kids are truly much better prepared both academically and in ECs than where we did live, and I can understand why our former public highschool for all its bragging of excellence did not fare well in admissions of its students into the most selective schools. In fact, I see now that the reason some kids even got in wise probably because of the geographics. I have seen kids turned down by NYU here that were much, much stronger in every single thing than those accepted back west. (However, I will say that the "elite" school in that area has New Yorkers impressed at the academic prowress of the locals; it can fill its class with locals as every top student applies there, whereas it is not a top choice for most northeast kids who are top qualifiers at all colleges). </p>
<p>I just have not seen any examples of a kid who demonstrates the intangible values that I often hear adcoms express are so important, get in if they are lacking in the top academic numbers. Our college couselors at our highschool are old warhorses at this, having worked in both colleges and highschools in this admissions process. It's truly a "gotta have the numbers" to get accepted before any personal qualities are evaluated. Among the too many who qualify with the numbers, there is an attempt to get those who best exemplify certain values, but you aren't going to find someone accepted by that virtue who did not make the numbers cut. That is, unless the student has some talent or skill or something on the college wish list.</p>
<p>I do believe in this case the GC is telling truth about what ND said. I think the numbers cut came at the end of the process, rather than at the beginning. The app as a whole put the young lady in a category where there was that cut off. I think that is done a lot. If she had had something that the school really wanted, that cut off would not have applied, but being in the BWRK category, the threshhold that was used was that ACT score. Test score cutoffs are not consistent to everyone but to categories of kids. I have known of athletes that were perfect to a college, but they did not make a specific academic cutoff (albeit lower than what the regular student had) and did not get into a school. (Heck, didn't that happen to Joe Namath?) At this point, I think the counselors at the highschools should know that high grades and test scores, though necessary to survive the cutting process in top scores, are not the sure way in, and that there are other things examined once kids are in a certain threshhold. Many stages of cuts in those processes. I can say that with the data I examined, I did not see many surprises within a school. Not once did I see an unasteriked admit with academic credentials below those who truly the top students. The top kids did tend to get into the top schools overall, even those who did not have the most distinguished ECs or personalities though they may have been turned down by some of their choices.</p>
<p>In the MIT folder, jessiehl put it more succinctly than I have ever seen anywhere before. She wrote "Perfect grades and test scores don't get you into MIT; they get you considered."</p>
<p>This is true of any of the uber-selective colleges being discussed here.</p>
<p>cptofthehouse, I know a young man who was admitted to one of the most selective LACs in the country with a 29 ACT (his highest score in several sittings) and very good - but not perfect - grades. The adcoms there definitely looked carefully at his file. I am not saying this happens everywhere. I am just saying that it DOES happen!</p>