Although the schools on this list appear for a different reason, many offer excellent need based financial aid. Not incidentally, most would be excellent matches – defined substantively – for your interest in pre-med: “The Experts’ Choice: Colleges with Great Pre-med Programs” (available online).
Agree that the very top schools are reaches for everyone since the acceptance rates are so low. Being in the SAT range/GPA range should be a given for a competitive applicant, but it is still a reach. My son had very, very high stats, and we were told to consider all the top twenty schools or so reaches. Even top publics like Michigan and UVA we were told, are not safe, but maybe matches. This caution led him to apply to 14 schools. In hindsight, probably some were unnecessary, but we were worried about the unpredictability of it all. We did find that our school 's Naviance was a pretty accurate predictor of where he would be accepted. You can check out the end of my thread from last year for our recap (sorry can’t find the link at the moment). Good luck!
Right. A match isn’t solely about stats ranges and admit percentages. You have to try to read what that school values, promotes and looks for. You could be top of the stats hill for college X, have some quality ECs and still miss the boat.
If you do get this handle on the school, then you might be a “hypothetical match” and still have to deal with the competition levels or a host of other decision factors.
And yes, you need to know you can afford schools that may admit you.
Many people fail to realize that you have the same chance at a top school but a lower chance at a particular school due to the Common App.
Turn the clock back to 1980 for example and you applied to 3 - 5 schools because it was so much work. With the ease of blasting out 10 - 15 applications the probability of being accepted is more broadly distributed because your classmates and kids all over the country are doing the same.
This is one of the reasons a statistical match is a reach at schools with a 25% or lower acceptance rate.
Also, it was very rare for international students to apply here because information on schools was so limited. All you had was the Barron’s guide.
If the Common App was terminated, acceptance rate would double at least. And a match would be just that.
Never assume things. I go to a school that consistently sends 25%-30% of the students to ivies+top 10 universities+ top 3 colleges. In 2012-2014, approximately 5 kids got into harvard each year (we have 80 kids in each grade), yet last year only 1 kid made it. 4 kids applied to harvard early and none of them got in, though they were all extremely qualified, with 2300+ SATs, top 10% of the class, stellar ECs, etc. Were they a bad class? No, tons of kids still got into great schools. Hell, 10% of the class went to uchigao. So yeah, top schools are NEVER your match schools, no matter how over-qualified you are.
McGill publishes minimum stat requirements for admission. If you are significantly above the minima McGill is a safety. If you fall below the minima in even one category e.g. a B in a science course, McGill is out of reach. There are no hooks and special situations are irrelevant.
http://www.mcgill.ca/applying/how-we-make-decisions/minimum-grades-used-admission-previous-years/unitedstates
There are no exceptions. Some say this is a very harsh system, yet it is objective.
Merit scholarships, which are available to internationals, are a separate application and they requires essays, letters of rec EC’s etc.
There are many factors that go into how a candidate matches against the the published stats for any given college and the degree to which the college should be considered a reach or a match (even for HYPSM).
For example, where you need to be on the SAT/ACT range is highly dependent on the following factors:
- Ethnicity (the recent law suit by Asian students against Harvard provided some fascinating insights into the differences in SAT scores by group - as reported in the Wall Street Journal, the suit alleges that “for Asian-American students to gain admission to Harvard, they have to have SAT scores 140 points higher than white students, 270 points higher than Hispanic students, and 450 points higher than African-American students”)
- Geographic location (colleges like to have classes that represent all states and many countries - so living in a location with many highly qualified applicants places the candidate at a disadvantage, and living in an obscure state or country with few applicants is an advantage)
- Special skills that will add to the campus environment (athletic (at a level that will enable you to compete for the college), leadership, entrepreneurial, musical, etc.)
- Demonstrated interest usually indicated by applying ED or EA (at many top schools the EA admit rate can be 2x to 3x the RD rate - even at Harvard the SCEA admit rate is over 20% while the RD rate is circa 3%, and they admit over 50% of their class from EA).
- Quality of your Letters of Recommendation.
- How compelling a case you can make for your candidacy through your essays.
With what you have said of your background, on paper you qualify for all of the top research universities and LACs, but so do about 50% of all applicants. You should identify your dream school and make sure to apply ED/EA to gain the advantage associated with it. Additionally, you need to prepare to apply to a broad group of top schools along with some “safeties” (so you are not in a last minute rush if you do not gain admission to your ED?EA choice). Unfortunately, in large part because of the Common App., the RD application process has an element of serendipity.
Congratulations on what you have accomplished and best wishes with your applications.
I thought that the speculation that points were added or subtracted from the SAT based on race and ethnicity came from an old study and no proof that it actually happens has ever been presented. @Hunt can tell you for sure though.
Has anyone ever seen first person accounts from former admissions personnel that document this? I’ve read reports about applicants who didn’t get accepted to elite schools, but I haven’t seen anything by former administrators. If it happens, I wonder why they don’t write about it. It seems like they’re sitting on a guaranteed best seller.
The elite private colleges do not add or subtract points for being Asian American.
Asian Americans do not “have to have SAT scores 140 points higher than white students,” etc. That’s based on a very limited study that only looked at a few factors at a handful of "selective"colleges, roughly 1993-1997. The author himself said it proves nothing, there is no smoking gun. He was looking at stats pools and race, not admissions practices, not applications and not conversing with adcoms. His name is Espenshade. You can google what he has to say about this and results of one recent OCR investigation… Just because some newspaper reports some lawsuit doesn’t make it so.
But I’ll tell you something that is true: if you limit your thinking, you may very well miss what it really takes.
In order to “match” with a top university, you need to be “likable”. That’s one factor you don’t see listed on the stats page and a trait that people with limited thinking just don’t seem to get very well.
The school needs to see you as a fit. Vandy has a fairly large Greek scene ( relatively speaking). My kid wants no part of Greek life, and she made that very clear on her interview despite the interviewer telling her over and over again how great Greek life is. Did this influence ( at least in part) the decision to wait list? I have no idea, but it was a blessing in disguise.
Re likability. Went to a Harvard info session last weekend and that criterion came across loud and clear (and repeatedly). Of course interpretations of what’s likable vary, and college apps aren’t set up in a way that would systematically elicits information that would enable readers to assess likability, and there’s a real luck of the draw aspect re who reads the app and how attentively. All of this creates a lot of room for various kinds of stereotyping. But my takeaway was (a) it wouldn’t hurt to encourage rec writers to make the “plays well with others” point and (b) re-read your own essays to see if the appealing aspects of your character come through (ideally, through tone/sensibility rather than in list form, LOL!). And, of course, to purge anything that might make you sound like a jerk.
Students often can’t accurately figure out what the appealing aspects of their character are. They usually need to be told what it is and that leaves it open to bias from the person conveying that info.
And, if you’ve looked around CC a bit, you will actually see students that are insisting on writing essays about things that portray them as the jerks they are and still can’t understand it when people tell them not to.
“Likability” is one of the last things they can figure out.
To the extent that they’re jerks and they make that clear then the system works, LOL! The kids I worry about are the shy/quiet/modest non-jerks who don’t realize that colleges are making admissions decisions based not only on credentials but on their impressions about whether and how a student will contribute to the college community. In other words already likable kids who have been told that their likability is either irrelevant or a kind of consolation prize for not being an alpha dog.
An “alpha dog”?
I think we’re working with a couple of different definitions of “likeability” here. You can like somebody who is mild-mannered, nice, and self-effacing. But you can also like somebody who is outgoing, friendly, and who is always the one to get things moving. Neither one of these people is a jerk, but the second one is probably going to get more points for likeability in college applications.
“Likability” is the third rail.
I agree, but the question then becomes whether the latter should get more points for likeability in college admissions. For example, I know lots of outgoing, friendly types who don’t get things moving. They schmooze rather than get to work. Conversely, I know nice, self-effacing people who gently keep folks on task and who consistently offer suggestions that build on and improve upon ideas other first presented. Both types are likeable AND both contribute, in different ways, to a college community (broadly understood to include alumni network). So the challenge is to recognize/respect/attract the less-outgoing type as well. Teachers writing recs can help, but students can also subtly self-advocate.
In the US, too often we associate smart with fast, aggressive, and self-confident. But it’s at least as important to have thoughtful, cooperative people who listen well and are more interested in outcomes than claiming credit in the mix.
By alpha dog I mean someone who routinely asserts his/her desire to be leader of the pack.
Many think what makes them likable in hs is what colleges are focused on. They don’t take on figuring what the colleges value and need to see. I have zero problem with a kid who needs a little guidance on this, to shape it, but so often the knee jerk reaction is, “No, it’s a lottery” or “But I’m a stats match.” Or that mosquito, “I founded a company and it’s making $X.” Etc.
Exacademic, Harvard doesn’t just say it, it’s on their what we look for web page. It’s the sort of thing kids should be looking for, find, and process, for their targets. Maybe not as early as a visit, but when colleges start to look like targets.
Jerks take at least two forms: things they say outright and what they reveal of how they operate. None of it is clear thinking, anyway. The sensitivity about alpha dogs (using ex’s def,) is when they don’t seem like team players or their self aggrandizing is out of proportion. Again, what made you a big deal in hs isn’t necessarily what that college looks for.
Mild-mannered or modest is fine. But when you speak of a top college that looks for your direction and follow-through, the challenges you took on, and your good will toward others, it’s just not good enough to say, “I’m shy,” as if that makes up for what you didn’t do. Find what you can do, the right challenges, etc.