@SevenDad … I interpreted the dissertation mentioned above quite differently. Curious about your take. Yours, too, @seekers
OK so is it accurate to say that its a crapshoot IF you are not an athlete, URM, or legacy?
I can’t even read it. The grammatical errors make me scream. It shocks me that the author achieved his doctorate on this basis.
Do you really think it is different at other schools? I was told by a dad sitting next to me in an admissions office living room (himself a grad of another top BS) that two-thirds of spots go to legacies, siblings, and those connected to the board. His estimate is even higher than the figure in the dissertation.
I give SAS points for transparency and give the dissertation author points for courage. A lesser school might have sacked a staffer for spilling the beans. He is clearly hoping to improve the process and increase acccess.
BTW: I’m ok with not assigning numerical values to essays and ECs. It isn’t a writing competition. The essays for SAS are meant to convey personality, aspirations, and strengths.
This is believable, but sad …I’m opening a tub of ice cream now…I’m so drepressed that I can’t muster the energy to make a cocktail X_X So I guess it’s a waste of time to obsess about the parent essays?
How does one effectively rank or quantify subjective information?? Sounds good in theory. In certain situations, let’s say a job candidate search where you’ve narrowed things down to a handful of candidates, I suppose you can assign rankings or a grading to subjective components, but they still remain subjective. Hard to do in practice with 100s of applications to boarding school. I’m sure they still carry a lot of weight. I wouldn’t confuse lack of quantifiability with importance to the process and the decision making. I haven’t read the whole thesis but it seems the author chose to focus on the component he had data for because of the ease of analysis. That doesn’t mean the rest of the criteria aren’t important. I’d argue things like recommendations, essays, hooks and such are what will get you in over your test scores and GPA. Test scores and GPA prove you can hack the academics, no more, no less. No one in the administration wants kids failing out. That isn’t good for community building. (will still happen occasionally anyway)
At many schools, those connected to the board = legacies anyway so don’t double count.
The numbers don’t really surprise me but are a bit higher than what I would have guessed. I can’t remember the exact numbers for my kids’ school but it was around 10-15% siblings (which could also be legacy of course) and about 30% legacy.
Does this SAS AO count faculty kids in the formula? It seems this is a factor- every AO we have met has a kind or 2 or 3 at the school where they work! - I volunteer to be the golf coach if any AO wants to help :-h
“How does one effectively rank or quantify subjective information??”
Note that SAS has no problem generating a numerical value for a candidate’s interview performance (1 through 5, 1 being best). Standard deviation is low, with 67% of the interviewees offered admission falling between 1.67 and 2.33. (Table 4, p. 70)
Any institution reveals its priorities through what it chooses to measure. The fact that SAS does not have any organized way of tracking essays, recommendations and ECs confirms at least in my mind that these are not critical factors in its decisionmaking process. My guess is that “non-quantifiable” factors only come into play in a positive way, when the admissions office wishes to admit a student who is well below their tracked admit criteria. The author’s description of the process (p. 49, and throughout) would seem to support this view.
"The article also does not seem to support the proposition the unqualified applicants are being admitted because they are URM. Rather, the author seems to lament the fact that “students of color are often denied admission… because SSAT scores are below the 85th percentile.”
Check the correlation matrix in Table 11b (p. 87) for the significant negative (-0.41, p<0.01) correlation between GPA at SAS and URM status (also note no attempt to adjust for restriction of range and course selection as is typically done in the literature; also note the increasing negative correlation as the students progress through the grades, demonstrating that URM students are increasingly falling behind as the coursework increases in difficulty). No other group demonstrates a negative correlation.
Also, although URM status is not broken out in the presented data, fully 50% of the enrolled students fall below 85% SSAT (Table 5c, p. 75), with fully 25% at 69% or below (same Table 5c), with observed scores as low as 24%. Mean SSAT is 80% (Table 4, p. 70), so the distribution is a little skewed towards lower scores than a normal bell curve. SAS appears to have little trouble admitting students well below 85% despite the author’s protestations.
Regarding FP issues, it would not be difficult to omit the criterion from the tracked criteria. SAS already has data fields for public vs. private, which could be a decent proxy, as well as other data like parent occupation, education, etc. Note that the box is simply whether ANY financial aid is being requested, not how much, which makes any inference about SES pretty weak (there are $200K+ income families who request aid all the time). The author dances around, as they all do, but clearly there is a quota on FA families. This is wholly inconsistent with what SAS prominently advertises on its web site and promotional materials.
I’ve had to repost one of my posts to eliminate the long quotes from an outside source according to CC TOS, so here goes:
I, too, would be very interested to hear from SAS insiders regarding the information in the dissertation linked to above.
In particular, the percentage of “connected” students frankly SHOCKED me, meaning a student who is legacy or sibling or otherwise connected with a SAS board member (p. 73).
Almost 6 in 10 (57.3%) of the classes of 2014 and 2015 fit this definition. How could anyone view this as anything but a closed, insular system? Seriously, how could a reasonable weighting of the various admissions criteria result in this sort of distribution?
Moreover, we often hear on this forum about how standards are only relaxed “slightly” for preference admits, including legacy. Consider this from the dissertation (again, this is an insider talking):
“One of the distinguishing qualities of the school’s admissions profile is its 85th percentile median SSAT score for accepted students. Applicants need to do well on this test to be competitive in the admission pool.” (pp. 47-48)
Also, see here: “For the most part, students need to score near the median [85%] to be competitive in the admissions process.” (p. 5) and p. 8 (same substance, indicating that students “further below” 85% will more often than not be denied or WL).
Again, how could this possibly be true if fully 25% of the enrolled classes have SSAT scores of 69% or below (p. 75)? How could such a large percentage be admitted and enrolled if they are presumptively not “competitive in the admission pool”?
As for the importance of the SSAT at SAS in particular the author confirms that the SSAT weighs “most heavily” in the decision whether to admit (p. 11).
Last, as for the relative UNIMPORTANCE of ECs, essays and recommendations for SAS admissions, see the discussion on pp. 25-26, which indicates that none of these factors is systematically tracked.
This document is a treasure trove of information and a real window into a secretive process. Of course, private schools have every right to choose their classes in whatever manner they choose, subject to applicable law governing educational institutions and tax exempt entities.
After reading @ this AO’s dissertation, do you think anyone will be influenced to not apply to SAS? It’s an exceptionally fine school that is very popular among CC posters. Question: Given what the AO wrote about essays, do you think we can be less anxious about what our kids are writing? I am not convinced that the AO’s experience with essays is consistent across schools. If you are a teen applying to a “wide net” of schools (especially those on the 2 different portals and those with supplemental materials), you have an excessive amount of work to complete. It would be interesting to hear from a student - what do we tell our kids? Having them work very hard and knowing of this evidence and the stats. Gee whiz - just in time for Christmas! They tell us there is no Santa
[QUOTE=""]
[/QUOTE]
Never mind the content, which I still haven’t read (I’m accepting @SatchelSF’s analysis) and which is pretty much what I expected from my limited observation of St. Andrew’s in two admission cycles - if I had read this before my children applied, I would have had a much lower opinion of their educational standards.
As to my own observation, I decided that the groups of students admitted there include: 1) the rich and connected; 2) those matched through programs for low-income students, predominantly African-American; and 3) those with ultra-high scores to bring up the average for the rest. Not that some of this isn’t true at other schools, including the one my children attend, but it seemed more obvious at St. Andrew’s that because of the school’s small size, they actually did not have room for anyone outside of these boxes. I’m not sure that their process can generalize to larger schools, which have the flexibility to satisfy many institutional needs beyond the three I already stated. I do think the admissions process is all about the institutional “needs,” but institutional values (which can be very fine in the case of these excellent schools) are incorporated into the needs, making the process more human and more humane than it might be.
Actually, to correct the previous, the “A Better Chance” program, in which St. Andrew’s participates, is based entirely on ethnicity, not financial status. There may be other programs that are income based.
And, of course, the students in the “three boxes” I described have to fill all the sports teams and the seats in the orchestra and act in all the plays, etc., etc., etc.
@Golfgr8, in our experience (which admittedly didn’t include SAS), essays and EC counted a great deal, and this is not a surmise. Although my daughter’s SSAT scores were at or above the average for the schools she was accepted to and she had the advantage of geographic diversity, after March 10 the Directors of Admissions at three of the schools that offered her a full ride stated in a personal conversation that what set her apart were her essays, interviews, and ECs. I can share more detail in a PM if you are interested. So don’t despair, enjoy the holiday season. It may be the last one with a child living under your roof!
I also violated TOS by posting quotes that are too long … So here goes again, this time with shorter quotations.
Some observations from the dissertation:
- No dispute that the dissertation emphasizes the role that the SSAT score plays in the admission process. That seems like a relatively unremarkable observation to me.
- The article does not seem to support the proposition the unqualified applicants are being admitted because they are URM. Rather, the author seems to lament the fact that "students of color are often denied admission... because SSAT scores are below the 85th percentile."
@SatchelSF, it is of course true that, by the definition of “median,” half of the students offered admission have SSAT scores below the 85th percentile. In fact, the data seems to show that the average score is closer to the 80th percentile. But that doesn’t detract from the author’s comment, which, in context, indicates that the 85th percentile was a benchmark against applicants’ scores were measured. As for your comment about Table 11b, the table says nothing about SSAT scores, and as you note, “URM status is not broken out in the presented data.” Thus, one must make a negative inference regarding the SSAT scores of black students who are offered admission to reach your conclusion. And I’m not saying that the inference is necessarily wrong, but you are relying on the assumption that it is right and stating it like a fact. Lacking sufficient information, I think one must also allow for the possibility that there are other factors in play. For example, in Privilege: The Making of an Adolescent Elite at St. Paul’s School, the author, Mr. Khan, who was a first student and later taught at SPS, observed that the less affluent black students (and other less affluent students) tended to overload on classes, even though they knew doing so would negatively impact their grades. When Mr. Khan asked a student why, the student responded that, if Mr. Khan understood the environment from which the child hailed, he wouldn’t have to ask the question. The student stated that there was more to SPS than grades, that they would likely never have the opportunity to be in an environment like this again, and that they wanted to make the absolute most of it. I’m not saying this (or something else) is what is happening in SAS’s data, as that too would be just speculation. Mostly, I’m just reacting to an assumption that did not seem to be sufficiently supported by the data presented. And to the extent it makes any difference to this discussion, I am an ORM.
- Regarding "need blind" practices, I agree that "blind" may not be the best descriptor, but I would not attribute any ill intent behind the use of the term, which I suspect is used by the boarding schools in the same way as the colleges that use the term. As explained by the author of A Is for Admission, a former Dartmouth AO, the admissions committee of Dartmouth would be aware if an applicant had checked off the FA box, and could make some educated guesses about the applicants economic background from the occupations (and to some degree education) of the applicants' parents, from the school the applicant attended, and from the kinds of activities in which the child engaged, so the process was not "blind," per se. But according to the author, affluent applicants to this "need blind" school did not receive an advantage from FP status (beyond the advantages that they had received throughout their lifetimes). In contrast, other applicants could potentially (and in my opinion properly) benefit from the recognition (or at least belief) that the less affluent applicants had less access to test prep, enrichment, tutoring, etc. and may have experienced other issues that the affluent students were less likely to face. The dissertation seems to indicate that this is what SAS does when it states that the "admissions committee does not discuss the particular details of an applicant's financial need" but may take the information into account "as we strive for socioeconomic diversity."
It’s not hard for me to imagine that there are people on the admissions committees of “need blind” (and other) schools who are decidedly more excited about helping someone who does not come from an affluent background than someone who does, and it’s also not hard for me to imagine that the applicants who received every educational advantage prior to applying would have stronger than school average stats, or that such students comprise a significant portion of the applicant pool. (It’s not like we’re talking about tens of thousands of students applying to these boarding schools from every public middle schools in the the country. We’re talking just a few thousand applicants, at most, at any of these schools, and I don’t think it’s a stretch to say that these boarding schools are better known among, and more often considered by, the affluent and/or highly educated.) If those assumptions are correct—I have never seen a profile of the applicant pool to say one way or another (and the applicant pools, of course, vary by school)–and the boarding school has and is willing to expend sufficient funds, I can certainly conceive of the possibility that the school practices the “need blind” process described above with the best intentions in mind. I would not assume the opposite, and state it as a fact, without sufficient information to do so.
- Regarding essays, recommendations, and ECs, the author notes that they were omitted from his dissertation because "they are open to interpretation" and notes that "[o]mitting these factors does not diminish from their role in the admissions committee conversation."
I’m not great at responding in real time in these threads… but want to offer a few thoughts from a current SAS parent, with 6 years experience at the school (including hundreds of hours logged in thoughtful conversation with AOs/administration/facutly/parents/students)
I’m a little concerned that we may be looking too much at how the sausage is made, and not the delicious final product.
Nobody should question the educational standards of the school. SAS offers an unsurpassed education. That was the primary factor that drove our search, with the second being a kind and healthy culture. SAS is unsurpassed in that regard as well. (note the careful choice of words, other schools may be equally wonderful… but there was none better for my kids). I could go on for days about the passion of the teachers and students, and how individually tailored the the educational experience is. It is rigorous, exciting, passionate, challenging, supportive, and transformative.
The school has a deep commitment to embracing all forms of diversity. This necessarily includes having a range of SSAT/GPA scores, and academic preparation. The first semester is pass-fail, while they try to ramp everyone up to the high standards of the place. There are slightly different levels of rigor for some classes, based on preparation and ability. But nobody is left behind, they are just given as much as they can manage. It’s not like they are tracked, each year there’s a new assessment of how much rigor they are up for when selecting courses.
The author of the dissertation was not a long-term member of the admissions staff, he was an (URM) alum who was working in admissions while working on continuing education. [alums stay deeply connected and supported]. I’ve got a lot going on right now, so only skimmed the dissertation. I would say his perspective, or at least the way he represents the process in this piece, would not be a consensus view of the process. He might be setting up a bit of a straw-man argument. There is a real challenge in making sure that every admitted student is up for a rigorous educational experience. SSAT and GPA are the quick and dirty proxy variables for that academic readiness… so they have a special place in wholistic admissions.
Note that the number of “connected” students varies by year quite a bit. It is not a perfect hook. Plenty of siblings and alumni children do not get in. In years where there are a very high number of connected kids, my sense is that it is less of a hook, so there is room to bring in others. (and yes, board members are already alumni or parents etc; they don’t double count).
On “need blind,” SAS tries to sidestep the controversial label… since they are aware of background factors in many cases. What is clear, they pick the kids they want to admit without weighing ability to pay as a factor in their decision making. That was part of their founding mission, and is still true today.
All schools have some variant of the same application pools: Legacy, development (rich), URM, Athletic/Arts hook, Brilliant scholars. Across schools, there is a range of degree to which these are transparent in the culture. On the worst end of the spectrum, you’ll hear about how many legacy kids are forced to go by their parents and are unhappy, or how the URM kids cling together/apart, or how the rich kids just aren’t up to the standards (or worse, get special treatment)… SAS is not like that at all. The kids and faculty are some combination of blind or indifferent to those factors. There are no “athletes” or “legacy” or “rich/donor” kids… there are just saints. All of them work like hell in the classroom, the sports field, the arts complex, and in service to the communtiy. They live in close connection and acceptance of one another, celebrating and embracing diversity. And that is the proof that the AdCom at SAS is profoundly successful in wholistic admissions. Every year they recruit a diverse group of bright, talented kids with incredible depth of character.
I’m not real active in public posts around the forum, but am extremely reponsive to PM. If you have questions about SAS, I will respond with honest and in depth information. It’s an amazing place for kids who are diligent, thoughtful, and kind.
@CaliPops - Your points are well taken, for sure. Just a few clarifications. As you note, the author laments that students of color are often denied admission “because” their SSAT scores are below 85%. I was simply pointing out that as the first quartile of enrolled students has scores below 70%, SAS evidently does not face much difficulty in admitting many students well below 85% (in fact, at least 25% of the class has SSAT scores more than approximately 1.0 standard deviation below the median 85%, and about 0.7 standard deviation below the mean 80%) .
As for SES issues and the question of whether SAS is truly “need blind” (whatever that means), I would simply point out that:
(1) fully 77% of the enrolled classes studied came out of private schools, casting some doubt on whether SAS is truly seeking out the educationally disadvantaged;
(2) in the admissions committee meetings the only data coded regarding FA is the simple request, with no accompanying discussion or data regarding actual amount needed, which of course is more consistent with a quota-based system than any serious exploration of socioeconomic status as represented by the author (as I noted, many families earning more than $200K per year will often request FA and so little can be inferred from a simple request that is not available elsewhere in the examined application variables)); and
(3) 50% of the enrolled classes studied receive FA (with average amount >$40K per year), which implies that many “insiders” receive FA, as 57.3% of the enrolled classes are legacy or otherwise connected with the board (and no, I am not double counting, the data are clear that 63 individuals fit those criteria - Table 5, p. 72).
I agree that none of these facts in itself definitively answers whether SAS is truly “need blind,” especially if the definition is artfully constructed.
BTW, @CaliPops if it makes any difference to the discussion, I am part URM, and my child even more so (spouse is full URM).
@seekers - “On ‘need blind,’ SAS tries to sidestep the controversial label.” Perhaps I am not understanding you but I think I disagree. The SAS website is quite explicit, and embraces the term in literally the second and third sentences on its tuition page:
“A. Felix duPont, our founder, left the school with an endowment to meet need-blind admission. This has allowed us to pursue a historic commitment to socioeconomic diversity, and to meet 100% of a family’s demonstrated financial need.”
As I mentioned above, SAS does not need to code for an applicant FA request in light of the additional information regarding “socioeconomic diversity” that is available elsewhere in the application (e.g., parental education, occupation, essays, public versus private school, etc.). I’m not saying that SAS is alone in this practice - all schools want to “talk the talk” without having to “walk the walk” - but SAS is one of the very few that highlights that it is “need blind.” It’s just my opinion, and we can agree to disagree!
OK, the label is controversial because it is applied differently by different schools, and varies with strength of endowments, etc, at a given school.
I will just reiterate, my understanding is that it is hard for thoughtful AOs to not be aware (at some level) of whether one comes from great wealth, or limited income.
In speaking with an AO who transferred from another great, well-endowed school about the magic of the culture, and how they select kids…
this person said one of the biggest differences in coming to SAS was that they truly did not need to consider ability to pay in selecting who they want.
It doesn’t matter if it is coded in the application to send to the financial aid department later… Need is not a factor in admissions. Whether it is “blind” is semantics.
We don’t have comparable data for other schools, so we don’t know if others are actually “better” or “worse”. It is unfair to draw conclusions based on this alone.
Does anyone know of any boarding school with a higher percentage of public school kids? A larger percentage of Latinos? A smaller percentage of legacy/sibling admits? What are other schools’ stats?
^ Exeter is roughly 50% public school kids IIRC, and check out Concord Academy for a higher percentage of the “hidden” URM, Hispanic/Latino.