@lookingforward Agree more students will take a shot at schools. And, of course schools won’t lower their expectations. Who said they would? Not me.
My point is they will weight other items more without testing: writing and activities. And that gives the kid lacking top scores their best shot ever.
And you missed my point about how 80% of students could do the work. That means about 80% of students will have straight As and plenty of rigor. And now testing doesn’t count either. So what will happen?
Admissions will rely more heavily than ever on writing and activities. Those are both areas where a student who can’t pop 750 SAT subscores can shine–and win over an admission officer.
It’s a simple argument: Test scores were a barrier to entry for some students who were otherwise compelling. That barrier has been removed. So if there was ever a year for a student who lacked those elite scores (for whatever reason: access to test prep, bad test-taker) to have a shot, it’s this year. I’m not encouraging students who are otherwise not competitive to apply.
–MCS
I didn’t know so many apply ED until I read some admission stats recently. With the Ivy Leagues having cancelled their entire sports season, including basketball while other divisions are playing, do you think kids that may have gone to the Ivies next year may forego that to go to a different school so they can play their sport instead?
I know some who have decided to keep their kids completely remote once the winter season was cancelled, even though the campus is open and doing great.
Kids who want the best of both, academics and sports, may not want to risk going to an Ivy if it means they may not actually even get to play, and the 5th year of eligibility may not be worth it since they have to full pay. So maybe these kids would seek other elite colleges to play their sport at that they’re actually playing? I ask because I wonder then if that will also factor in the ED pool and help non athletes.
Also, when a school pushes back their ED date to mid November, and then doesn’t push back their notification date, how on earth do they adequately review all those applications, especially if they have increased? This school reviews them by college, not by admissions office, so maybe that helps, but still, don’t things get missed in that? Maybe that’s why they put in the questions of what math and when you took physics questions. Just curious what you think.
They also made it where you click if you want an interview as opposed to you being contacted for one. Totally optional either way and no impact on the decision. The alumni doesn’t even submit anything. Again, different than a few years ago which I think is because they don’t have enough time for the turnaround with the decision date of mid-December.
@BKSquared Not sure what you find “disingenuous” about what I’m saying: I’m reporting a true experience: Roughly 80% of students I read at Stanford could have thrived. That means they had straight As, with plenty of rigor, top scores, and fine activities and writing. I never said those 80% of kids made it to committee. We admitted 4% of students–about the top 10% of those qualified kids made it to committee.
My point was that Selingo’s concern about schools fretting if a kid is qualified–and therefore leaning on a well-known elite school–is overblown. Because most students can do the work. So I don’t think admissions will worry about that and avoid a kid with straight As from a public school this year. Instead, I think they’ll just rely more on the things that have always mattered the most for winning over an admission officer and a committee: writing and activities.
–MCS
We have a pretty realistic view of her chances at extremely selective colleges she applies to, she’s in the cohort of “qualified-and-so-what” candidates, the 80% mentioned before. But we have been completely relaxed about it since she declared she’d be happy at McGill, and has stats to make her admission almost sure. I don’t want to kidnap the thread so I won’t continue here.
@Creaky Define “could.” I saw postings here saying “I’m not going to drive for 3 hours each way so my kid can take a test.” It’s a decision, and I respect it. But doesn’t mean many of these people really “couldn’t,” or just decided the game got too crazy to play it?
And sure, some of these people couldn’t afford it, for financial or logistical reasons, I get that.
I mis-phrased what @srparent15 wrote, which is that “at least 75% of students had taken the ACT test at least once.” That is what is not true in my area.
I don’t doubt that 80% can do the work or even thrive. But that is different than saying 80% are more or less equal in terms of admissions desirability. My point is that AO’s always brag about how 80% or whatever high percent of applicants could be successful at XYZ college to advertise how stellar their pool is, but that 80% is not created equal. I am guessing at least 50% are cut after the first read – I’d be curious about your experience at Stanford. There is obviously some process that gets you to the final 10%, and from reading the various disclosures about the Harvard litigation and what I know about the Yale process, the highly selective schools follow a very similar culling process – big cuts in the beginning followed by ever sharper delineations. Just as a matter of workflow where you have to take 30-40,000+ students to 2000± in a very limited time, you have to work it this way. I also think the highly selective schools are trying to entice as broad of an applicant pool as possible. It both gives them an opportunity to find their diamonds in the rough as well as decrease their admissions rate, making them appear more selective and elite.
As a rough sketch: For every 100 applications I read, I set aside around 10 to “bring to committee”; that is, to discuss for possible admission. For Early and Regular, the Dean would give us guidance on a rough total number we could bring–not set in stone, but an estimate, that roughly corresponded with about 10%. Some students I’d bring to make a hard pitch for; others because I felt I had to at least talk about them for various reasons; and finally a group I was on the fence about. So the assigned admission reader does the main cut, and then the committee finishes it off with voting. The pool is staggering in terms of talent. What pushed someone from that qualified 80% pool into the top 10%? Several factors, but in my experience, their writing and activities. --MCS
There are no athletic scholarships in the Ivy league, so the 5th year would be at the same cost as the others (financial aid only).
I’m sure some top athletes are considering playing opportunities for the next few years in some sports. Is it better to play lacrosse at Yale or at Syracuse if Yale is not playing the 2021 season and Syracuse is? Would Stanford be a better choice for swimming or track since it is more likely the Pac 12 will have a season than the Ivy league? I think these choices will only be made by a few very good athletes who are also top students.
@anon45019500 I think many on CC, experienced or not, can fall into oversimplifying. Truth is, this is more than whether a reader is in a good mood today or thinks you offer some neat side view. The “whole” has to be there. The elites have the luxury and resources to demand much more than stats, some collection of ECs or good story telling. They can look for their “type,” which will vary. More than the resume or writing being “interesting,” it’s the person you present as. That’s why (on CC, for elites,) we often boil this down to the word, “traits.”
There is no one simple part of the application (including supps) that can make a kid compelling, without the rest being there. The “parts” can be intriguing. But that’s not enough. Not when there are tens of thousands of 4.0 kids in line. “Standing out” is not a matter of being “different.” At its most basic, it’s about conformity: conforming to the notions the elite college has in mind for its student body, its community. The whole of it.
Yes, the LoRs are critical. Yes, many are lame. Yes, elite preps know how to word things to make a kid sound wonderful on the surface. But elite readers can delve deeper, between the lines. Those for the remarkable (prep) kids are different, not pro forma. And yes, even harried GCs or teachers at under-resourced high schools can do a great job at promoting a kid in the right ways. In fact, for years, I’ve been saying the bright kids at lesser high schools should not be subject to assumptions about their actual educations being sub par. There are fine teachers out there.
I’m familiar with a multi-tier reviewing rocess at another tippy top. As I understand it, S also had- and has- multi reads. (AO, 2nd reader, others, before back to the territory AO.) No kid goes from adcom to committee just like that. There needs to be alignment among the various reviews. Etc.
@creaky, right, that’s why I said in my post how it’ll be interesting how colleges treat students in areas where they know 100% of students have taken tests and then students don’t submit them. I know people who took the ACT this fall alone 3x. They obviously know that in some areas the ACT wasn’t given at all so those are the students who fall in that 25% window and they won’t be penalized either.
@twoinanddone
That was my point. That Ivies don’t give athletic scholarships, so giving a 5th year of eligibility is moot for these kids. unless their parents are so loaded they don’t care, or if they’re staying for a Masters. They have to look at the whole picture.
You can’t really compare Yale to Syracuse as that is not apples to apples, but since you’re talking about Orangemen, a good example is Jimmy Boeheim son played basketball at Cornell, but when the Ivy League cancelled their entire basketball season a few weeks ago he put his name in the transfer pool. He’s a senior! So in his case he wants to play one more year in college so badly that he is transferring college with one semester left to go! I assume he has no NBA ability so that’s probably why. But for most others entering college, if you had a choice to go to an Ivy or Stanford or another top public school, or even private like Duke, Vandy etc that are playing sports, who wouldn’t take that opportunity instead? So back to my question and whether this impacts the ED pool for athletes this year and push them into RD?
I know so far we haven’t had many commit anywhere since they haven’t been able to play yet!
@lookingforward To try and steelman you: I think your main point is admissions is a holistic process. Absolutely, we agree.
But, and I genuinely say this in good faith: You’re speaking at such a high-level of generalization it’s unhelpful. You say colleges look for their “type.” What does that mean?
You say, “it’s about conformity: conforming to the notions the elite college has in mind for its student body, its community. The whole of it.” What does that mean? That’s how admission offices talk–it’s so opaque and general it doesn’t help anyone understand what colleges are looking for. It just begs the question: Well, what is X college’s type?
Admission offices have to take those general ideas you mention and reduce them–simplify them–into specific guidance to train admission readers to go about evaluating applications in as uniform a way as possible. And if you’re advising students and parents–which I take to be the main goal of this site–you need to risk oversimplifying to provide practical, specific advice. Again, I say this in a spirit of goodwill: I’m not sure how any of the guidance you’ve laid out above helps anyone figure out what to do. It just says: ‘This is a complicated process.’
Anyway, the main point of my post was simple: If testing was the one thing holding you back, this year, despite all the stress, is your best shot at top schools.
Of course, the effect differs between different students. Lack of test scores works to the advantage of students for whom test scores are or would be the weakest parts of their applications. But it works to the disadvantage of students whose test scores would have been strong even in the context of elite college admissions.
The effect of COVID-19 limitations on ECs varies on the type of EC. Some ECs may be completely cancelled and difficult to do in an individual context, while others may still be doable in an individual, socially distanced context. For example, among athletic ECs, a baseball or softball athlete may have no way to show extracurricular strength if the games are cancelled and group practices are not even happening, while a running athlete can still train individually and arrange for time trials to show progress and achievement.
So non-elite students whose weakest application aspect is or would be test scores, but who can keep their grades up and who can continue to do and achieve in their chosen ECs are the ones most likely to have enhanced chances of admission to an elite-admission college. But many other non-elite students would not have a significantly better chance than before.
However, some PSAT-deprived juniors may still be screwed. At least one poster previously mentioned that their kid was exposed to another student who was asymptomatic at the time but shortly thereafter tested positive for COVID-19, so the poster’s kid had to quarantine for two weeks which included the PSAT date (i.e. could not take the PSAT). So if the kid was a strong enough test taker, that quarantine may have cost the kid tens of thousands of dollars of college scholarship money.
I specifically do not post what “type” is or delve into conformity because I feel so deeply that any kid who feels he’s strong enough for a tippy top should be strong enough- and wise enough- to seek that out in the info that is avaialble, from the colleges, themselves.
Otoh, once a kid shows he or she has done the basic due diligence and is thoughtful, I have no issue trading PMs, to support the kid gaining a better understanding of his own. But often, the public oversimplification of encouraging words misleads kids. In their high school worlds, they can barely imagine the level of competition you and I know exists.
Frank question, which you can choose not to answer: did you say you primarily worked with apps from SV and elite preps? That also can lead to a difference in our perspectives. SV, Stuy, TJ, some of the haute elite preps across the country, can be a different ball of wax.
The only reason I posted was to say that there’s hope for those who had their PSATs canceled, based on our own story of the surprising later remedy.
I don’t believe anything in my post indicates that I take the covid situation lightly, or that everyone has been/will be made whole.
Back to OP’s original point. With test scores (and even grades in some cases) playing a less important role and student activities more limited this year, the weight of other criteria in admission would have to increase. Those other criteria happen to be more subjective, which will necessarily lead to more uncertain outcomes for many applicants to elite colleges. Greater uncertainties will force these students to apply to even more elite colleges. Some students who wouldn’t normally apply or feel qualified may also apply, and some of them may be admitted as OP suggested. On the other end of the spectrum, many students may decided to stay local, instead of applying to OOS publics or expensive (i.e. less than the most generous) non-elite privates.
A senior whose season was cancelled still has eligibility, so can go on the transfer portal, finish at the current school, and then transfer to another school to get a masters or a second bachelors or whatever. In some ways it is the best of both worlds as he gets to get his degree and still play.
Just because a school/coach CAN allow a scholarship athlete to get funding for a 5th year doesn’t mean they will. Most coaches have the scholarship amounts planned for years, and there just isn’t room for extending for more semesters. When the NCAA granted another year of eligibility for spring sports, it caused issues for many programs as they expected seniors to graduate and for freshmen who’d been promised those funds to start playing in 2021. Lots of shuffling.
It’s not just a matter of the student wanting to stay and play for the extra year but how the team is structured. It’s actually easier at the Ivies as they don’t have scholarships to figure into the equation. Playing time, captain positions, team size? Yes. My daughter’s merit scholarships were also limited to 8 semesters, so unless her coach had doubled her athletic scholarship she couldn’t have stayed at her college for another year. It’s not just the Ivy kids having to figure out the funds for a 5th year.