College Admission: Facts, Opinions, and Myths

Parents Forum
201

<p>

</p>

<p>Yes, these all above are the cookie-cutter cliche kids who get into the reject pile because they lack “distinction.” College readers hate to be presented with the classic over-achiever Chinese menu of activites, as if the applicant was inviting the reader to just “choose one” that strikes the reader’s fancy. Too many activities dilute each activity.</p>

<p>On the other hand, the whole homeless-to-Harvard, poor-kid-sweeping-the-school-at-night, illegal immigrant, legless coxswain have become standard issue cliches all on their own, but the selective colleges still fall for it like these qualities are newsworthy or distinctive. </p>

202

<p>The homeless-to-Harvard kid is still a rarity. Those kids still need to have strong SAT scores and top GPAs – though the colleges understand that a score of 2190 from the low income, public school kid may be an indication of a kid who is a lot more capable than the prep school kids with the 2350’s – but those kids stand out because they are few and far between. It may have become a college-admit season journalistic cliche -the papers love to write about those kids – but it certainly is not common for the colleges to come across those kids. That’s why Chicago wants to hold free financial aid seminars all over the country, and that’s why organizations like Questbridge exist - to help the colleges find those kids. </p>

203

<p>We’ve been talking about tippy tops. If a kid can’t read the wealth of essay advice that comes straight from various college admin teams, if an adult can’t, then you can’t start a thread to magically educate him (or turn him into a deeper thinking individual.) You risk misleading. This isn’t about what any one poster thinks is interesting or appropriate. And there is only a tiny set of guidelines. We don’t need a thread for every Tom, Dick and Harriett to throw in their (misinformed) two cents. Imo. Generally, when I see some self-styled experts on CC, it’s all in their own minds.</p>

<p>It’s not really about “distinction,” or standing out for the unusualness of the activities or essay. You can get engaged in something mundane, because it’s right or logical. Not all “value” is in being one of the few engaged in some activity or being the only essay on some topic that adcoms will see. It really is about the whole. The net-net. And the thinking behind that, the level of thinking, vision and willingness (during the hs years and in the app.) </p>

<p>Saying adcoms get tired of the same old menu of activities is like saying we only want friends who don’t share common interests or activities. That’s not it. </p>

<p>And the idea adcoms “fall for” makenna’s closing paragraph, above, is another example of how CC presents misinfo, hears something and assumes.</p>

204

<p>I’d add that the difference between the “packaged” applicant and the genuine kid with a passion or a compelling story is that the kid who was following their passion generally has an application that shows gaps or flaws. My daughter studied abroad during high school - good essay fodder --but in the course of doing that she got shut out of AP’s, wasn’t able to take US History until senior year (past the time when other kids have APUSH scores in hand) – only had 2 years of a lab science, and never got any farther in math than 2nd year high school algebra. </p>

<p>I’m not saying that every kid with a passion ought to deliberately go out and create some rough edges to go with the story they are trying to sell to the college-- but the point is that the kids who are internally driven tend to create those holes. They insist on enrolling in an extra art or music class their senior year and forego another year of math, much less AP Calc – or they are going the other way, cramming in extra math classes at the community college while refusing to take a third year of a foreign language at their high school. Of course there are some who manage to do it all – but it is the lopsidedness of the candidate together with the rough edges that tend to convince the ad com that they are seeing the real deal in the application package. </p>

205

<p>It’s not that the ad coms “get tired” – it’s that they have many more applicants than they can possibly admit – and that the way to increase “chances” is to increase the likelihood of standing out from the pack. My daughter was a dancer, and she learned when she was a little girl that great technique was not enough to get selected for a role in an audition. She learned early that if she wanted to get selected, she had to be sure that she was standing in the front row and dance “big” – with extra enthusiasm and energy – because she would otherwise be overlooked.</p>

<p>Most of the students the top colleges accept don’t have unusual or extraordinary activities or accomplishments beyond their strong academic credentials and participation in high school level EC’s. But that’s true of most of the students who get rejected as well, and the top colleges reject many more than they accept.</p>

<p>I don’t like the whole idea of thinking in terms of “chances” – but to the extent that one wants to increase “chances”, then “more of the same” is probably not going to do much. </p>

<p>Think of it from the perspective of the person who has to read the applications and make a decision. Imagine that your job for today is to read 70 applications, and figure out which 65 to reject. And that’s your job tomorrow, and the next day, and the day after. </p>

206

<p>Some of “the same” is de rigeur. The problem is more when kids limit their thinking. By all means, be in stu govt, play a sport. But then what? </p>

207

<p>Here are comments on essays, directly from Harvard Admissions:
<a href=“https://college.harvard.edu/admissions/application-requirements/application-tips#writing”>https://college.harvard.edu/admissions/application-requirements/application-tips#writing&lt;/a&gt;
and a link to a New York Times article:
<a href=“Guidance Office: Answers From Harvard's Dean, Part 4 - The New York Times”>http://thechoice.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/15/harvarddean-part4/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>Here are Yale’s, including a 5-minute video:
<a href=“Advice on Putting Together Your Application | Yale College Undergraduate Admissions”>Advice on Putting Together Your Application | Yale College Undergraduate Admissions;

<p>I did not find as much useful advice on Princeton’s site, although I didn’t really hunt around for it.</p>

<p>This one from MIT covers the “Show, don’t tell” and does actually provide a concrete example:
<a href=“Show, Don’t Tell! (the College Essay, Pt. 2) | MIT Admissions”>http://mitadmissions.org/blogs/entry/show_dont_tell_the_college_ess&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>I think there is more information on the essays out there than there used to be.</p>

208

<p>“On the other hand, the whole homeless-to-Harvard, poor-kid-sweeping-the-school-at-night, illegal immigrant, legless coxswain have become standard issue cliches all on their own, but the selective colleges still fall for it like these qualities are newsworthy or distinctive.”</p>

<p>Yeah, don’t you hate when kids join the homelessness club, for no reason other than trying to up their chances at Harvard? </p>

<p>Let me spot you a clue, makennacompton, because I’ve seen you around. Most decent people don’t ever WANT to be the kind of person whose heart isn’t opened by the homeless kid sweeping the school at night. It’s plenty fine for you, I get it. </p>

209

<p>So I caught up over the last couple of days on the discussion that have followed my original post - A lot of thoughtful discussion and good insights. I did want to contribute opinions on questions that have come up that actually weren’t in my original premise:. </p>

<p>1) If there are no so-called hurdle rates or cutoffs and admit chances continues to increase, sometimes significantly, along the continuum of test scores, does this mean these schools are misleading when they say they admit “holistically”? </p>

<p>Thankfully, Admissions is still a very human process. Putting myself in the shoes of one of these reps, I can imagine the challenge they face as they become human sorting hats a la Harry Potter. It can’t be easy. Passion and commitment matter, telling your story matters, connection matters.</p>

<p>I guess the only comment I would have on this would be to revert to the link up thread of the MIT rep. In the blog he states: “I wanted to share this with you because this case was one concrete example of just how little we care about the small differences in competitive test scores. A student with “the magic 1600” is not implicitly better to us than a student with “the spellbinding 1400.” </p>

<p>I believe he believes this. And I believe he consciously acts in accordance with this. But, if you look at the data, MIT applicants in the “almost magical 1500-1600” range have significantly better outcomes than applicants in the “not quite as spellbinding less than 1500” range. Applicants in the first group are admitted at two to three times the rate as all other applicants.</p>

<p>2) How much do scores matter compared to other factors? While higher scores do correlate, do they cause higher admit rates? </p>

<p>Very legitimate question and one only the schools know the answer to – and the answer clearly varies to some degree between schools. Pure guess/opinion – obviously kids with high test scores will likely have – great grades, lots of rigor, interests which manifest themselves in EC involvement, potentially good writing skills which are used to craft good essays. But to state unequivocally that high test scores perfectly correlate to these other factors seems overreaching. How likely is it a kid with a 1600 will write a better essay than a kid with a 1400? Maybe, maybe not. Better grades and rigor, likely, but not guaranteed.</p>

<p>One clue on causation that is in the available data – in addition to publishing data on admit rates relative to test scores, Princeton publishes data on admit rates by GPA, Admit rate for 2300-2400 SAT is 14.8%, next tier down (2100-2290) 7.7% - slightly better than half the chance, next tier down (1900-2090) is 5.2% - slightly better than a third the chance. Admit rate for 4.0 GPA is 9.9%, 3.9 GPA is 9.8%, 3.8 GPA is 6.8%. Relatively significant difference in SAT tiers, much smaller difference in GPA tiers. Does this prove greater causation? No, but I know where I would put my money.</p>

<p>3) Finally, should applicants retest? I think the broader question here is, so what? “Yup, I buy in that higher scores correlate to admit chances, but there’s nothing you can do about it. It is what it is.” </p>

<p>To some extent, of course, that’s true. It’s not like a kid can say, “I scored a 31 my first try. Oh, I need a 35 to have much better chances. OK, I’ll sign up again and crank out a 35”. Not likely, right. But, I think it does mean applicants should give careful consideration to their testing approach and that the reality of wherever they are at on test scores should be a significant input into their list of schools. Maybe that seems obvious, but based on some of what I see on CC, it’s not. </p>

<p>Scenario 1 - You scored a 31 cold with no or little prep and you have a genuine interest in some of these more selective schools. OK, put some prep time in and retake. OK, let’s say you now scored a 33. Do you think you can still do better? If so, are you willing to prep a little more? At the cost of what other activities? Do you think it will matter for the schools you are applying to? That was the exact scenario that played out in our house a couple of years ago. Middle son – 31 cold, a little prep on the Science section scored a 33. Was happy with that, knew where it left him in relation to the schools he was applying to and moved on with life. Happy Soph. at one of the 13 schools that I mentioned in the original post.</p>

<p>Scenario 2 – You scored a 31. You prep some more, retake, and score a 31 or a 30. Should you retake? Maybe, if you think you can still improve your score. Or maybe, if you are still interested in these schools, you know your best shot is to take extra time to ensure your app and your essays demonstrate your uniqueness, your passion, and what you personally can bring to (fill in the blank school). Or, maybe you need to look at your list of schools and make some adjustments. </p>

<p>Have a nice day!</p>

210

<p>Holistic means you’re looking for a whole, a net-net. Why is that hard to grasp? Maybe because your lens is off. Stat strength alone won’t get you in. No, you cannot assume stats strength means they also have a balance of ECs and an interesting set of attributes. That’s the way it is. If you have a kid you feel is worthy of a tippy top, good advice is to quit thinking stats alone will swing him in. Or budge his chances. Because it IS holistic. .</p>

<p>Stats superiority without the rest of what they want is no advantage. Conversely, a kid with the attributes, experiences, accomplishments and perspective and savvy they seek, but slightly lower stats performance, does remain viable. Viable means, good chance that, after multiple reads, gets through to the final round. At that point, other factors emerge- some hand crafting and a big threat from geo diversity. </p>

<p>I think it was JHS who once explained “the bar” elegantly- a few years ago. Wonder if he can come up with it again. Once you are at or past a certain stats level (lower than most think,) the focus goes to the other elements. I think many assume actual college academic life, even at H, is some impossible mountain to climb, that you’ve got to be in the 1% (or smaller) to function. Nope. </p>

<p>Your scores can matter much based on your potential major. Again, viewing this as the number totals matters little if the components are off. A 2250 where the M is 650 is behind the 8-ball, if that kid wants STEM. Many questions arise. (Again, too many other candidates won’t have that weakness.) If you’re otherwise solid, fine to retest, to try again. </p>

<p>NOT because the higher your cumulative, the better your shot. But, because your dang M score, in this example, is off.</p>

<p>So why do, maybe, more higher-stat kids seem to be admitted? Because there are that many of them, in the first place. Thousands and thousands of them. Imagine day after day and rarely seeing a transcript with even one B. It’s not that higher-stats kids have a natural or functional edge.</p>

211

<p>I, for one, will pull up this thread the next time someone claims holistic admissions are overlooking the kids who test well.</p>

<p>@Quantmech, Interesting observation at the end of Harvard’s piece:

</p>

<p>The comparison with the SAT/ACT essay makes sense. Writing styles can be distinctive. Canny readers even picked out J.K. Rowling’s foray into thrillers, based on writing style alone. </p>

212

<p>@Quantmech, my younger son took the Lit subject test. He thought it was just like the CR section, but with more poetry. It’s useful to know a few literary terms like “personification”, but nothing that 4 years of high school English should prepare you for. He took it because his Math score was very low and he was looking for a test he could he could get a 700 in without studying. It fit the bill.</p>

213

<p>I’ve been thinking about this, and now I have a question: if there is, indeed, a “that’s good enough, now let’s look at what else he’s got” threshold for SAT, is there a similar one for GPA? Upthread it was suggested that was 3.7=4.0; does that seem likely to you all? Is a 4.0 as instinctively special as a 2400 (if one accepts that, in fact, a perfect 2400 has some impact on an adcom); is a 3.7 as fungible a score as a 2300 (that is, if one accepts the idea that any given test taker on a given day might score within a given range, is that allowance also extended to GPAs, given that there are also uncontrollable elements of teacher rigor/class competition that affect grade?)?</p>

214

<p>

But that data set omits any evidence of rigor of the curriculum. Those are unweighted GPA’s – whereas students on CC are always bandying about their weighted GPA’s – because we know that the kid who has a 4.0 and took 6 AP’s is very different than the kid with a 4.0 who took a light course load during high school. The GPA numbers simply aren’t being reported on consistent metric.</p>

<p>Princeton could opt instead to use its own weighting formula for GPA’s (to keep it consistent) and then publish those numbers. What would the admit rate be for students who had a weighted GPA of 4.3+ ? You just don’t know. </p>

215

<p>Marysidney, it’s a CC notion that running out the numbers is a really, really big stick, a hook. 2400 is good, very good, make no mistake, but then you turn the page and keep reading. </p>

<p>And the GPA reaction depends on rigor, as noted, and what the Bs are in. (Remember, they look at the actual transcript, not just GPA.) Gym? Fine. French, for that kid who highly challenged himself in STEM, academically and in experiences- well, maybe you can ignore that B in French. Same for that really great humanities kid who persisted through AP calc and AP physics, but drat, got an A- or B in one of those. </p>

<p>So, depends. And remember, in a highly competitive pool, the competition isn’t just the number of other applicants for limited seats. Not just that H is a single digit school. When we say fierce competition, it also refers to the qualities, records, experiences and GPA of other applicants. 4.0 is not uncommon.</p>

216

<p>

The colleges generally also have information about the level of rigor of the high school and the student’s rank or level of performance within that environment. If there is a lot of grade inflation at a school and 30 valedictorians… the college ad com knows it. They get a school profile and most public school data can be independently verified as well. </p>

<p>Assuming even a moderate level of competition at a school, it’s not something that one can fake for 4 years continuously. Bottom line there is a higher correlation between high school GPA and college GPA than there is between test scores and college GPA, and the colleges know it. Partly because high school GPA is influenced by a whole lot of factors such as regular class attendance and turning in assignments on time – which also play into the student’s ability to manage college. </p>

217

<p>My younger son set some GPA lows in his school for acceptances at selective colleges (not Harvard though!). He had B’s in Latin and took it four years. I think people gave him kudos for sticking with it. He had B+'s in AP Physics C and AP Calc BC. His A’s were in English, History (3 APs) and Orchestra. Definitely a humanities kid. </p>

218

<p>And GPA isn’t one Saturday.
Btw, there are some competitive hs that, as a policy, do allow for multiple vals and sals. Some even extend the meaning of top ten %. It doesn’t necessarily mean less rigorous. </p>

219

<p>@lookingforward‌ Granted, but Naviance, for one, simply reports, for my high school, the GPA (unweighted, since that’s how it’s done here). And the GPA is not the same as rigor, and in an unweighted high school, rank doesn’t mean much, either. And however much I know that schools care about rigor, etc., the information I have to deal with, once again, is simple GPA, and I am continually urged, on CC, to go by what Naviance predicts, which is based on GPA and SAT. But GPA is not a simple number, as lookingforward says; it is merely a data point, and not even the most important one. And I know this is simply complaining, but it is to the point, as well: if the task that is presented to high school seniors is to figure out, within the parameters of fit and affordability, what schools are “reach,” and “match,” and “safety,” those seniors are given darn few real guides to discern their choices, most particularly in the top 100 schools. No wonder if they obsess over a possible few points on the SAT, when so little else is known about the process. Holistic, in this context, simply means opaque. </p>

<p>So we have kids who are desperately trying to figure out what schools to apply to, based on indicators that don’t indicate all that much; it doesn’t actually help to be told, go by these indicators, but those indicators are pretty useless. It’s like someone worried about getting breast cancer: you’re 25% more likely to get it if you drink two drinks a day, but you’re 50% less likely if you eat more than 6 helpings of fruits and vegetables, but you’re 60% more likely if you have a relative that has had it, but those who get breast cancer are only 20% more likely to have had relatives that have had it, although if you’ve had three children and you’ve breastfed…Except that the person worried about breast cancer doesn’t have to make a big decision, usually, but the senior does.</p>

220

<p>Naviance is a start and a darned good look back. It’s just not the whole story. On another thread, we’re talking house sales- any listing of, say, number of bedrooms/baths against sales price is just a start. I look at local listings that seem to match my house particulars, but know it’s just an initial stab. </p>

<p>Good point about them being somewhat in the dark. Its one reason I advocate they read what the colleges say, how the colleges describe their programs and the sorts of kids they tout. Not just apparent statistical indicators. For now, I’ll skip more on this. Do you have kids looking?</p>