And i know plenty, plenty of students with a UC calculated gpa well above the GPA mean - and 35/36 on their ACTs - that were rejected from Cal, UCLA, UCSD,UCI, and UCSB ( and are currently attending top 30 universities). Top UC acceptances is far less predictable than almost every other state school for unhooked students.
1 Like
What do you mean by, ânarrow the applicant pool?â Do you mean that independent schools send their students to a smaller group of colleges with the intention of something? Please explain further.
Our competitive independent high school does limit the applicant pool - they wonât stop you from applying - but clearly say âwe wonât support you appâ to Stanford, Bowdoin etc - as there are stronger applicants from your class - academically, recruited for sports and/or connected. This is a known fact and shouldnât come to a surprise to anyone at the school working with the college admissions team. Parents and kids get upset - but they knew this coming in and hard when over half the class is a national merit or commended scholar and other high academic and personal achievements - which attracted them to the school in the first place.
1 Like
I am familiar and it seems to be a negative for the minority of kids, while a positive for the majority. I never liked that aspect of control, but you get what you pay for.
Some parents are aware of how it works before their children apply. Others are not. In addition, some parents canât ever get the right idea of where their kids sit within the class or within a larger group. Parents who have multiple kids in college do understand.
Most boarding schools are very small ( 300 kids or less per grade for the large ones and about 100 per grade for the average size). Of these kids, many are outstanding in multiple areas. (remember many schools have already taken only the top 10-20% of applicants in 9th grade).
While I think there are subgroups ( athletes v. academics), some schools might not wish all of the kids to apply to a single school. Theyâll do what they can to talk kids ( and their parents) out of everyone applying to Harvard, for example. Many of the athetes IMO are on their own track and will apply based on fit of the sport/coach and school ( and perhaps $). The athletes can be weaker academically. Though this is not always the case. And some athletes who are great scholars end up attending weaker academic programs with really strong sports teams.
The hyper-academic kids ( top 10%+, top SATs, top other ECs) will have subgroups. One group might be able/trying to get into one group of schools and focusing on another group of schools. So kids applying to the Ivies, MIT and Caltech might be the top group, next group UChicago/UCâs/JHU etc, another group applying to small âIviesâ like Williams/Amherst/Pomona, next group at Bowdoin/Bates etc. The groups arenât based on better or worse. Itâs more about which group is your fit. There is some overlap but you will see kids apply ED and many get in. Most kids donât apply to multiple types of schools (large and small and big Uâs and small LACs). Part of the guidance process is narrowing down what a student is looking for, and having a heart to heart about where you stand. Making a list of stretch, realistic and safety is part of the process.
Folks can argue about each list or what school is relatively better than another. But the distinctions can often be found based on the kid. Some schools want more of a rounded candidate. Others like a Caltech might want a kid who is very pointy. I wouldnât argue about X being better than B since itâs really about fit.
Parents at private/BSâs pay a lot for the kid to be eased into the process and get into the school which has been determined to be the best fit. Is there a scramble/fixation on which school has the best name? Yes, but the school wants every kid to have satisfaction so they end up with great results. The predictability really comes from matching the kid to the school.
Also, many BSâs have grade deflation. So you are not going to get a large bunch of kids with a perfect GPA. That probably makes it easier for the GC to explain to parents why Johnny/Jane shouldnât apply to Caltech.
4 Likes
Thatâs a good example of where an experienced counselor likely can predict results, having seen the entire application, getting to know the kid well, knowing the schoolâs history with a particular college, and being aware of the competition within the high school.
2 Likes
For an example of how selective private school admission transfers to selective college attendance, see the matriculation list for the highly selective Groton School:
https://www.groton.org/matriculations
Note that only eight colleges (Georgetown, Harvard, UChicago, Brown, Princeton, Yale, NYU and Hamilton) enrolled an average of two or more Groton graduates annually.
1 Like
With enough information, it should be possible to predict admission decisions well. The problem is most applicants and parents donât have the required information to make an accurate assessment. This is especially true at more holistic colleges where decision donât follow stats well. Applicants rarely have a good sense of how their LORs, essays, ECs/awards, and other non-stat components of an application compare to the rest of applicants within a pool for a particular college. They also rarely have a good idea about how much relative influence the combination of this many criteria have on the decision. They rarely have a good sense of unique institutional goals that vary from college to college. I could continue. The end result for most applicants and parents seems to be expecting decisions to follow stats in isolation well, then when seeing the decisions donât follow stats well, concluding the decisions are ârandomâ, "a crapshootâ, âunpredictableâ, âreach for everyoneâ, etc.
There are certainly some applicants for which the decision can be predicted very well â both for likely admits and for likely rejects, even at the most selective colleges. One can also predict decisions across a national pool correctly for a large portion of applicants, even at the most selective colleges. For example, if you predict 100% of applicants will be rejected at Stanford, i expect the prediction will be correct for >95% of applicants⊠an extremely high successful prediction rate. However, predicting whether a particular borderline applicant will be accepted or rejected is far more challenging.
3 Likes
The other thing is that many people also overestimate* the effect of legacy and URM, because (other than stats) these are readily comparable to other applicants, unlike essays, recommendations, etc⊠While these can be significant, the significance depends on the college (and colleges avoid being transparent about how significant), and some colleges do not consider them at all (but that does not prevent posters here from assuming that they are big factors at those colleges).
*As in assuming that a legacy or URM applicant in the stat range of a super-selective college is a lock for admission.
I think parts of this thread are taking the stance of, âI know more than you do.â The implication oneâs âexperienceâ (unnamed) gives them special certainty. Itâs not so. And can sometimes be seen as both dismissive and pretense.
Weâve had this issue with some of the so-called experts (on CC.) It leads to confusion among kids. Many kids have (not surprising) trouble distinguishing between the âIâm right, youâre wrongâ position.
I still say, the best you can offer is whether a kid deserves to apply.
Final yea or nay hinges on final committee, institutional needs, the desired shaping of the class, the actual finalist pool an individual is competing within, academically, holistically, and more. You can train a person extensively, but there are so many wild card factors. Even someone trained cannot control for them.
I do say, if a college has a low admit rate, there are spot-on kids whose chances rise. But only to 50-50 (You get in or you donât.)
Imo, itâs presumptuous to say you know so much that you can predict.
5 Likes
Why would Bowdon reject a kid Harvard accepts?
Easy. The non Harvard colleges know H has the stronger pull. Itâs not about yield in general. Itâs about yield for this individual applicant. It happens.
Plus other points. A young friend was rejected by Williams, admitted to H. A fabulous candidate. But a H legacy, a very involved alum parent.
Thatâs not to say legacy is a "preference. " but it was a consideration. And Williams saw that, made their own best decision.
I respect your opinion, but do not agree with it.
That question was never asked. So many reasons, and that is ABSOLUTELY one of them. But then, there ARE safe schools and so few people fail to be admitted to them?
My opinion is based on my experience. And note, Iâm taking a mid ground position, not asserting it just can be done, if only you do this or that- train extensively, lay apps side by side etc. Itâs not a game. Nor about special smarts.
My opinion is also based upon my experience. I would imagine that everyone feels that way.
1 Like
I am asking that we not posit our own experiences as authoritative.
Sure. I can guess some 90% admit rate college will take some great kid. Itâs more complex when dealing with holistic elites. No one should blur the 2 different processes or results.
2 Likes
I agree. Just not sure that is what is being suggested by anyone here. I think, however, that based upon your experience in admissions with a âholistic elite,â you think it is harder to predict than it really might be.
So are you saying that AOs look at where a student is a legacy and use that as part of their thought process as to whether the student will enroll at their (non-legacy) school? Our kids are double Northwestern legacies. Would an AO know that NU only considers legacy in ED? How much would something like that matter? Obviously, NU isnât Harvard but still. Do AOs really look at that info and say, âwell, thereâs a good chance at acceptance at the legacy school so we shouldnât take our chances on this kidâ. If so, that kind of stinks. Kids donât always apply to the schools where they are legacies. Neither of ours applied. We do know enough people there to believe they would have had a really good chance in ED but neither wanted to go there.
1 Like
Yes, colleges do that,@homerdog. If your child is within range for admission to your legacy, and is applying elsewhere RD, a competitor college may think your child is unlikely to matriculate to it as opposed to the legacy college. For one of my children, a HYPSM school called the high school counselor and asked whether the student had applied SCEA as a legacy to another Hypsm.
Homerdog, I laid it out. A perfect kid, which is rare, not every case. It depends on the actual app, whatâs conveyed.
1 Like