<p>Sorry to hear that your DD rejection from her double legacy school (I’ll assume Yale based on prior posts) caused you to give up your volunteer work and financial support of that institution. Although there is anecdotal evidence otherwise, I have always assumed that a double legacy would work against you at peer institutions to protect yield so your daughter’s situation may have been less unusual than if she had no legacy ties. I’m sure your years of interviewing have shown you how many amazing kids are rejected and that the vast majority of qualified legacy kids are rejected as well. I’m glad your daughter is blooming where she was planted and I hope you can somehow find a way to support your alma mater once again.</p>
<p>Prior to my time spent on CC, I was shocked when my kid’s GC thought that WUSTL was not a safety school for my perfect stat kid with multiple state awards who ultimately had success getting into a HYP school. I am now humbled by what I see on these boards and wouldn’t say that any stats on a white or asian middle class kid are a near guarantee of admission at a top 20 school.</p>
<p>I’m so in agreement with BC here. Except, I firmly believe the quotes from Fitzsimmons are being taken (across several threads) superficially, without knowing the details or data behind them. The college gpa performance differences could be miniscule. Most top colleges are far less concerned with college gpa than what their graduates actually make of themselves, on campus, in and out of the classroom, and after graduation. Ie, the qualitative. I do agree you have to show you can perform at a high level- but that’s not always the 2400 or 2300 There’s a range; the kid presents his achievement, as well as his complexity, depth and breadth in the app package, his willingness to grow in more than academics. Or not. It’s the whole that counts, for the elite privates.</p>
<p>There’s always some assumption adcoms are idiots, wide-eyed at brilliant stats, insane for disregarding them, on occasion. They’re actually highly concerned with how a kid will function and thrive at their school, the contributions he’ll make, the variety of things he’ll engage in, his potential for post-grad success and more. You judge that by more than stats.</p>
<p>I noticed that several people used Brown as an example. The problem is, Brown is still insanely selective, and, despite its unwarranted reputation as a “lower Ivy”, it’s admit rate is in the single digits.</p>
<p>Penn and Cornell, however, have double digit admit rates (Penn - 12.3, Cornell - 16.2). The admit rate for Penn CAS/SEAS would also be higher if you stripped out the numbers for Wharton. Moreover, Cornell’s “selectivity” is only 2 percentage points away from that of UC Berkeley. </p>
<p>If you are a 2400 valedictorian (top grades and high academic rigor), it is almost a given that you will have taken several AP classes and done well on the tests, seeing as how you have gotten top grades in the AP classes. Assuming you did at least something outside of school (even if you didn’t get anywhere with it), you will have an extremely high chance (nothing is guaranteed, of course) of getting into “at least” Cornell.</p>
<p>Yes, the better stats performers do get that extra “oh” when you see it. But there’s more to produce. That “oh” doesn’t tip. Not by itself and not with lukewarm extras. Not at an elite. It doesn’t have to- there are thousands of kids in the pool who are better than just stats and just “at least something outside hs.” That “oh” is an instant. Now what? </p>
<p>We can read about what seem like flukes. Most of us never read the app package, don’t know what came across. </p>
<p>I’ll take it a step further. Nothing about a 2400 says a kid is interesting, empowered, compassionate, grounded or all the other things that make up a great campus community. You read the app, you see how he presents himself, how he fits, whether he’s cocky, shallow, a loner- or one of the thousands who think founding the pie club is the great gift to the world. MITChris once posted about the sort of kids they like- and included the memorable phrase, “would make a great roommate.” There’s more to selection than rubber stamping stats.</p>
<p>ps. I think it’s Penn that has an article that mentions that, if apps continue to grow, they need to become more selective- not to impress USNWR, as many would think. But, because they don’t have the fresman dorm space.</p>
<p>Although I 100% agree that extra curriculars and other nontangible factors are extremely important, I somewhat question that the probability of admissions for someone with those stats are as pessimistic as many people make it sound. As someone mentioned before, there were 400 kids with 2400s last year, and I am willing to bet they were not all valedictorians. Furthermore, isn’t it a little unrealistic to expect every student the ivies admit to have won major awards, started charities, or are legacies or superstar atheltes? Considering you have done your best at school, with standardized testing, (2400 valedictorian stats), have passions, interests (not just a mindless robot), written good essays, and were involved in your community with DECENT (albeit not as superspectacular as winning the national science fair, etc) extracurriculars, is it really THAT impossible to get into these elite schools?</p>
<p>There were 400 kids with 2400 single sitting. Who knows how many hundreds more had 2400 superscored, and most colleges say the superscore is the only one that matters. And read what Fitzsimmons is saying: the test scores matter, but not nearly as much as you think they do, or perhaps as much as you think they should; they treat “small differences” of 50 to 100 points as inconsequential. That means a 2300 is as good as a 2400, and how many superscored 2300s are there? Any score in that range, coupled with good grades (val, check) is going the tell the admissions committee this student is capable of doing the work. Fine, that puts them in the same category as at least 20,000 other kids in the applicant pool. From there it’s a question of building the class they want–and at that point, I think the grades and test scores really cease to matter. Most estimates I’ve seen are that about 40% of Ivy admits are “hooked”—they’re recruited athletes, legacies, or URMs, and maybe now at some schools first-gens as well. The unhooked applicant is not going to get in on grades and test scores alone. At that point they’re no longer making judgments about who is most qualified; they’re concerned about building the kind of class they want.</p>
<p>I’m not saying it’s impossible; I am saying it’s eye of the needle, and sometimes it doesn’t require the kid being extraordinary; sometimes it’s just dumb luck that the applicant has something that the school happens to be looking for at just that moment. I once heard an admissions officer at a highly selective school say that one year word came from the music department that they really wanted some cellists, so the adcom made a special effort that year to shepherd cellists through the process and they ended up with 3 very good ones. The next year they didn’t need any more cellists. So cellists were in luck one year at that particular school, and out of luck the next, not because the cellists in the applicant pool were any more extraordinary or accomplished one year than the next, but just because the school’s needs and priorities had changed from one year to the next. Some of these things are unpredictable and seemingly random. Others are more predictable; like that high-stats white and Asian kids from affluent suburban backgrounds are overrepresented in the applicant pool, and many who think they are qualified–and who in fact are qualified—will not be admitted. Even some vals with 2400 SATs.</p>
<p>Does a val with 2400 SATs have a better chance than most at being admitted? Sure. Is it a sure thing? Not by a long shot.</p>
<p>I disagree when it comes to a school like Cornell or Penn CAS. You do realize that you quoted “Fitzsimmons,” who is the dean of admissions at Harvard. There’s a huge difference with a selective but not insanely-selective school like Cornell.</p>
<p>The interesting thing about this post is that the OP is also a valedictorian. While there are hundreds of kids in the applicant pool who may have had a 2400 with a superscore or with one sitting, the OP’s class rank by virtue of itself brings him to such a higher advantage.</p>
<p>I’d say by merit of class rank and SAT score, if you are rejected from an Ivy, it’ll be because you were one of the last ones winnowed out.</p>
<p>^ With the presence of a waitlist and yield rate to take into consideration, I think a rejection still means there clearly were better applicants. I don’t think you can say anyone rejected was “one of the last ones winnowed out.”</p>
<p>To answer OP’s original question – Val +2400 does not guaranty admissions to any Ivy, therefore, it is possible to get rejected from all. However, certainly top grades (which one needs for Val) is impressive. Someone with these stats could also get accepted to every Ivy depending on what the rest of the picture looks like.</p>
<p>While URM is certainly a consideration, let’s not forget that the majority of the class at each of these schools is not URM.</p>
<p>A question, however, which I find troubling is why a highly intelligent student would want to apply to all 8 Ivies. The schools, though all excellent they have very different feels and very different educational philosophies – Consider, for example, Brown and Cornell. Brown is urban, small and has a very open curriculum (few or no distribution or other requirements). Cornell is rural, somewhat larger and has a more distribution requirements to graduate. Neither is ‘better’ but they are very different. Without engaging in the debate of the merits of an Ivy education, IMO it is more important to go to an excellent non-Ivy, that is a fit than to go to an Ivy just because it is an Ivy.</p>
<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>
<p>There are 18,435 high schools in America. Which means 18,435 valedictorians every year. There simply is not enough room for every valedictorian in an Ivy league school.</p>
<p>I’d like to point out that Ivys are very unpredictable in their admissions. Some schools are given preferrence, some aren’t. But seriously, a 2400 won’t get you anywhere if you epically fail the Admissions essays/fill ins/recommendations/interviews. Your SAT is, for sure, bad@$$ - just don’t count on that ONE thing getting you in. Let’s take a look at your GPA, Rank, and leadership skills first.</p>
<p>Again, citing Brown is misleading because Brown’s admit rate is in the single digits - still insanely selective, with an admit rate that is lower than Stanford’s admit rate was in 2007. Cornell’s admit rate however, is more than 16%, 2 points away from UC Berkeley’s admit rate - there’s a huge difference here.</p>
<p>Don’t count on it. A 2400 valedictorian needs something else that stands out on their application. I was the valedictorian at my HS, but what helped me get into MIT were all the extra-curriculars and competitions/awards I had, even though my SAT scores were quite low.</p>
<p>Also, from a probabilistic standpoint, if the valedictorian only applies to one Ivy League school, it’s a lot less likely for him to get accepted than if he applied to, say, all eight.</p>
<p>To my knowledge many top-tier schools don’t even look at the “new” writing section of the SAT, so that would mean the comparison would be valedictorians with a 1600, of which I am sure there are more. Just a thought.</p>
<p>I wish they gave stats on their race and gender as well. That would help prospective applicants better assess their chances. No one can use it for discrimination claims because Ivy admission is holistic.</p>
<p>I personally know two boys within our school district(two separate high schools). On paper, both are identical, both non minority,perfect and near perfect SAT/ACT/SAT subject tests. Both had excellent EC’s, one got into 3 IVY’s, the other none.
Having no info beyond the above given, the one glaring difference between the boys, one accomplished the above completely on his own, the other boy’s future was crafted by parental over involvement. The parent of the boy who was self directed, explained to me in his opinion it was the strength of his interview, and teacher recommendations he received. Speaking to both boys one can EASILY tell why one got in and the other did not.</p>