<p>I've heard very low (2%?) acceptance rates touted for the non-binding (and even binding) partner colleges in QB Match. Do you think this is because of a lower applicant quality than SCEA/EA/ED/RD pools? Or is it because they are more reluctant to accept QB Match kids?</p>
<p>I think it’s more that 0 EFC kids are more desirable during the match process. Most QB applicants who are 0 EFC are statistically more likely to have lower stats, so it’s harder to match in general.</p>
<p>I heard from two college reps from USC and Wesleyan repeat what goldysocks has said, but interestingly enough, I don’t think I will be applying to either schools.</p>
<p>I’m one of those 0 EFC kids, but after looking at the stats posted in another thread here, I feel that I have significantly lower test scores than the other QB candidates on CC. I don’t think any of us applicants “suck”, but neither do I believe I will be matched.</p>
<p>So they’re really not any more selective through Match and it’s just a matter of QB finalist rankers having too-low stats?</p>
<p>If a finalist has stats around the 25-75 percentile of the university, should he have a lower/same/higher than average chance of acceptance?</p>
<p>They are looking for EFC 0 students first; it’s not only the stats keeping us down. </p>
<p>The Wesleyan rep said that some QB applicants are very qualified, but not matched during the first round due to EFC. The plus-EFC 0 fare better during the reg decision round since the QB schools aren’t obligated to select only EFC students (some schools don’t care about EFC; each college selects their a different way). </p>
<p>Some schools also look for students in lower-represented geographic areas.</p>
<p>I wanted a more descriptive answer, but I don’t think the admin officers were allowed to say. As their official websites state, the schools keep the same standards for QB applicants as any other, BUT their applications are looked at with context of the students’ challenged background.</p>
<p>But at most of these colleges, isn’t <$60,000 a 0 EFC? And aren’t 98% of Finalists <$60,000?</p>
<p>How do you even calculate your EFC?</p>
<p>[EFC</a> Calculator: How Much Money for College Will You Be Expected to Contribute?](<a href=“http://apps.collegeboard.com/fincalc/efc_welcome.jsp]EFC”>http://apps.collegeboard.com/fincalc/efc_welcome.jsp)
Well, I see that CollegeBoard has one but which methodology best reflects our EFC values? Any opinions?</p>
<p>Check the FM and the IM. IM is more likely, but each school has a different way of calculating.</p>
<p>If you’re getting the 2% figure from this page: [National</a> College Match Program: 2009 College Match Recipient Profile](<a href=“QuestBridge”>QuestBridge) that’s actually for recipients of the match, not all finalists.</p>
<p>Here’s the finalist profile data: [National</a> College Match Program: 2009 College Match Finalist Profile](<a href=“http://www.questbridge.org/students/profiles_class2014/finalist.stats.html]National”>http://www.questbridge.org/students/profiles_class2014/finalist.stats.html)</p>
<p>Still, EFC> 60,000 is about 7%, so i think the gist of your point holds…</p>
<p>Thanks!
So through the IM, families that are income-poor but have considerable amount of assets would have EFC values that are greater than 0? </p>
<p>And based on what topramennbaklava and goldysocks have said, then there would be a close to 0 chance of being matched to a school such as USC huh?</p>
<p>Thanks Mentos, so considering that <10% of finalists have >$60,000 (and assuming under that income cut-off equals 0 EFC as these colleges quote) it’s unreasonable that the low Match acceptance rate is from only matching with 0 EFC. What else could it be from besides lower applicant quality (apparently test scores)?</p>
<p>To HardcoreParkour, I don’t think you meant it in a negative way, but stating “lower applicant quality” sounds slightly derogatory to some very-well high achieving EFC-0 candidates. I also think that some of the schools may be looking to use the QB pool to expand racial and geographical diversity on campus. These factors may be out of our control. </p>
<p>Yes, some schools regard EFC-0 as less important, while some schools also accept international QB students like Princeton and Dartmouth, but UPenn and Stanford will not select non-US citizens. </p>
<p>Each school selects their candidates by their own criteria. Why not e-mail the colleges you are interested and ask?</p>
<p>Well, if the colleges show no bias towards QB applicants, the only explanation for lower acceptance rates is on the other end, lower applicant quality in some form.</p>
<p>Essentially, I’m just trying to figure out if a student with 0 EFC could be rejected from a Match Partner when he/she would have been accepted via regular decision.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I hope that we’ve not overlooking the fact that these are some of the most competitive universities in the nation. It’s not a perfect meritocracy; they’ve got to find other individuals as well to build a class that they’re striving for.</p>
<p>gaginang, I should clarify. I mean “lower than RD acceptance rate.” The competitiveness of these universities affects all sets of applicants virtually equally, so it’s not a possible explanation for the lower acceptance rates.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Unfortunately, not all of the things they consider are equal. There are still many universities that consider race, alumni relation, etc.-things that we cannot hope to control.</p>
<p>Also, although QuestBridge applicants number in the thousands, it is still a self-selecting pool that does not accurately portray the universities’ applicant pools. </p>
<p>ex:
If one person applied from a high school and got rejected we would see for that year a 0% admission rate from that high school.</p>
<p>Not to argue statistical semantics, but the fact that it’s a self-selecting pool is the basis for my question. Is there something that makes QB students unilaterally less attractive to universities than if they applied RD, or is there some underlying characteristic of QB kids that just makes them tend to be less attractive?</p>
<p>I wouldn’t say “less attractive”. Colleges pay QB for admitting students through the Match process in addition to committing X amount of money to be a partner. </p>
<p>Perhaps due to limited finances, it’s better to limit the amount of QB finalists admitted through the Match. Also, it’s costly to provide these financial packages; sometimes it’s better to have students admitted through regular decisions and give them a different fin aid package. Take Claremont Mckenna for an example: [Finances</a> Force QuestBridge Hiatus - Campus](<a href=“http://media.www.claremontindependent.com/media/storage/paper1031/news/2009/02/15/Campus/Finances.Force.Questbridge.Hiatus-3630587.shtml]Finances”>http://media.www.claremontindependent.com/media/storage/paper1031/news/2009/02/15/Campus/Finances.Force.Questbridge.Hiatus-3630587.shtml). </p>
<p>However, I doubt this is the case for the Ivies, since it’s already hard to get in even as a QB applicant, thus the low rates.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>HardcoreParkour is speaking of relative rates. QB kids are getting Matched at 1/3rd the rate of Regular Decision applicants and less than 1/5th the rate of Early Action applicants at the Ivies/other top schools. This is a huge discrepancy, and it’s worth questioning whether applying through QB itself is causing it. Like others have said, the commitment of a four year deal and having to pay QB for each kid is probably a big part of it. </p>
<p>But the question is, if applying through QB essentially means you won’t be accepted early and will have to go through the regular round with everyone else, would potential QB kids be better off just applying early the normal way? It’s definitely arguable that applying early typically gives admissions advantages, even if colleges don’t admit this. If only psychologically, ad officers are more likely to pay attention to the first apps they see of the year. </p>
<p>It’s too late for us to change anything, so this is just speculation for the next round of kids.</p>
<p>Thanks sinflower! I had trouble explaining that 
but you’re right! Too late for us! And I’m sure most of us need that full-ride so we’d be doing it anyway.</p>