Do you think my son has the qualifications for ivy league?

Parent Cafe
241

<p>


What you are missing is the fact that the colleges have the power to manipulate the statistics, and they have a particular incentive to do so with regard to SAT scores because of the impact of those scores on US News rankings.</p>

<p>I would strongly suggest that you read the book The Gatekeepers to get a sense of how highly selective colleges look at test scores and work to manipulate the numbers during the admission process. In the college profiled in the book (Wesleyan), the adcom received frequent updates as to how their SAT numbers were running. They had a target, which was to keep the score range equal or above the previous year's. They did NOT simply solve that problem by opting for high scorers all the time -- rather, all of the ad reps had some favorites among low scorers that they wanted to pitch for admission, and the status of the running average was a factor which governed whether the student could be admitted. If the numbers were high -- then there would be room for some leniency in score range -- whereas if the numbers were running low, they would need to opt for some more high scorers.</p>

<p>Also, keep in mind they are working primarily with medians, not averages - which means that they don't have to do a an exact numeric counterbalance. If they are taking in 1000 students and want to have 75% of the students in with scores above 700.... then they need 750 students who have scores above 700. The other 250 can have any scores whatsoever -- theoretically it doesn't make much difference whether it is score of 650 or 500 -- although of course the ad coms are going to use some common sense and not accept a student whose scores are so low that they can't do the work.</p>

<p>It gets more complicated, because the colleges report the test scores separately, now with 3 separate tests. They do not need across-the-board 700+ scorers -- as long as within each category they have the requisite 750 students. So a 620 Math, 730 CR kid essentially can be counter-balanced with an 800 Math, 600 CR kid -- as long as there aren't too many of them. </p>

<p>So -- going back to The Gatekeepers, I wouldn't be suprised if on some Monday morning the admissions director gets a report from the number cruncher telling him that the school is running great on the CR scores... but is slipping on the math -- so word goes out to the rest to the committee to grab more kids with high math scores. So maybe that's the week some kid with weak EC's but really great math scores gets lucky, and gets in despite lack of any special hook. </p>

<p>I suspect that the total number of admitted kids with at least one score below the 25th mark would probably be more like 30-35% (and those with across the board low scores much more rare). If there were no overlap among low scorers, it would be theoretically possible to have 50% of the students be below the 25th percent mark on one score or the other.... but I think that is unlikely. However, I do think it is more likely that a student with only below-25% score would be admitted than a student with 2 below 25% scores - for obvious reasons.</p>

242

<p>RELEVANT QUOTES:
"The other 250 can have any scores whatsoever -- theoretically it doesn't make much difference whether it is score of 650 or 500 -- although of course the ad coms are going to use some common sense and not accept a student whose scores are so low that they can't do the work."</p>

<p>"So a 620 Math, 730 CR kid essentially can be counter-balanced with an 800 Math, 600 CR kid -- as long as there aren't too many of them."</p>

<p>...And it happens regularly. These very ranges & disparities appear often, not just on CC, but as reported (including this cycle) by admissions officers --regardless of how "scores are increasing" (on average). In fact, a very typical scenario is the acceptee who has an 800V, 650M (or vice-versa) but who has 6-8 other categories of WOW in the "Very Important" CDS column. It is not uncommon for this student to be accepted to a Reach Elite <em>over</em> the 800/800 student with 4 or 5 other impressive areas in the Very Imp. column. (And we read the protests every cycle, sprinkled through the rest of the CC Results Thread: "Man, I can't believe that ___ rejected you with those scores!") </p>

<p>Well, I can, and I do. And RESULTS do not lie. (Only sometimes statistics DO lie, or at least mislead, deceive, tell PART of the story. And with no comparative data, statistics have little value as <em>predictors</em> & excluders.) {I am sorry that admissions facts backed up by firm candidate profiles fail to convince cellardwellar.}</p>

<p>Add to that the many <em>statistical</em>, <em>factual</em> reports on various CC threads this cycle, last cycle, 3 cycles ago, listing the precise numbers of perfect scorers rejected by several Reach Elites.</p>

<p>Like calmom, I also have been thinking over the last several pages myself about the average vs. median important difference, so I'm glad she brought that up. And the rankings dynamics (also what she brought up) is another essential aspect.</p>

<p>The CDS's may be helpful for certain reasons, but "factually" predictive or "factually" excluding they are not. Mostly, they are broad summaries. And broad doesn't cut it when it comes to drawing up a college list (deciding 'if my S/D has the qualifications for Ivy League').</p>

243

<p>
[quote]
What you are missing is the fact that the colleges have the power to manipulate the statistics, and they have a particular incentive to do so with regard to SAT scores because of the impact of those scores on US News rankings.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>If you imply that the colleges misreport data on their CDS, I don't believe it. That would be fraud. On the other hand I do believe they try to manage their yield for instance by using a waitlist or taking many kids ED. </p>

<p>In regards to the Gatekeepers, I am familiar with Steinberg's book. Issued in 2002, it is starting to get old like many of the guides. I found the various Howard's Greene guides or the College Admission Mystique by Bill Mayher to be more useful. As far behind the scenes expose, The Price of Admission by Golden or the Chosen by Karabel are more informative. I probably have three shelves full of college guide books of varying utility.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Also, keep in mind they are working primarily with medians, not averages ...

[/quote]

I am not that stupid, my training is in mathematics. My entire analysis uses a median scores and percentiles, never averages, which would be useless.</p>

<p>
[quote]
It gets more complicated, because the colleges report the test scores separately, now with 3 separate tests.

[/quote]

Thanks. I hadn't noticed. If you reread post #198 among others I cover that issue. I hold a single sitting 2200+ 99th percentile cutoff as reported by the CollegeBoard as equivalent to 2250 multiple sitting combined score, which does allow for some score to exceed 750 and another to dip below.</p>

<p>
[quote]
I wouldn't be suprised if on some Monday morning the admissions director gets a report from the number cruncher telling him that the school is running great on the CR scores...

[/quote]

I really don't think it happens that way. For most top schools I know, students or assistants working in admission crunch through the numbers (SAT scores, GPA, rank..) and these stats are available to the admins before they look at the details of the file. While they seek to balance a class, I frankly don't think they are going to try to balance individual scores. If they want some kids strong in math they will take kids with good scores on the SAT II Math or qualified for the AIME. That is what these scores are for. </p>

<p>
[quote]
I suspect that the total number of admitted kids with at least one score below the 25th mark would probably be more like 30-35%

[/quote]

That is very possible. My point is that if even a single subscore drops below the 25th percentile the chances of admission drop considerably. That data is reported by each college. </p>

<p>While you raise interesting issues, they were clearly considered in my conclusions. I am pretty sure the data is solid.</p>

244

<p><a href="calmom%20wrote:">quote</a>you are assuming that the score itself raises chances for admission, when it is very likely that highly competitive students for the Ivies are usually equally strong on other factors that are far more influential in terms of the decision.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>The data analysis appears to have gone over your head (see post #176). Please stop mumbling about correlation until you get a grip on basic arithmetic.</p>

<p>The Brown data show clearly that SAT is more influential than class rank, and has a large effect separate from class rank, whatever the level of correlation. The admission rate is the same for people who attain 750-800 on verbal SAT, or 750-800 in math, or class rank 1-2, but the first two groups are more than twice as large. Thus, we know that the high-SAT group is mostly composed of people from class rank groups with lower admissions rates (15-20 percent or less), but that the overall admission rate in this group still equals that of the valedictorians.</p>

<p>This means is that if one divides the top classrank and SAT applicants into 4 categories according to whether or not they are classrank 1-2 and whether or not they are SAT 750-800, one is forced to have a large and distinguishable effect of SAT on the admissions chances of valedictorians. Valedictorians with 750+ SATs are admitted at a much higher rate than valedictorians with 700-740 SAT's.</p>

<p>As I mentioned in post #176, this analysis can be carried out under whatever correlation assumptions you want --- assume the greatest possible measures of correlation and try to get the weakest possible SAT effect consistent with the data. Under any such model the SAT effect is substantial and quite separate from class rank.</p>

<p>
[quote]
For example, if you look at reported class rank, you will see that valedictorians fare better than any other group

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Valedictorians fare indistinguishably from people with an 800 on math <em>or</em> 800 on verbal, as the web page indicates. This already indicates that perfect scorers are admitted at better than the valedictorian admit rate.</p>

<p>In fact, Harvard admits about 40 percent of SAT perfect scorers and valedictorians at closer to 20 percent, so we know that Brown admits at least 40 percent of top SAT scorers, and this is (of course) not explainable by SAT-classrank correlation. Probably among valedictorians the admit rate doubles given near-perfect SAT's.</p>

245

<p>
[quote]
Please stop mumbling about correlation until you get a grip on basic arithmetic.

[/quote]
I am tired of your personal attacks and insults and am not interested in responding to your posts any more. My post that you quoted from was in response to cellardweller, who thus far seems able to argue an opposing point of view without resorting to ad hominem. </p>

<p>So basically, you can rant all you want, but I'm not talking to you.</p>

246

<p>'My point is that if even a single subscore drops below the 25th percentile the chances of admission drop considerably. That data is reported by each college.'</p>

<p>It is? Where? Where are admit rates broken down by SAT in the fashion that would support that statement.</p>

<p>Aren't the Brown data the closest? (Amherst, Wellesely, and no doubt others report similar data.) And that data doesn't quite do it because the CR and M scores are separated in the data. </p>

<p>The 25th percentile M score at Brown is 680. No doubt a 780CR/660M has a lower chance of admission than a 780CR/750M; duh. But what about a 730CR/710M? If you average the admit rates for the 750-800CR and 650-690M groups, they are higher than if you average the admit rates for 700-740CR and M groups. But 660M is below the 25th percentile and 730/710 are not.</p>

<p>Is there data that say this is wrong and that the 780/660 really has a demonstrably lower chance than the 730/710 -- all else being equal?</p>

<p>(I suppose one could say that within the 650-690M group, the admit rate for 650-670 (below 25th percentile) is really lower than for 680-690. But one would just be saying that; the data dont' show it.)</p>

247

<p>Back on track, would have to think that NATIONAL AWARD OF SOME TYPE (AND I do not necessarily mean National Merit Finalist), RESEARCH, and playing some type of Sport! Have to agree with one of the earlier posts that above a 2250 really does not make much difference on an app if you have the stats previously listed and perhaps some of the above-mentioned. Above all, something about your son needs to stand out on the app and I think that the things I mentioned help an applicant stand out above the sea of 2250+ scored applicants. Good Luck!</p>

248

<p>


. No, I was saying that they make admissions decisions with the overall stats in mind, and that some of the decisions are made with an eye on making sure the stats turn out the way they want them.</p>

<p>That is not the same as giving an outright preference to the highest end stats, though -- if they did that then they would end up with even higher scores -- because we know that they are rejecting far more students with numbers in the upper 75th percentile range than the total number that they admit in the lower 25th. </p>

<p>So I think they make admissions decisions with the stats in mind, even before they get to the waitlist -- and of course that could be a major factor when they do go the waitlist. Whether they get daily reports or weekly reports or get the reports on paper or online or in a formal daily briefing - I have no clue. I just know that when the ad com is looking at some kid who is a published writer and class valedictorian but has bottom 25th percentile scores, which by Ivy standards could still be very high -- they probably also have an awareness as to how their overall numbers are running. If the demarcation line for the bottom 25th % is 700, then they have to admit 3 700+ student for each <700 student they admit. </p>

<p>That doesn't mean that the odds are 3 times better of getting into an Ivy if a student has a score over 700 however. The valedictorian from a large, well-regarded urban high school with a record of impressive accomplishments and a 680 score may have a much better chance than an individual with an 800 but class rank below top 5% and no strong record of leadership or top performance in any EC's. You can't evaluate "chances" without seeing the whole package.</p>

<p>My guess is that the Ivies probably get a large number of applicants from high schools all over the US who have high end SAT scores and excellent GPA's, but who have virtually no chance whatsoever of admission because of overall weak EC's, and less than ideal class standing and academic records. It is very common for such students to be encouraged to apply to Ivies by well meaning parents and teachers who believe that an SAT score of 2200 and a 4.0 GPA mean that the the student is "Ivy material" .... but the reality is that these kids are never in the running because they may have opted for a less challenging set of course options and have been joiners but not leaders in various school activities -so they don't have the stand-out qualities that the Ivies are looking for. </p>

<p>If it was rare to see an SAT over 2250 or a 4.0 GPA that would not be the case -- but for the Ivy applicant pool it is not at all rare.</p>

249

<p>calmom: I agree with your last post and it is what I have been trying to point out all along. Using just he SAT stats might give any particular student the idea that at he/she might have a certain chance of getting into an Ivy. The reality is for some 2400 scorers the odds may be less than 1 in 10 and for another 9 in 10. I have seen students from both sets. Although a high score may be helpful it is not sufficent to determine individual odds. Geography, number of top scorers from a particular school, essay, EC and distinguishing characteristics must be consideredc An Intel winner, Math Olympian, from a rural Montana school might almost be a certainty whereas an AP scholar who did research and attended TJ could be a long shot. Had a student a couple years ago, with perfect ACT,SAT,PSAT. 14 AP's all 5's. Musician etc. I predicted student would get waitlisted at HYPS and did. Another with a bit lower scores but an incredible music hook in addition to some other unique EC's plus good courses appeared to be a shoe in and was.</p>

250

<p>
[quote]
Had a student a couple years ago, with perfect ACT,SAT,PSAT. 14 AP's all 5's. Musician etc. I predicted student would get waitlisted at HYPS and did.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Literally "perfect" (= peak possible standard score) for the ACT and the SAT? That's one rare student. That AP score profile is rarely encountered either. What was the basis for your predicting that result?</p>

251

<p><a href="calmom%20wrote:">quote</a> My post that you quoted from was in response to cellardweller, who thus far seems able to argue an opposing point of view without resorting to ad hominem.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Cellardweller expressed the issue a bit differently (post #104):</p>

<p>"calmom:</p>

<p>Your suggested approach is complete nonsense, reflects a basic misunderstanding of statistics and would not have resulted in improved results. Your condescending tone is totally uncalled for.
If anybody needs a reality check up, you certainly do. You can keep your cookbook recipes to yourself."</p>

<p>Xiggi shared similar impressions:</p>

<p>" Regarding the easy dismissal of statement "admission rate increases linearly with SAT results", I'd love to quote my dearest CC sparring partner by repeating "It always amazes me that people who want to go to elite colleges have such a fundamental misunderstanding of math and probability. "</p>

<p>Are their remarks caused by or correlated with postings like the following? (One guess as to who wrote them).</p>

<p>"It always amazes me that people who want to go to elite colleges have such a fundamental misunderstanding of math and probability." (#31)
"This isn't rocket science. I don't think you could read any of the books written about competitive admissions and not figure this out. (#92)
"Yes, but I have pointed out already, you are mistaking correlation for causation. (#175)
"Sorry for this second-grade math lesson, (#210)
"What you are missing is ..."</p>

<p>"But I have to say that your arguments do illustrate [in]ability to think either critically or creatively, ... a close minded, one right answer /pick the best out of five mentality. ... undermine[d] capacity for complex reasoning, ... distill each problem into its simplest terms ... rushed decisions. ... you exemplifies this sort of limitation ... rather than curious eagerness to explore different possibilities, ... dogged acceptance of numbers on a graph
expert at memorizing facts and regurgitating them back ... but
flounder when it comes to the generation of new ideas." (#177)</p>

<p>You're right --- some posters just can't do without ad hominem. As for me, I'm just waiting to find out what this alleged confusion of correlation and causation was, exactly. Care to share?</p>

252

<p>Although many Ivy League students may have high ACT/SAT/AP scores and 4.00 U GPA, this does not mean that there is any casual relation. Duh.
This is merely a requirement, in many cases. E.g., a math genius will have no problem pulling off a perfect math score, but it's their extracurricular math activities--I wouldn't go so low as to suggest passion will get anywhere--that gets them that spot at that college. Causation!=Correlation</p>

<p>I would think that decent writing skills would be of infinite value to any college applicant, as essentially, the application <em>should</em> be just that, a persuasive case for admission.</p>

253

<p>
[quote]
My guess is that the Ivies probably get a large number of applicants from high schools all over the US who have high end SAT scores and excellent GPA's, but who have virtually no chance whatsoever of admission because of overall weak EC's, and less than ideal class standing and academic records.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>That guess is not supported by the facts. As per a previous post, published data lets you derive that at Brown and even Harvard the percentage of applicants in the 99th percentile of SAT scorers is only about 20%. If you add as a requirement a 4.0 GPA, that number goes down much further. This 20% share of applicants will at least take half the spots at the top schools. Brown just recently suggested that this year, GPA and SAT scores of admitted students are even higher than previous years, this while nationwide scores are dropping.</p>

254

<p>Thanks Calmom for bringing to mind "The Gatekeepers." I remember first hearing about the book from an admissions officer from Harvey Mudd, right after the book first came out. The admissions officers were taking turns reading the Admissions Office copy (note--first clue that adcoms don't make a lot of money).</p>

<p>The book gave me the first inkling that MORE was needed than great grades and test scores for admissions to a highly selective college (hey, we were just starting out). It was interesting to see how the SAT/AP data was used by the adcoms--in the context of what avenues were available to a student. 3.5 student with great SATs and a medium number of APs from Silicon Valley seen as a potential slacker who didn't take advantage of all that was offered at her school. American Indian kid who turned himself around admitted.</p>

<p>And what was most fascinating was to see that if you were on the bubble, having a champion made all the difference. </p>

<p>Eye opening book--thanks for bringing it back into the light of day.</p>

255

<p>
[quote]
Although many Ivy League students may have high ACT/SAT/AP scores and 4.00 U GPA, this does not mean that there is any casual relation. Duh.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Exactly where in the statement "admissions rate increases linearly in SAT score" is a causal relation indicated? Correlation-master Calmom hasn't been able to figure that out although she claimed repeatedly that such an imputation had been made. Duh, indeed.</p>

<p>A certain CC poster here has dwelled on the fact that admissions rate increases given female gender (at MIT), and that admission rate varies between various Ivies (so that another poster's daughter would have been wasting her time with a scattershot strategy rather than targeted applications). Can any of the resident statistics critics indicate whether such statements confuse correlation and causation, or are they kosher in a way that "admissions rate increases linearly in SAT score" is not?</p>