<p>There’s quantitative and there’s qualitative. The Ivies and most top privates review holistically. Their adcoms are not cherry-picking based on stats. They get to choose kids they like, who show they can match the academic challenges, sure, but also contribute to the social scene, influence others and be influenced by them, grow, collaborate, try new things, etc, in ways the school appreciates. And more. They read the whole app package. They know their college, what sorts thrive there, what sorts are blah. </p>
<p>There’s so much value in MITChris’s posts- we think of admissions to a top tech school as based on stats, but even he/she keeps returning to the theme of “what else does this kid offer us?” Or not.</p>
<p>It’s not all about stats. Circle back to those Brown figures. Why do you think 81% of vals or 83% with Math 800 got rejected? You’re kidding yourself if you think it’s because Brown thought they all were shoe-ins at Harvard, MIT or Princeton and was protecting its yield. You’re kidding yourself if you think Brown is alone in this, among the Ivies. </p>
<p>It comes down to how the kid presents himself, the sum total. And, whether that impresses the adcoms. Only a small % of the exciting applicants won major natl/intl awards or are otherwise 17 year old walking miracles. (There aren’t that many awards to go around- think about it.) </p>
<p>And, it’s not even about 2300 vs 2400. It’s about being “in range,” with the right picture of self-empowered, able to challenge onesself, proof of substance and impact, interested in a variety of things, able to commit to activities outside their own narrow interests- or outside just what the hs offers them. Maturity, perpective and compassion also help.</p>