<p>When you look up stats for current freshmen profiles of students attending colleges, you always see that people with below average test scores or GPAs are attending. We think, "How the hell did they get accepted when my perfect 4.0 2400 friend got denied?!"
Now, we all know that sports and an URM status may contribute to such, but those two can't always be the acceptance factor for these seemingly below average attendees.</p>
<p>This question's for anyone with experience in admitting statistically below average applicants or students/friends/relatives of students who have been admitted despite their below average academics (or of course for anyone who may know an answer...)</p>
<p>What makes these people stand out and why? If it's their essays, what about their essays had that wow-factor? Interviews, same.</p>
<p>(Please don't try to discuss financial aid with me [or anything regarding my college search experience, rather]! This question is purely out of curiosity, but it seems I always get people thinking these questions are detrimental to my selection of colleges. No.)</p>
<p>Aside from the transcript, essays and teacher and counselor recommendations are given the most weight in elite college admissions. Both Fitzsimmons and Brenzel attest to this. Essays are the most powerful the more genuine you are. That’s all it is. Colleges don’t want robots that have 10 million insignificant ECs and a 2400/36/800/800/4.0. They want people that are a good fit for their school, have shown a passion for something, and have a cohesive application that “clicks.”</p>
I can actually answer this. So many colleges do look past scores, GPAs, etc.
Take two applicants to Yale as an example:
–4.0/2400 applies because “well, everyone will say WOW if I go there. It is prestigious & has good rankings”, I’m sure a 3.8/1900 would look better if their reasons went beyond the prestige.<br>
–3.8/1900 applies because she feels like Yale is her home already & that Yale makes her want to strive to become the best she can be (add in some specifics about academic departments/etc.)
I would think the first option would probably be scrapped, because he/she is most likely applying to all of the rest of the Ivy Leagues and every elite school around & is probably like 3/4ths of the rest of applicants. The second option, although significantly lower academically, shows that he/she has put actual thought into the college search & is not just applying because the school is well-known.
(**I am 17 years old. I am in no way an admissions officer. This is just what I’ve gathered from years of college search and reading of other people’s experiences.)</p>
<p>Schools, especially elite ones, don’t have room for all of the 4.0/2400 carbon copy kids who don’t express any passion about the school. </p>
<p>That’s what my question is inquiring about. What specifics can put the 3.8/1900 person above the 4.0/2400?</p>
<p>Specifics? Usually hooks I.e URM, recruited athlete, legacy, and/or development admit. Also sometimes having a particularly outstanding aspect of the application such as a truly excellent EC (s) and great essays and recommendation letters.</p>
<p>I got into Stanford with a 4.0 and 2400. I’m also Asian and from a relatively high income family. I don’t play any sports, either.
I think the most important distinguishing factor (after grades/SAT/rank etc.) is focus. They want to see you grow and succeed in a small area, but also demonstrate excellence across the board. That’s why having a few ECs centered around your area of interest is better than having a scattershot approach.
Also, your essays are important, but I feel a lot of people miss the point. Your essays are where you can express yourself, so make sure to portray who you really are. If your essays are truly personal and heartfelt, the admissions officers will have a better idea of you as a person and understand your passions and motivations better. There’s no need to be overly creative or different; just be true to yourself. I personally felt that letting other people edit my essay would limit how truthful I could be, so I kept my essays to myself and still got in. That might not be a good idea if you’re not strong in writing, but if you can weed out grammar/spelling mistakes by yourself, it could make your essays much more effective.</p>
<p>I was accepted to Vandy, CMU, UNC - Chapel Hill, and Wake Forest last year and I had a ~3.15 UW GPA and top 40% class rank (no hooks by the way). I’d say that my essays were definitely what got me into those schools. Top schools get thousands of kids who look very similar on paper – 3.8+ GPA, 2300+ SAT, piano/violin/club president/varsity sports/etc. The essays are applicants’ best ways of displaying their special traits that set them apart from everyone else. You have to craft your essays in a way that will grab the reader’s attention and make him/her want to meet you in person. The optimal result is to make a reader think, “This kid is awesome. He/she can contribute so much to the university, regardless of the fact that he/she has a low GPA or SAT.”</p>
<p>Admissions people read hundreds and hundreds of essays every day, and I’m sure that they get bored of most of the essays. The occasional essay that is actually interesting or intriguing will get the applicant bonus points in the reader’s eyes.</p>
<p>Hard though it is for some to believe, there is really no difference between 2400 and 4.0 and 2300 and 3.85. Having met the academic threshold, most highly selective schools then move on to other factors. Essays are one way to distinguish yourself from the crowd. Unique interests may distinguish you. Extraordinary achievement in music, arts, sports or some other area differentiate you from all the other top students. An unusual background which has provided you with unusual life experiences might give you the tip. Coming from an ‘under-represented’ part of the country (a very rural area, or a state that sends few students to that school) might do it. In short, there is no formula - the only answer is that top grades and test scores are necessary but not the only condition for acceptance.</p>
<p>This is a great thread. As many admissions officers would attest, once a applicant meets an academic threshold, higher stats offer diminishing returns. Thus, there really isnt that much difference between 4.0/2400 and 3.9/2300. </p>
<p>The top schools want people who will succeed in real-life. While a 4.0/2400 person certainly looks great on paper, he won’t succeed beyond the standard 80k/year engineering job if he doesn’t go much further in leadership, people skills, and other forms of EQ. </p>
<p>And if the adcoms have a sixth sense, it is the ability to ferret out the people who are boring, insular, cookie-cutter 4.0/2400 studyholics. Some signs include a bunch of unrelated ECs, a weak personal statement, or lackluster teacher recs. </p>
<p>The biggest unknown variable are the teacher recs. I’ve seen many applicants wrongly choose a teacher who basically wrote “this guy is a hard, studious worker, but has no leadership skills”. This one rec undoes every attempt by the applicant to try to convince the adcom he has skills beyond the classroom. </p>
<p>The best way to make an application stand out is not only to show focus, but to have consistency. Choose a teacher who has seen your leadership skills, ask him/her to try to write about those skills, and have the rest of the application paint a picture of you as someone who will succeed far beyond academics.</p>