<p>The thread about being angry about college admissions has gotten me thinking about this. We all know that the tippy top schools take the "holistic" approach. We all know that at the tippy top schools it can be a total cr@p shoot for admissions and that schools could fill their classes three times over with equally qualified students - at least based on objective factors. </p>
<p>If memory serves me correctly, the poster in that other thread was "angry" because her son appeared to meet the criteria for admission based on his objective numbers. Sadly, I also seem to remember that that poster had not previously spent much time here on cc and wasn't aware that wasn't, in itself, going to be enough.</p>
<p>So, my question is: At what number in the rankings, either for universities or liberals arts colleges (b/c perhaps the point is different) can one look at the common data set, and KNOW that their stats alone will basically get them in? As a hypothetical example, let's say a BWRK has a 32 on the ACT (or its SAT equivalent) and a 3.9 unweighted GPA. Those stats would likely be <em>in range</em> for <em>possible</em> admission everywhere, but how far down the lists does one have to go to be assured of admission? Number 20? 25? 30? </p>
<p>I hope I am making sense with this question. I was having a hard time figuring out how to word it.</p>
<p>The short answer is that you can’t look at a number in the “rankings” (which rankings? USNWR? Forbes?) to know for certain where you will get in based on stats. </p>
<p>There are relatively few circumstances where students are guaranteed admission to a particular institution based on stats (test scores and GPA). These tend to be in-state publics with clearly published admissions cutoffs. </p>
<p>Admissions depends on factors such as student demographic balance, intended field of study, how much aid will be needed, and whether the school admitting you thinks you’ll actually attend (colleges don’t want to waste a seat on someone whom they don’t think will show up). It’s not a cut-and-dried process and there are many, many variables. It’s best to give up on the search for a formula. Do research into a variety of schools that meet your personal requirements (size, programs available, social environment, cost). Accept that there is a certain amount of randomness in the application results.</p>
<p>NJSue. I truly do understand this
But, I still sort of think there has to be some line of demarcation where if a student is in the top quartile of admission stats, barring something really bizarre (criminal record, horrible LOC), they are pretty much going to be accepted even at private schools. Maybe I am completely off-base.</p>
<p>A guy came and talked to our college night a few years ago and said “75% of colleges in the US accept 100% of their students”. He repeated it twice. Any college that doesn’t accept 100% of their students, accept those like the state universities that list on their website the stats for automatic acceptances, can’t be considered a 100% sure bet. </p>
<p>Both my kids had safeties where no one with their stats and stats quite a bit lower had been rejected in the history of our school’s Naviance, but I am sure that terrible recommendations or horrific essays would have done them in despite their stats. I don’t think you are completely off base. I just don’t think there’s a line and if there is a line, it will still depend on the mix of stats of the applicant. So an auto admit for a 2400 student will be different than that for an 1800 student, who both might have a 4.0.</p>
<p>Look at acceptance rates. Schools that accept a majority of applicants are looking to accept qualified students. The higher the acceptance rate, the less likely that qualified students will be rejected.</p>
<p>But there isn’t any “line of demarcation” based on rankings. Forget the rankings and focus on the individual institutions. Also, even if you are a top student, you have to convince the school that there is a reason why you’re applying. Truly, most schools, even lower ranked ones, want yield. </p>
<p>If you want absolute true admissions security, go to a CC or, as i mentioned, an instate public with published admissions cutoffs.</p>
<p>There are numerous threads on the definition of a “safety school” here on CC, offering good advice on making up a balanced list of apps. But no one should be basing their list on on a rankings list alone. That is very, very foolish and is likely to lead to disappointment.</p>
<p>Hoggirl - if you go look at the college websites, and sometimes the majors page they will often talk about what they’re looking for in a student.</p>
<p>For an example - NC State engineering tells you clearly they want these stats, these hs classes and they don’t really care about ec’s.</p>
<p>Clemson is another one, they don’t even want teacher recs. </p>
<p>Go read the admissions page of the colleges and you will see what they say they are looking for - they aren’t lying, but maybe exaggerating.</p>
<p>Seriously - does any college even say they want kids below the top 10% of their class?</p>
<p>Even in-state publics can be less than a sure thing.</p>
<p>A high school senior I know, who would fit the BWRK label, was accepted last month by UCLA (USNWR Nat’l Univ #25) and wait-listed by our state flagship, UGA (USNWR Nat’l Univ #62). According to hearsay from the kid, the waitlisting was likely because UGA admissions aim for diversity of various kinds, including geographic diversity within the state. If they went strictly by test scores and grades, they would fill their entering class with students from a handful of Atlanta suburbs. This seems plausible, and it also seems likely that this sort of thing is true in other states as well.</p>
<p>This is true. There are many, many nationally unranked colleges who probably will accept any high-stat student who applies. But people who care about rankings and come on CC won’t be interested in these schools. The desire to attain guaranteed access along with prestige and recognition are mutually incompatible. Also, in no other arena of life is anything guaranteed (except death and taxes). People should not get worked up about the unpredictability and “unfairness” of selective college admissions. </p>
<p>If you want guaranteed admissions, forget about rankings and go to an unranked school.</p>
<p>(OP, I’m not criticizing you. I just think that the quest for exclusivity plus security are mutually incompatible. I don’t understand how otherwise intelligent parents and students keep on looking for a magic formula and feel aggrieved when things don’t work out.)</p>
<p>People seem to keep trying to develop some type of math formula or algorithm to accurately model an applicants admission chances for a given school (or at least make sense of it). </p>
<p>Why bother? It is not worth the time or energy to even try. Use the data available to make your decsion as to is it a safety/match/reach, apply if you want, if you get rejected move on. For whatever reason they didn’t want you, now move along quietly.</p>
<p>Oh, and make sure you have at least one true safety.</p>
<p>I don’t think there’s a line, but there are some pretty strong indicators. Probably the best is Naviance data for admissions from your high school to that college, especially if there are a lot of data points. At my kids’ school, you could make a very, very good prediction that a lot of kids would definitely get into the state flagship, for example.</p>
<p>Your school might compile the info even if they don’t use Naviance. Sometimes you can access Naviance data for other schools–I think there have been links to such data in the past, but you can’t tell as much if the other school isn’t exactly like yours.</p>
<p>You can do research that gives you a feel for this–for example, what percentage of the college’s applicants are admitted? How big is the range of SATs scores of admitted students? How high is the average admitted score? If it’s a state school, can you tell the difference between in-state and out of state standards?</p>
<p>I don’t think it can be based on rankings, but size would be important. Larger schools with many more applications can’t be as subjective in admissions. Our GC told my D when applying to Pitt that she didn’t need to bother sending an essay or letters of recommendation - just test scores and transcript. Pitt is rolling, and it was early in the fall when she applied. When I look at our Naviance for Pitt, the average accepted GPA is just under 4.0 (weighted) and average accepted SAT about 1875. Then that leads to the question - does the fact that so many of our students go to Pitt mean they know it is a decent high school and that the kids can succeed there? Who knows?</p>
<p>If your school doesn’t have Naviance you can use Cappex for free. They have the same information there, you can add your child’s stats and come up with the same graphs, etc. I find that more helpful than Naviance at our school because so many schools are blocked from information for student privacy issues.</p>
<p>As for 100% guarantee, I think the closest you can come to that is a lower end state school and applying early. The early applicants at many state schools seem to get through based on just GPA/Rank/Test scores and EC’s don’t matter much. It’s not 100% sure but close.</p>
<p>We haven’t come across a school yet that would be “ranked” in the top 300 or better that doesn’t look at the whole package. There are stats for some colleges at our high school on Naviance that show kids getting rejected with 3,8’s and top test scores where other kids with 3.6’s and average test scores got in. Knowing the school and having a pretty good idea who the rejected kids are, process of elimination really, I can guess that the reason they didn’t get in is because all they did was study.</p>
