<p>^^^Kelsmom-I think you're right-my older D goes to such a school, and although her scores were great, she knows of kids who sscored around 29, and they are every bit as capable and very involved in their school. Their contributions and successes should be encouraging to every student that although they may not be the very best of the very best, lol, that one aspect of their apps will not hold them back. Some schools do those in depth reads, and I applaud them.</p>
<p>I also know a young man with SATs less than average for the school he's now attending and good but not perfect grades. He was, however, a stellar member of his high school community. The admission folks at the excellent university that accepted him "got" him - took the time to see what he would bring to the school - and he's shining there - he doesn't take it for granted, he's excelling academically, he's very involved across the board - I credit this school for looking beyond numbers and taking a kid who didn't have the stats but had other qualities that mattered to people who took time to care. I am so impressed with AdOfficer - and I think that many admissions officers are idealists who are trying to create a healthy community of diverse learners - I really do think this and AdOfficer is affirming it.</p>
<p>I'm enjoying reading the posts in this thread...however, there's something I would like to add here.....</p>
<p>I've noticed that here - and in other threads - people providing anecdote after anecdote about an extremely "qualified" candidate to a school who didn't get in "over a less-qualified" candidate. These statements really bother me, for a variety of reasons. However, first and foremost, it's important to remember that elite colleges and universities aren't going to admit anyone who can't do the work, period. These schools are very concerned about retention and graduation rates, much like any other school. They aren't going to admit a kid they think can't do the work. </p>
<p>A lot of folks mention legacies, development cases, athletes, under-represented minority students in these anecdotes...I gotta say that in all these cases, these "hooked" kids are not going anywhere they can't succeed at. Many of the legacies at a lot of schools are quite competitive for admission without their legacy hook, as are a lot of development cases (which, at most places, are very few and far between...especially at the top schools. you've really gotta be dropping a huge about of money, like six figures a year, to really get the attention of admissions offices at many places). </p>
<p>Athletes are also usually very strong, regardless of their hook; most are within the top 20% of test-takers in the country (not that testing is the most important thing) and are academically prepared for rigorous colleges; when we consider their academic achievements in light of their committments to their sports, these students are actually quite impressive (being able to compete at the collegiate level takes a lot of talent, time management skills, and usually over 30 hours of practicing a week, in addition to schoolwork and other activities). I feel like a lot of folks are devaluing these students' talents in preference of music talent, community service, or other activities which, I feel, really isn't fair. Athletes contribute a lot to the life of colleges and universities socially and financially; teams also provide students with opportunities to develop their leadership skills; they also instill a lot of school spirit amongst alumni. </p>
<p>With respect to under-represented minority students, well, see my posts in the "I wish I weren't Asian" thread (so sad someone felt that way!!! be proud of who you are!)...many of these students are more academically talented than a lot of CC'ers are giving them credit for. In addition, a lot of people on here are throwing out statistics about admissions of URM students that simply are not true...I detailed a lot of research done on these students in the "I wish I weren't..." thread if you're interested in knowing more about this subject. </p>
<p>But perhaps what is most frustrating about these assumptions and anecdotes is that some folks are ignoring something basic here: you do not know what is in other peoples' applications. Unless you have read every single piece of someone else's application, you don't know what you're talking about. Perhaps that kid in your class with the lower SAT score had amazing teacher recommendations or wrote a fantastic essay that helped us better understand why their SAT scores were lower or why they only have a A- average instead of an A+ average. Maybe the kid everyone thought would get in to Princeton or Brown or Yale had recommendations in their application that suggested they're arrogant and don't contribute to the learning of others in the classroom (do you think we'd want to admit a kid like this?). In fact, unless you read every single word of your own application or your kid's application - including all the essays and recommendations - you don't even know everything that's in your own (or your kid's) application. </p>
<p>Does comparing your candidacy to a school to someone else serve as a barometer or sorts? Sure. But can you speak with authority about why you were admitted or denied to a certain school and another kid was or wasn't? No. You can't.</p>
<p>Is it possible that ND used a cutoff score? Yes. Do I believe they did? No. But as I mentioned before, there seem to be a lot more kids taking the ACT this year; also, I've noticed that when a student takes both the SAT and the ACT, they usually have a stronger score on the ACT than on the SAT...so perhaps that 32 is even less-special now than it was before? Also, early action applicant pools are very different from regular decision pools and early decision pools (in general). Avery, Fairbanks, and Zeckhauser's research in "The Early Admissions Game" is quite revealing: they found that students who apply early action to schools that offer it are usually stronger ("stats"-wise) than kids from their high schools applying regular decision to the same colleges; additionally, students applying early decision to schools that offer it are usually weaker ('stats"-wise) than kids from their high schools applying regular decision to the same colleges. Also - whether looking at early decision or early action - many recruited athletes and legacies are encouraged to apply early. I wouldn't be surprised if this were the case at Notre Dame, but some schools are explicit about encouraging students to apply early decision/action if , for example, they want their legacy status to be considered in their admission decision (see UPenn's application, for example). Coaches also put a lot of pressure on kids to apply early (Dartmouth, for example, is known for taking the bulk of their recruited athletes in ED). In fact, one of the reasons some schools have two early decision plans is so they can capture recruited athletes who 1) may have been rejected by their top choice or 2) have decided later in the year that a school is their top choice. The point is, there seems to be a higher concentration of "hooks" in the early pools of many schools; this may be one reason why some kids are deferred or denied outright in early programs that seemed quite strong.</p>
<p>babar - I wouldn't call us idealists...I would call us fair. Thanks for the kind words!</p>
<p>
[quote]
I've noticed that when a student takes both the SAT and the ACT, they usually have a stronger score on the ACT than on the SAT.
[/quote]
Adofficer, keep in mind that because of the widespread perception that the SAT is preferred at the most selective colleges, a student with a weaker ACT might not bother to submit it. Also, if the school where you are employed requires SAT II's, the students with weaker SAT I's may have no choice but to submit them along with their ACTs (whereas at other colleges, students can simply opt to submit one or the other). </p>
<p>So what you are seeing may not really be a reflection of the test or the likelihood of doing well, so much as the choices made by the students during the application process. Of course, it is still possible that overall there are more high scorers on the ACT as the test becomes more popular, and thus taken (and retaken) by more students.</p>
<p>Good post, calmom.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Very well said. Thanks for making this important point. It should be obvious but all of us tend to forget it when we rush to judgement...</p>
<p>AdCom, thanks for your realistic and reality-based information. So often on this site we posters look at the scores and the GPAs and don't take into acount all the intangibles. I agree that the recommendations are critical, as they give a picture to the admissions committee of what the kid is really like, how he's perceived by his calssmates, how he compares to other kids, whether he "plays well with others." And that is certainly one dimension that looking simply at stats doesn't provide.</p>
<p>I think you are right, Calmom. Most kids who do take the ACT here in the northeast are a bit tentative about not sending in SATs even if the school says it takes either score. If the ACTs are not what they consider demonstrably better than the SAT scores, they may not bother to send it. And most kids I know wh do take the ACT here do so because they are not happy with SAT results, and someone has suggested the ACT to them.</p>
<p>ACT also has score choice, so there may be some "weaker" ACT scores that the admissions committee never sees.</p>
<p>
[quote]
But as I mentioned before, there seem to be a lot more kids taking the ACT this year; also, I've noticed that when a student takes both the SAT and the ACT, they usually have a stronger score on the ACT than on the SAT...so perhaps that 32 is even less-special now than it was before?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>AdOfficer: This comment raises a question that surfaces regularly on these boards. To what extent do you think that general institutionalized bias against the ACT persists? Let’s take the paradigm case: All other factors aside, will a kid with a 36 ACT be viewed less favorably than one with a 2400 SAT. The current wisdom seems to be that, at this point, the SAT I is not favored over the ACT, even at the most selective schools. But your remark gives me pause. I’d be interested in your viewpoint. (And thanks for your most informative posts on this thread).</p>
<p>calmom, let me clarify...
I meant that for students who submitted both the SAT I and ACT, the ACT scores tended to be demonstrably stronger than the SAT I scores. </p>
<p>wjb...
I don't really see a test bias at the school I am at...I think if a student has an ACT of 36, we are going to be impressed. Since the "recentering" of scores on the SAT in 1996, the 800 verbal score isn't as impressive as it used to be, either, but we are still impressed by it. Really, anything over 730 on the SAT and 33 on the ACT is going to be impressive. </p>
<p>The important question to understand about a student's testing is this: do a student's testing numbers make sense with respect to everything else in the application? For example - today I read a student's file who had a 2310 SAT; her grades were all A's, but when I looked at her course load, I saw that she was taking relatively few AP and honors courses though her school offered over 20. This made me think that this student was not challenging herself in school at all. Another student I read today had 2130 SAT but was taking the most challenging courses available at his school (there were no AP courses offered at his school) and had all A's. So, in my mind, the second student is more interesting academically because he's taking full advantage of what's offered to him and still scoring quite well while the first seems to be taking easier courses which are inflating her GPA. In this way, the SAT can provide us with a good barometer with which to measure a students true committment to their studies and achievements.</p>
<p>AdOfficer, regarding the "most challenging courseload" - is it really necessary to take every AP or honors course? My d is taking 3 APs as a senior, avoiding AP science and AP math; she's taking honors anatomy and standard calculus, having dropped honors math after freshman year. How badly does that hurt her at selective schools?</p>
<p>It is not necessary to take all of the APs offered - we know everyone is human and needs a break! But if your school only offers 5 or 6, we do expect that there will be several taken. A lot of schools offer 15-20, which is great, and some kids really do try and take as many as possible and do amazingly well. However, a lot of these students are so bogged down with the workload that they do little else besides study - this ultimately isn't terribly exciting in the long run. </p>
<p>I think what's healthy is to definitely cover the basics: AP English, one AP lab science, AP Calculus, AP US History. These are solids that provide a great foundation and are courses that we look for; if a kid misses one, it's not the end of the world, but it doesn't help, either. A lot of kids are taking AP European history in 10th grade; others are taking AP Government and AP Econ senior year and an AP foreign language as well, which can all compliment the basics really well. However, I would be lying if I said that there aren't a lot of kids exceding this. </p>
<p>AP Music Theory, Art History, Studio Art, Environmental Science, Human Geography and Psychology are all great if you have the time, but they are by no means necessary unless you are really interested in them and have the time. That doesn't mean they aren't important and good courses, but if you have the choice between AP Chemistry and Art History, I'd probably opt for the chem (even though I hate it!). I would recommend to anyone that if you're not taking calculus senior year, you're not helping your chances of getting in to a most selective school. And statistics is not a substitute for calculus...</p>
<p>One thing we also are looking at closely is the senior year curriculum. It is really important to continue challenging yourself through the senior year; otherwise, you're looking a bit lazy and less academically-motivated than a lot of other kids. If you are not satisfied with what you can take your senior year, check out a community college rather than taking fluff courses. I just read one student last night who did take a lot of great classes up until senior year, than opted for yoga and other fluff electives rather than look at the community college that is literally located across the street from their high school...and the high school will pay for the classes their students take there. Granted, there were still some really challenging courses they could have taken at the high school as well, but if you know there is the opportunity to go above and beyond the graduation requirements of your school, do it!</p>
<p>Remember, though, I work at one of the most selective colleges in the country; only about 40 colleges and universities in the country admit less than 30% of their applicants and would probably agree with the above; some might not even agree with the above (though I doubt it). But the best advice is really just to make sure that you are challenging yourself as much as you can academically and extracurricularly...if you don't feel that taking that extra AP course is worth it because you won't learn anything because you are too busy cramming, don't take it.</p>
<p>adofficer - with respect to taking challenging courses -- i'd like to ask something. we know a kid, top of his class, taking all honors and ap's thru hs -- but took NO electives in hs -- except gym and a required music and art class, all of which he took pass/fail -- and he is doing this because honors and ap's are weighted but electives aren't -- so an A in an elective would bring down his gpa. and according to his dad, their guidance counselor told them many kids do this (not clear from the dad's description as to whether the gc supported the practice or just acknowledged it existed). i know when i went to info sessions with my d, some admissions officers said that they recalculate gpa's anyway to focus on core academic subjects. but does making val or sal make that big a difference to warrant this type of behavior? do admissions officers see thru this type of practice and how is it viewed? this kid has his sights on ivies and similarly selective schools and believes he is improving his chances. is he?</p>
<p>Thank you for the information, AdOfficer. Much appreciated.</p>
<p>I guess I'm an interesting case in that, despite being at a school which offers pretty much all the AP's, I took none of the important ones you mentioned because they didn't seem particularly interesting to me. I did, however, take Euro, Macro, Micro, and Stats and got 5's in all of them. I still ended up at a Top-30 U.S News School. </p>
<p>I guess I should consider myself lucky!</p>
<p>AdOfficer, thanks very much for your insights. </p>
<p>I have another question that I think I know the answer to:</p>
<p>Parents often want to know whether their kid should take the AP/Honors level classes and get Bs, or take the regular classes and get As. (Obviously APs and As are the best combination, but let's put that aside.)</p>
<p>I've got to believe the former is more impressive -- the student is trying to be challenged, is learning more, is handling college-level classes. The student taking regular classes and getting As appears to be taking the easy way out.</p>
<p>Am I right? Or is there another perspective I'm missing?</p>
<p>bizymom...</p>
<p>I would have to say that the kid who takes the highest level of courses possible and some electives is going to outshine the kid with a slightly higher GPA but no electives. We know the schools in our territories really well; if we don't, we make it a priority to get to know them. Only last night I spent about 50 minutes online looking at high school websites because I was unfamiliar with them (and the counselors forgot to attach profiles for me!!!). This actually happened to me, personally, when I applied to colleges - I was bumped down to 5th in my class because I took an extra foreign language and art classes that weren't weighted; I got into all the schools I applied to...the valedictorian and salutitorian applied to a lot of the schools I did...they got rejected by them all (except Harvard...the val got in and went, I chose a different Ivy). the ivies and other most selectives really are looking for a top 10% rank more than anything I think...sure, val is great, but if a kid hasn't taken academic risks or any electives, it makes me wonder why...also, many schools now report an "academic only" gpa and rank and a "9-12" gpa and rank that includes all courses. but unless there is a huge differential between the valedictorian and, say, the kid at the 10th percentile, it doesn't make a huge difference.</p>
<p>Very Happy - </p>
<p>your question is one I get all the time and i think it's really an important one. taking the most challenging curriculum available to you is really the most important thing - the harder the classes, hopefully the more skills a student will learn. however, there is something to be said for honors level or college prep level classes, namely that they do go at a slower pace and as such students tend to absorb a lot more rather than cramming. a lot of AP teachers seem to be teacher to the test and not necessarily teaching critical and analytical reading, writing, and research skills like they should. and some AP curriculums (which are supposed to be standard across high schools) haven't been update in 20 years! many schools that used to award credit or placement for scores of 4 or 5 on the AP exams aren't anymore because these classes really aren't "college level" or haven't kept up with developments within the different disciplines. a lot of administrators and faculty are starting to question the college board about this...</p>
<p>also, sometimes students like an honors-level teacher better than an AP-level teacher in a particular discipline...or maybe the scheduling of an AP course conflicted with another course a students is taking...as long as student or counselor has substantiated their course selection if they feel it is questionable, they should be okay - as long as they have the grades, recs, and, to an extent, the achievement testing (like SAT IIs) to back it up.</p>
<p>
[quote]
but unless there is a huge differential between the valedictorian and, say, the kid at the 10th percentile, it doesn't make a huge difference.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>thank you for confirming what my personal gut feeling was -- but sadly i think this message isn't out there -- i've heard of too many cases of kids going crazy to try to get that extra fraction of a percent that might help them make val. and what's really sad is the dad of the kid i referred to seemed so proud of himself and his s -- not for the s's accomplishments per se, but for the fact that they'd figured out this trick for supposedly boosting his chances to make val, and therefore in their belief, his chances at the ivies.</p>
<p>This is really enlightening AdOfficer--thank you for participating during what must be an incredibly busy time for you.</p>
<p>One of the dangers of hanging around here is that you read about these amazing students being rejected at a dozen schools and start despairing that your kid will get in anywhere. I don't think the CC staff and community did anybody a service by making such a big deal of the Andi/Andison saga. I'm really sorry now I rained on my D's parade when she was applying earlier this winter--I remember asking her about her app to MIT and she was so funny and breezy about it--she knows she can do the work there, she has identified several things that they do well that fascinate her, and she shrugged at me and said "well mom, they have to admit SOMEBODY! Might as well be me!" She is enthused about all of her choices, so although a rejection might be a drag in a trivial sense, she knows that wherever she ends up she'll learn a lot and have a blast and she refuses to get all tense about any one school.</p>