<p>QUOTE: "Unhooked students will low SAT scores (lower than 25% percentile for a given school) will have a very low probability of gaining admission to top universities or LACs."</p>
<p>You simply cannot isolate this one factor in this way. It is not isolatable. It is especially true that the top colleges (subject of this thread) do not operate this way. Everything in the student's package is evaluated relative to everything else. Again, the correlations will be there (proving <em>tendencies</em>), but the determinants that you are assuming from those correlations, are not present.</p>
<p>Scores <em>against</em> GPA <em>against</em> high school curriculum <em>against</em> known rigor of high school <em>against</em> academic awards received <em>against</em> type & level of extracurricular <em>against</em> statements of purpose <em>against</em> content of recommendations (not just scale of recs) <em>against</em> content,tone of essays <em>against</em> personal interview <em>against</em> region of residence, etc.</p>
<p>Absolutely true. And for certain specialties in law and medicine it makes little difference if you come from an elite private or top public. Criminal law is a good example. Not all Supreme Court justices are Harvard law grads. On the other hand if you want an associate position with a top law firm in New York or LA with a starting salary of $175,000, it will be very hard if you are not in the top 10% from a top 10 law school.</p>
<p>In regards to the comment regarding low SAT scores, I am simply reflecting the statistical probability of acceptance based on low SAT, which can easily be verified. This does not mean that some number of applicants will not be admitted despite that factor, but it will remain small. </p>
<p>I know that MIT has created a Developmental Group consisting of around 50 students that they will admit despite low scores or grades. They are trying to capture the elusive "genius" who has an extraordinary talent in some area of science or technology but somehow did not do well in high school or did not get some national award. These extremely lopsided kids are still very rare, but some top schools will search them out. MIT is one of the few schools I know that has a program to capture these outliers.</p>
<p>"On the other hand if you want an associate position with a top law firm in New York or LA with a starting salary of $175,000, it will be very hard if you are not in the top 10% from a top 10 law school."</p>
<p>This is really a side point, but if at a top 10 (the common grouping is actually top-14) law school, you do not need to be in the top 10% of your class to get an associate position at a big NY, LA, DC, Chicago etc. firm. That's the point of being at a top 10/14 school.</p>
<p>Yes, the prestige hierarchy in law is a lot more strict than with undergraduate education, and there are a very limited number of national law schools. In some senses, there is only one truly national law school: Harvard. Every other school is basically regional or local in orientation, although at the top-10 level (really more like top 12-15) there is enough national reputation for the prestige to be widely recognized outside the "home" region. Below that level, a student's main employment prospects are going to be in the metropolitan area or state where the law school is located, or in some cases in nearby states (e.g. University of Washington grads in Alaska).</p>
<p>That doesn't mean that you can't have a great career going to a state school (other than the top ones that are the equivalent of the top private schools), but it does mean you are likely to have a very different career path. And all of the Supreme Court Justices did go to high-prestige law schools: 5 Harvard, 2 Yale, 1 Harvard/Columbia (Ruth Ginsburg transferred when her husband graduated and took a job in NYC), and 1 Northwestern (Justice Stevens, the oldest of them, and a Chicago undergraduate). Except for Warren Burger, it's been 40+ years since someone who didn't graduate from a top law school got successfully appointed to the Supreme Court. (And other than Thurgood Marshall -- something of a special case -- you could go back 60 years before finding anyone.)</p>
<p>Wesdad is correct. Many of the top 10% at top 14 law schools will be looking for federal clerkships straight out of undergrad, and these are the folks who have the best shot at getting teaching positions following that, too. Many of them will do the cannon-fodder route for a while (to pay down those blasted loans), but their school name and class rank will offer other opportunities down the road should they not want to do the partnership thing.</p>
<p>On the other hand, the diploma hanging in my DH's office that gets the most attention comes from The Bronx HS of Science.</p>
<p>cd,
the elusive, lopsided genius may be rare (at any school, not just MIT), but the one who is lopsidedly stellar in all areas <em>except</em> combined SAT I, is not rare. It's just that their various "other" areas are not calcultable & thus do not appear as data points in the CDS's.</p>
<p>Rather, the evidence is as follows, based on self-reporting by admissions reps of top-tier institutions in the last several years, & confirmed by CC student postings:</p>
<p>Rare is the non-hooked student admitted mostly based on high stats (scores/grades). </p>
<p>Somewhat rare is the non-hooked student admitted with high stats and only a few other impressive features.</p>
<p>Quite common (the 2nd-to-highest group of admits) is the student who is below the 25th percentile in at least Math or Verbal SAT I, but "off the charts" in all other areas (mentioned in my previous post).</p>
<p>The greatest likelihood of admits will be the student with all the "other" features AND above the 25th pecentile in both math & verbal. That does not mean, however, that even the greatest percentage of admits are in this category. It means you're going to hang around longer in the pile of "likely admits" and will likely stay in the final decision pool up until the end. But there are plenty of reported stories of admissions officers -- some of them who have posted such stories on CC -- others of whom have written books about this, who decide, during that final review, to pick someone in the 2nd-to-highest group of admits over someone in the "most likely" group. These are the subjective calls that are not data points in the CDS's.</p>
<p>Unfortunately, anecdotal evidence does not make your statements true. Pretty much all the statistics contradict your assertions:</p>
<p>1. Non-hooked students admitted mostly based on grades and scores are rare: actually they constitute at least half of the students at top colleges. At HYPSM, they have a 25% chance of admission. At the next tier, 33%. Virtually all (over 80%) of the students in the 99th percentile that apply get into a top college or LAC. </p>
<p>2. Students with scores below the 25th percentile are common This is an oxymoron. If they are below the 25th percentile they are already a minority. Again, statistics show that less than one in ten get admitted. Excluding the hooked students less than one in twenty, even with great ECs. That is a good 5 to 1 or 7 to 1 difference in odds compared to somebody in the 99th percentile. </p>
<p>You can claim whatever you want based on anecdotes on CC. The stats just tell the facts. I think it is personally very misleading to claim that someone has a realistic shot at getting in to a top college or LAC with less than top stats. The data shows quite conclusively that other factors do not compensate for low scores. Once you are qualified, then other factors kick in. But if you don't have the scores, you have a better chance at the lottery.</p>
<p>QUOTE: "In regards to the comment regarding low SAT scores, I am simply reflecting the statistical probability of acceptance based on low SAT, which can easily be verified. This does not mean that some number of applicants will not be admitted despite that factor, but it will remain small."</p>
<p>Again, there is no accuracy to this statement, because there is no comparable statistic regarding the non-SAT factors which have become so crucial in admissions to top-tier schools.</p>
<p>What has been proven true over the last several years (at least 3, if not 4 or 5 years) is that the group of applicants that are least likely to gain admission to a top school are the ones with the least impressive e.c.'s. (B students with scores of 1050 do not apply in significant numbers to Ivies.) The greatest category of applicants to Ivies are already the high-GPA, moderately high to high scorers. (Otherwise, there wouldn't be the oft-repeated comment from those colleges that "80-90% of our applicants can do the work.")</p>
<p>People who can prove only that they are good students is the group least likely to be admitted. ("3-5 % chance" sounds about right ;) )</p>
<p>Someone in or above the 75th percentile score but with weak e.c.'s is a lot less likely to be admitted than someone at or below the 25th percentile but with dazzling e.c.'s.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Someone in or above the 75th percentile score but with weak e.c.'s is a lot less likely to be admitted than someone at or below the 25th percentile but with dazzling e.c.'s.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Where did you get your data for this?</p>
<p>This is a very important point, if the data supporting it are strong enough. Students who find that their grades are suffering slightly because of heavy involvement in ECs (and their parents) often wonder whether it is better to decrease EC involvement in order to preserve top grades or to maintain EC involvement and let the grades slide a bit. Good data supporting the point that you make would help people make wise decisions.</p>
<p>Again, only "anecdotes" are supplied because the nonquantifiable factors that the colleges themselves state are more determinant in admissions, are not the ones posted on the CDS's, for the reason that they are non quantifiable. </p>
<p>I'm restating what colleges are reporting, what CC students reveal in the various results threads, and what the reported numbers of <em>rejected</em> high scorers are (percentages and absolute numbers reported by colleges), as published in recent and last-several-yrs. news articles, many of these posted on CC. You can't make comparative generalizations when the other part of the data is missing.</p>
<p>Further, since so many parents on PF alone, and so many students on CC, know so many students with non-high scores admitted to top-tier institutions, it is counter-intuitive to dismiss these examples as "anecdotes." The fact that they are anecdotes does not mean that they are necessarily rare, or an exception to some rule. It means that this abundant evidence happens only at the moment to be available as self-reports from students, parents, and colleges.</p>
<p>Only part of the admission data is in quantified format. The rest -- which the colleges state is more important than the quantifiable aspects alone -- is not available in a statistically comparative model.</p>
<p>Anyone who doesn't understand that in the last several years, the "action" has been in the e.c. department, is limiting their own access to information.</p>
<p>I am sorry that facts backed by firm statistics from the schools themselves fail to convince you. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Again, there is no accuracy to this statement, because there is no comparable statistic regarding the non-SAT factors which have become so crucial in admissions to top-tier schools.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>A statistic that proves a point is not invalid because some alternative statistic that proves a different point has not been found. That would be a strange conception of statistics.</p>
<p>Despite all your talk about the value of ECs, there is no empirical evidence to back it up. At best one could say, strong ECs help choose among equally academically qualified students. No more. There is on the other hand plenty of evidence supplied by the colleges themselves that scores still rule. And that will continue and only get worse. Wait until you see the 25/75 percentiles published by the colleges for enrolled students in the fall. They are all rising.</p>
<p>Marian, I get that from what the colleges themselves say, and what the reported results threads state on CC. But scores are not grades. (You asked about a GPA suffering.) The grades had better remain high: those are more important than scores, for admission. Cd's statement that "scores rule" is simply inaccurate. If it was accurate, there wouldn't be some of the top colleges "re-evaluating" how much emphasis to place on scores in admission. (Refer to many of the articles posted by asteriskea.)</p>
<p>Cd, your statements are not credible because they are not comparative. They provide no other information than the scores alone. You can convince yourself all you like that "scores rule," but this is so far off the present 2007 reality that it's not funny. The fact that students "are scoring higher" (and they are: there have been articles about that recently posted on CC) does not mean that those students are being admitted or will be admitted <em>because</em> of their scores. (Correlation does not equal causation. That's been said to you many times, but you're in love with a data point that is meaningless without other data points that test just how important the initial data point is.)</p>
<p>Nobody has accused me of mixing correlation with causation. You must be confusing me with somebody else. I am very happy with correlation. A strong correlation is a very powerful factor. It shows where the odds are. It is irrelevant whether it is solely because of these scores or a combination of scores and other elements! It tells you that having high scores is hugely important to admission. If you have them you increase your odds by at least a factor of 2.5, everything else being equal. I have also shown that virtually every applicant with high scores gets into a top college or LAC if that is what they want. It also says that if you don't have high scores you have hardly any chance to get in, period. You can refuse to accept the facts, but that is what the stats show.</p>
<p>As far as being off the reality, you need to gather some facts yourself before you can challenge the statistics I have posted. Just dismissing them won't help your case or make the case for high scores any weaker. </p>
<p>You have made repeated statements that are blatantly false and support your arguments by anecdotes and references to unrelated comments. Please get some data before getting parents off track. Scores are getting more and more important for admission to virtually all schools, not less.</p>
<p>Folks, for those of you who still like to refer to hard evidence, ;), Rank rules, not scores.</p>
<p>Example: CDS for Princeton, 2001 vs. 2005.</p>
<p>In the "considered" category (3rd category of importance) in '01 was Class Rank. In '05, Class Rank skipped a whole category, leapfrogging to "Very Important." (I didn't micro-analyze changes in the interim years.)</p>
<p>The Very Important elements (most determinant) are:
Rigor of High School Record
Class Rank
Academic GPA
Standardized Test Scores
Application Essay
Recommendations
Extracurricular activities
Talent/ability
Character/personal qualities</p>
<p>Within that above column of Very Important, there is absolutely no quantitative comparative value actually stated as to how these factors are weighted relative to the others, if they are. The only two quantitative pieces of information are the score test ranges (25-75%) -- listed elsewhere, not within the "relative importance section -- and the %'s of those admitted within the tenth, quarter, and top half of their class. What the latter reveals, btw, is that you have a LESS than 3-5% chance of admission if you are not in the top quarter of your class (even with a 2400 score), and only a slightly better chance than that if you are not within the top 10%.</p>
<p>There is no information in the CDS's regarding any 25-75% ranges for e.c.'s, essays, recs. (The subjective factors which THE COLLEGES have stated are so often the determining factors between one excellent student & another).</p>
<p>"Scores are getting more and more important for admission to virtually all schools, not less."</p>
<p>It is actually YOU who continue to mislead people on this forum that you have "evidence" of a statement such as what I just quoted above. You only have evidence that scores are getting (recently) higher. That in turn may be evidence of greater access to test prep, better preparation within the high school curriculm, and/or a wider applicant pool both nationally & internationally, providing options for admitting candidates with "higher" test scores. You have provided no evidence that the colleges themselves consider test scores to be "more important" or "increasingly more important" than other factors in admission. You have only your personal biases as "evidence" that "scores rule," which is a laughable statement on its very face. Tell the 2400-score students on CC who were rejected to HYP and similar stellar institutions this year, last year, and (the 1600-er's) the year before, that "scores rule."</p>
<p>This is all very interesting. I made the point earlier that a student better be in the top 5% of his class to a make it to a top school. So, what! He still has to be well above the 25% percentile in SAT scores to have a reasonable chance to get in. </p>
<p>Still these FACTS do not support any of your earlier statements.</p>
<p>On your last point. I never claimed that average scores are getting higher. Actually they are slightly down this year. The scores required to get in, on the other hand are getting higher. </p>
<p>You make factually incorrect statements easily disproved. You obviously have never taken a statistics class, so it is a hopeless situation to convince you. You will always revert back to some student you have heard of on CC or elsewhere to support your argument. Hopefully other parents will heed the warning that their kids need high scores to have a chance to get in to a top school.</p>
<p>I'll wade in to point out several important considerations:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>No two applicants are exactly alike, even if they have the same test scores and GPA. There are <em>always</em> differences in the application, in recommendations, in the curriculum taken, in the high schools that they attended, in the family's financial situation, family's educational background, etc., etc., etc. So, drawing any conclusions about what GPA/test score cut-offs will get "all" students in is an exercise in futility because there are too many variables involved on the individual level.</p></li>
<li><p>Drawing any conclusions from the limited sample pool here on CC (or other discussion forums) is an exercise in futility because we do not have access to the entire application package that admissions officers use to make decisions. </p></li>
<li><p>Drawing any conclusions about what is true at "all schools" -even a sample of "all schools" - is also an exercise in futility because each college and university has its own priorities AND applicant pool that influences who gets in and who doesn't.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>With that said, it is possible, if you have enough information about an individual student and a particular college where they are applying to draw a one-time BROAD estimate of their individual chances of acceptance. That level of information is NOT offered in the "profiles" of students here on CC (or elsewhere), nor in the "profiles" of admitted/enrolled students offered by the colleges themselves. Both do not take into account all of the hundreds of reasons why a SPECIFIC student does or does not get admitted to a SPECIFIC college.</p>
<p>The bottomline: Arguing about what it takes to get in is really moot. What matters is why an INDIVIDUAL student gets into an INDIVIDUAL college, and that is impossible to quantify into statements saying that ALL students with similar characteristics will also get in. :) So, while there is probably some truth for SOME students in the statements made by both CD and Ephiphany, no student should assume that the truth will always hold true for them individually at all schools.</p>
<p>Academically, your son is fine. He DOES NOT need to retake the SAT. The key would be for your son to make himself stand out in the throngs of applicants. A great place to do this is the essay. If he isn't a recruited athlete, he really needs his humanity to show through. The admissions office needs to see him as a person as opposed a bunch of numbers. If he is funny, write a compelling and hilarious essay. Northwestern's program does look for students with significant research in the sciences though. Volunteering is not enough. A non-profit would be a plus (in a medically-related field). Given what you have said though, I know nothing about him as an individual. If the admissions committee gets the same impression, he will be tossed into the waitlist/reject pile. But, don't feel down, he definitely has a shot, but academics will NOT determine his chances.</p>