College Admission: Facts, Opinions, and Myths

Parents Forum
81

<p>"You are showing that those students who have a 36 ACT get accepted at top colleges at a substantially higher rate of acceptance than those who don’t score as high. Which is what the data clearly shows. "</p>

<p>It depends on your definition of substantially higher. Yes, 8% is twice 4%, but it’s still only 8%. And even 20% is twice 10%, but it’s still only 20%. </p>

<p>Yes, students with higher scores get accepted at a higher rate than those one rung down. However, the scores are CLEARLY only part of the mix - otherwise the discrepancy would be a lot larger, and you’d see very high acceptance rates for the high scores and very low acceptance rates for those a rung down. The argument to shoot for, say, the 36 ACT over 34 - 35 would be compelling if odds went from 35% to 70%. It’s just not all that clear that it is worth the investment to shoot for the 36 *over pursuing other interests / ECs that could distinguish one from the crowd * if the payoff goes from 4% to 8% or even 10% to 20%. </p>

82

<p>Even for MIT/34-36, you want to be in the 18%, not the 82%. Gotta be able to offer more, where there is fierce competition. If you can’t or don’t- or don’t “get” the values in the first place- what makes you compelling, in that fierce pool? Most colleges tell (or strongly hint) what the “more” is, that they look for. </p>

<p>otherwise the discrepancy would be a lot larger Yes. Otherwise you would see admits nearly all taken from the top scorers. Not 23% of the 36 kids or 16-19.5% of 800 in CR or M (using the Brown tables.)</p>

<p>Why is it so hard to understand the colleges want more? Or is this really just flexing some ability to (try to) parse numbers into something bigger and seem authoritative?</p>

83

<p>Colleges generally publish statistics regarding their incoming class, including range of SAT/ACT scores, median scores, etc. There usually is a range of low to high test scores, but that is not an indication that those who scored in the lowest range were accepted because they had met the minimal threshold for test scores. Colleges take other factors into consideration, so I don’t think one can say that all a kid has to do is get a minimal test score on SAT or ACT and they will get accepted. There are too many variables and factors that go into the admission decision.</p>

84

<p>No one’s saying “all a kid has to do is get a minimal test score on SAT or ACT and they will get accepted.”</p>

85

<p>@calmom and @JHS What both of you are trying to do is separate “Causation” from “Correlation”. @Matmaven is only showing that based on the data students who score a 36 ACT are being accepted into elite colleges at a much higher rate than those will slightly lower scores. There is no dispute that is what the data shows. So the OP thinks that given the correlation of higher rate of acceptance for top scorers, students who score 33-35 ACT might want to try to score the top score so that they too will be lumped into the 36 ACT group who have almost double the acceptance rate as the slightly lower test scoring students. </p>

<p>Is there a direct causation link that can be established with the higher ACT score to acceptance into elite schools? No, as both of you and many others have stated Correlation and Causation are different. But since none of us are privy to the decision making process of ADCOMs, the only things that we can look to are the admission data for help in accessing a student’s chances. The data clearly shows that students with the top ACT scores are admitted at a higher rate than those who do not receive the top score. </p>

<p>Given this acceptance rate correlation, a student might want to achieve the top score so that they too will be in the group of top scorers to possibly benefit from this KNOWN correlation between getting an ACT 36 with acceptance rates.</p>

<p>Let me give you another example, let’s say that without knowing any other information than ACT scores for admission to elite schools, that if you looked at the data and saw that 99 out of 100 students who scored a 36 ACT was accepted but only 20 out of 400 students who scored 33-35 ACT were accepted, what would be you advise a student who scored 33-35 ACT? </p>

<p>Again we do not know the actual Causation but the Correlation is so strong that you would be foolish not to advise an otherwise high scoring 33-35 ACT student to retake the ACT to get the top score. </p>

<p>Under the current rates of acceptance at elite schools, this correlation of acceptance rates and 36 ACT scores is not as dramatic as my example, but the data clearly shows that there is some benefit in obtaining an 36 ACT to the tune of having nearly double the acceptance rate of those students who scored 33-35 ACT. </p>

<p>@Pizzagirl I agree with you the acceptance rates at top schools are abysmal even for the top scoring students, but that does not mean that getting a top score doesn’t give you a BETTER chance based upon the admission data. @Matmaven is just stating that if student gets a high score 33-35 ACT, getting a 36 ACT MIGHT help improve the student’s chances given the data on the acceptance rate for those students with a 36 ACT. Given how low the acceptance rate at HYPSM and the like are, anything that might help is worth trying if one is intent on going to such schools.</p>

86

<p>@Truth12 You are correct, but what the factors are that triggers positive view of a student’s application, no one is quite sure. It apparently is now a Hook to be an illegal alien per the Harvard student who is an undocumented alien that wrote of his situation in his essays and received a full scholarship to Harvard. There is a lengthy thread on CC on this very factor for admissions.</p>

<p>What drives an ADCOM to accept one student and deny another is a total mystery to me, but we only have the data that these schools provide to get a glimpse of what it takes to successfully win acceptance into these schools. About the only data these schools provide are sometimes HSGPA, class rank and ACT/SAT scores of the enrolling students. We don’t get much of anything else. So given such low information what is a student desiring to get into these colleges to do but look at what data is given and try their best to get grades and test scores that mirror those who are accepted and enroll into these institutions.</p>

87

<p>I do think the perfect score in ACT and SAT does stand out more than the 35 or 2330 to schools. There is data about the perfect scorers that is not easily found for those scoring just below, such as 0.06 percent get a perfect ACT score. I don’t think though that taking the test more than 3 times is productive. You may be just as likely to go down a few points as go up. I think matmaven’s point is solid, they do get in at a higher rate. There may be many reasons for that such as other factors that are likely present for students who score that high. The data would make me conclude though that if I got a 33 or 34 on my first try, I should try again. If after 3 tries, my best is a 34, I would not put any further energy into test taking. Pursuing polishing your essays and ECs instead.</p>

88

<p>If I read it correctly, Matmaven’s original thesis goes something like this:</p>

<ol>
<li><p>On CC, many posters advise students who have high SAT/ACT scores not to bother retaking those tests because of a belief that beyond a certain level (SAT = 2200? Something like that?), it doesn’t matter what your scores are;</p></li>
<li><p>This is a myth, because the data clearly show that folks with higher test scores get in at substantially-higher rates.</p></li>
</ol>

<p>My view is that there are a few hidden premises in the thesis that warrant exploration.</p>

<p>First, as others have pointed out, correlation isn’t causation. It’s quite likely that high test scores correlate roughly with GPAs and other objective measures. This probably accounts for much of the difference between admission rates for folks with different test scores.</p>

<p>It’s true that such advice is often given, at least in the Harvard-related forums. In fact, I’ve given it myself - suggested to folks with high test scores that retaking the test might not be particularly necessary or worthwhile.</p>

<p>But that advice is given in context. Although some may hold the view that anything from a certain threshold on up is all the same, I think most folks wouldn’t disagree that there’s a difference between, say, a 2250 and a 2400 (which is similar to a 34 to a 36 on the ACT) and that the difference may significantly increase one’s chances. But the bottom line is that an increase of 150 points on the SAT is rare. Increases of 30 or 40 points are more typical. Time isn’t an infinite resource, and time taken to prepare for another SAT or ACT might have been more usefully spent by the student on essays, or raising one’s GPA of the first semester senior year, which is the last bit of data that most students will have to give to admissions committees.</p>

<p>The context in which this advice is given suggests its exceptions, too. Sometimes, students genuinely have a bad day on test day. And they know it. A retake may be a good idea. There are other reasons why a retake may be a good idea in particular circumstances.</p>

<p>Nonetheless, all-in-all, it is true that the higher one’s scores, the better off one will be, and it’s likely that just a substantial increase in test scores, by itself, will significantly increase admissions rates, although not as much as suggested by the statistics Matmaven cites. But increases of that magnitude are relatively rare, and absent unusual circumstances, probably not worth betting on.</p>

89

<p>The crazy thing is, for a lot of schools, polishing your essays from run-of-the-mill to dynamite would do a heck of a lot more for your application than trying to raise a 1550 or 34 to a 1600/36.</p>

<p>Yet because essay quality isn’t measureable, a lot of people seem to ignore that. Essays are hardly ever mentioned on CC (other than results threads). Insane, really.</p>

90

<p>I think it helps to talk to good quality high school counselors who have experience and ideally, kids of their own who are in college might help, as well as talking to parents of, and students who attend the colleges your child wants to attend. There are some books and publications that have suggestions about the ideal profile for admission to Ivy or top schools. </p>

<p>My child attends an Ivy, and based on her ‘profile’, I guess I would say these factors helped her to get into an Ivy: Stellar GPA; the most rigorous coursework available in our school district; courses at university during her senior year in high school; unique extra curriculars/awards, including a national award; stellar letters of recommendation from teachers who have helped others get into Ivies or top schools; essays that grabbed the attention of the admission committee; and an excellent interview with an alum of the school. Neither my husband nor I attended an Ivy, let alone any private college. He and I are the product of all public educations.</p>

<p>I guess the biggest general factor is for the applicant to stand out from the crowd as much as possible - the vast majority of applicants to the top schools will all have the same basic characteristics - high GPA, AP classes and high scores, extra curriculars. The applicant needs to be able to differentiate him or herself from the ‘pack’ of already highly qualified candidates and stand out, and in a unique and significant way, somehow. Admission committee members are deluged with applications and essays to read, so the successful candidate, it seems to me, must make him or herself stand out in some unique way.</p>

91

<p>"What drives an ADCOM to accept one student and deny another is a total mystery to me, but we only have the data that these schools provide to get a glimpse of what it takes to successfully win acceptance into these schools. About the only data these schools provide are sometimes HSGPA, class rank and ACT/SAT scores of the enrolling students. We don’t get much of anything else. "</p>

<p>Well, no, duh, because essays aren’t quantifiable. The really interesting essay that made the adcom sit up and say - boy, this sounds like someone with a fresh voice, a fresh way of looking at things, I want this kid in my community. </p>

<p>I swear, sometimes there are adults on here who must not have ever held a real job where they had a hand in hiring somebody, because the hiring process is the same darn thing. You choose among candidates who tend to have generally similar backgrounds in whatever-it-is you’re hiring for. Unless you’re hiring based on a specific test (like scores on a civil service test), you don’t sweat the difference between the applicant who had a 3.6 vs a 3.7, or the one who has 6 more months of experience. You meet the person and you evaluate them on the other dimensions – are they intellectually engaged, curious about the field, demonstrate evidence of hard work, leadership, cooperation / ability to work as a team, problem solving capabilities, pleasantness to work with, etc. In the college admissions world, the essay serves as the proxy for that. This is HOLISTIC. This is how the entire world works. So why so many of you are so stymied by the exact same holistic process in college admissions is perplexing to me. </p>

<p>And frankly the whole bluntness and literalness of the “but look, it goes from 4% to 8%, it’s double” without taking into account that it just goes from 96% to 92% – I think that very bluntness, literalness, inability to see anything other than a pure number is precisely what elite schools do NOT want. They want people who can THINK about implications, not just note that 8 is double 4. </p>

92

<p>"I do think the perfect score in ACT and SAT does stand out more than the 35 or 2330 to schools. "</p>

<p>Even though the gentleman from MIT explicitly said it’s not the case (in the link JHS provided).</p>

93

<p>Trying to conclude anything about the relative importance of one part of an application without access to the rest is futile.</p>

<p>Naviance’s School Stats feature is a better guide. Admissions officers read applications in context, which include the student’s high school.</p>

94

<p>*But since none of us are privy to the decision making process of ADCOMs, the only things that we can look to are the admission data for help in accessing a student’s chances. * Wrong.</p>

<p>All this parsing of stats reminds me of that old Woody Allen movie, where they tried to recreate the leader from a few nose cells (back then, just a pipe dream.) </p>

<p>Some of us remember the savvy poster who posted X’s “guide to admissions.” It’s still referred to. He was a hs kid, 2400, all sorts of good- and rejected at all but one Ivy. Instead of creating cloud schemes, why not put equal or greater effort into reading what they colleges say they want and then being that sort of person? Ok, ok, you can run numbers and drop mathematical references. Then what? </p>

95

<p>Why would anyone put effort into “reading what the colleges say they want and then being that sort of person”? I would respect someone who looked around for a college which seemed to want the type of person he/she is, and then applied there. I really would not respect someone who tried to reconfigure him/herself into what the colleges seemed to want. I am all for self-improvement, but I am also all for a true sense of “self.”</p>

<p>You may say that I am “parsing words” again, but I think the words indicate an underlying way of thinking.</p>

96

<p>

</p>

<p>I’m lazy. How about looking for colleges which want people like you? Rather than try to remake oneself to fit a written description.</p>

97

<p>voiceofreason66: Here’s an alternative hypothetical narrative, in simplified form.</p>

<p>98% of applicants whose applications (GPA, essays, recommendations) show them to be geniuses are admitted. Only clear genius/sociopaths are excluded.</p>

<p>90% of geniuses score 36 on the ACT, but only 20% of people who score 36 on the ACT are geniuses. 10% of geniuses score 35 or 34 for some reason or other, including it was a bad day or they got bored. Geniuses are a trivial percentage of people who score 34-35 on the ACT.</p>

<p>The college does not distinguish among applicants who got 34-36 on the ACT in its admission process. What the college cares most about is comparative GPA in the most rigorous curriculum. Applicants that both have a rigorous curriculum and a top 1% class rank constitute 40% of the 36 pool (with considerable overlap with the geniuses, of course), but only 20% of the 35 pool and 10% of the 34 pool. (The 1% criterion will be expanded to as much as 25-30% for some schools that are small and known to be extremely rigorous, and even for some large ultra-rigorous schools.) Among the group of candidates that qualify on this basis, the selection will essentially be made based on essays, recommendations, interesting ECs (including sports), legacy considerations. The people who make the final decisions do not have access to specific testing data or GPAs, all they know is that everyone at that stage is good enough. Some highly recruited athletes and others with special talents, as well as development cases, will be admitted on a separate basis. </p>

<p>Now, as I said, the foregoing is simplified, and entirely hypothetical, but it’s a pretty reasonable account of what colleges say they do, and it’s not at all inconsistent with either (a) the data that show a positive correlation between ACT score and admission chances, or (b) the proposition that in most if not all cases retaking a test to go from 34 to 36 will not improve your chances at all. It won’t change your status from non-genius to genius (or vice versa), and if you were already clearly a genius you were going to be admitted with the 34 anyway. It won’t change anything the college actually cares about; it will just be part of the noise that makes test scores such a limited element of admissions decisions.</p>

<p>Getting a 36 on the ACT may mean that, statistically, before anyone actually meets you, there’s a better chance that you have the other qualities the college is looking for. But it’s not itself one of those qualities, it won’t give you, personally, any of those qualities, and it won’t increase the likelihood at all that you, personally, have them, as opposed to someone else who got a 36. If the critical qualities weren’t already apparent on the rest of your application, then the 36 won’t help you at all. You will just be one of many people with 36s and not enough else. If they were already apparent on the rest of your application, your 34 would have been fine. But of course the data will still show that the average chance of admission doubles with every additional ACT point over 33.</p>

98

<p>Yup, parsing.<br>
Yes, you want to match the college to you. And that doesn’t come from a divining rod or wanting it, since kindergarten. Or assuming. But since the vehicle is the app, one should know what to convey, what that school is looking for (among your many graces.) I do that for every big project: know what I bring to the table and then go over what they are specifically looking for, to respond to that. Which brings us back to: it’s not all about stats. </p>

99

<p>Highlighting the features of one’s many-faceted persona that seem to accord with what a college wants: Totally respectable, in my view.</p>

<p>Reading what the colleges want and then “being that sort of person?” Sorry, sounds phony to me. </p>

100

<p>JHS- nicely put. But it’s also not true that college adcom’s only see the junior/senior year test results. If a kid has been part of CTY’s SET study (the tippee top- I don’t have time to check the criteria but it’s available online) the college’s will likely see a host of other things the kid has been involved in. Kid taking linear algebra during Freshman year of HS (sometimes taking a city bus to a local college and then back again to HS); kid taking junior year Spanish and health in junior year but virtually everything else at college level online. Kid taking a foreign language AP without having taken several years of that language- and scoring a 5. Not talking Heritage language here- but kids teaching themselves a foreign language to the point of near fluency out of a book.</p>

<p>These kids can have a bad day or get distracted and get 760’s each part on their single sitting SAT’s and the adcom’s don’t blink. That’s NOT the same as your typical smart kid who has taken the test four times and managed to eek out a 760 on each part, on different test dates, after what the adcom’s surmise is a ton of test prep. This is part of what folks mean when they say the scores are a threshold. A “not 800” isn’t held against you when everything else on the application supports the kid being an extraordinary intellect. A “not 800” is fine when everything else is within range and the kid brings something else extraordinary to the table (Yo Yo Ma. Olympic caliber athlete.) An 800 when scored by a kid without anything else to offer may get another look (except at the schools I mentioned earlier where I think it will be meaningful) but not much else.</p>