<p>Nice analysis. My sense though is that the potential pool is a bit larger accounting for high scores in one part of the SAT versus another and other things. I would probably double the pool size. Even the top schools only have a couple hundred NMF enrolled. I think though that the 50% chance might be too high (although you did say one of the 8 Ivy schools). I sense for certain groups of students and ones from particlar regions or schools the odds have really got to drop. I did not used to think so. I hope you are right. I say the GPA/test score approach is a good start but way too broad to get a good handle on a particluar kid's probability. I think that the key is still how one looks relative to others in one's school, geography, and something distinctive. Then maybe I can see 1 out of 2 chance. Maybe I am being to cautious and thinking in HYPS terms only.</p>
<p>I'm with Calmom and her cohort. I don't know how many different ways that I can say how similar the OP's (who, I will note, does not seem to have posted here again) son is to me, but I'll say it again: he is. I don't have to know <em>exactly</em> which HS he goes to, but I can tell you this about his HS: it is a good, but not great or nationally known HS in IL (it's not New Trier, or anything). I doubt that it sends a ton of kids off to top schools, although I do not know that for sure. It is probably a bit "better" overall than my HS (we won't go into the reasons why...not really related to the quality of the school), but it is hardly leaps and bounds better. Apparently his HS doesn't rank, but I can tell you this--at my school, you are really looking uncompetitive if you are outside the top 5%. Even lower top 5% is not a particularly competitive rank. I would wager a guess that many of the OP's classmates will apply to an array of top schools, and as such he will likely not appear to be <em>that</em> competitive academically, as good as his stats look by themselves. Also, to give you an idea, last year his HS had either 25 or 28 National Merit Semifinalists, which represented approximately 3.5% of the senior class. So that distinction will also pale somewhat in context of his classmates (assuming his year will have a similar number). It is a HS that over 80% matriculate to 4-year colleges. So, though not a powerhouse school, the OP son attends a good school and is not going to be the most impressive applicnt...probably not that close, either. </p>
<p>As for the assertion that there is room at Harvard, et al for smart kids with simply standard/standard-strong extras/personal qualities...I really, really doubt it. Even if you think that that is true, there would still be AT LEAST 5 times as many kids who fit that description perfectly than there are spots to take them at any one school. </p>
<p>While I agree that one must apply to the most highly selective schools that they like, I would question anyone's assertion that they really liked the 15 or 20 highly selective schools that they would need to apply to to make that a truly workable policy. I still think that a better strategy is to apply to the schools that you really like at each level of selectivity, so that you are assured or at least much more likely to recieve acceptance to multiple selective to very selective schools, even if you don't get any trophy acceptances. </p>
<p>You must also characterize yourself well--if I had persisted in picking large, Midwestern universities as my very selective (one or so steps down from the uber selective) choices, I almost certainly would not have been admitted to those, either. Most of my classmates chose Northwestern, WashU, and UChicago as their less selective than Ivy League choices...and that yielded very few acceptances, especially for Northwestern and WashU. I, on the other hand, chose two liberal arts colleges--Carleton and Wellesley--which may have never received an application from my school before, and in Wellesley's case, received relatively few applications from the Midwest as a whole. If I can be so bold to say, I believe that the overall education at Wellesley or Carleton is as good as the overall education at WashU or Northwestern--but many of my classmates cheated themselves out of that caliber of education by refusing to leave their comfort zone (and probably by insisting on applying to colleges that all their friends would know of). The OP's son is in the same dangerous position if he does not choose his college list wisely.</p>
<p>Cellard, what are the academic qualifications of the top 5,000-10,000? Because as you define them (top 2% of HS rank, 99th percentile testing, etc.), I fit everyone of them--yet still gained no acceptances to my top choices. At least for the OP's son, I have a really, really good idea how things will go--and he is likely not to gain acceptance to even a normal Northwestern program, or to WashU, let alone those uber selective schools. Again, another applicant from my HS fits your parameters well, and applied to Princeton, Stanford, UPenn, Cornell, Duke, and Northwestern and only just snuck into Northwestern (I say that because she is a legacy applicant of sorts there--academically, she was qualified to be admitted anywhere). I don't mean to offend you, but I really don't think that there is real value in your analysis for even applicants who fit your descriptions. All they can really be told is to do their best and pick a good list. That's the closest you can get to a guarantee, in my book.</p>
<p>cellardweller (cute name!),
The problem in your last post is that the CDS do not provide details about e.c.'s. It is assumed that the greatest chance of getting into top schools is by those who are highly ranked in the first place. That is nothing new. Michele Hernandez' books feature this. The question is, what are the deciders among those already highly ranked? It will NOT be the difference between a 2330 and a 2400 score -- without other features of academic excellence outside scores & grades.<br>
Obviously CC is not a scientific sampling, but what it does provide -- if one really reads widely over the last 3 years -- is a pattern. Similarly, those who have been following results from their own local and regional high schools will observe a similar pattern, patterns which prove to be consistent over the last several years: For <em>private</em> colleges, students with rank and numbers as the primary assets presented are not as strong candidates as those with similar ranks but significantly better extracurriculars and/or co-curricular awards & other indications of merit. "Slackers" or "just good students" haven't had a reasonable chance at the Elites for quite some time -- unless they were hooked.
And the patterns I refer to are affirmed by admissions officers who post on CC.
The publics operate differently, and even those claiming "holistic" admissions are a lot less interested in really scrutinizing accomplishment in e.c.'s as in awarding for other non-academic factors -- such as limited opportunities, etc. At many flagship publics, you can have virtually no extracurriculars, but be admitted based on high school achievement (including scores), combined with aspects of "challenge" in your environment, if that applies.</p>
<p>advantagious: You took a very logical approach.</p>
<p>Thank you. The only downside to my approach has been that most of my friends haven't heard of Carleton or Wellesley, but to be frank, most of my friends did little or no research before their college search. Unfortunately, I think that that is the norm rather than the exception, and it certainly doesn't hurt me that that is the case.</p>
<p>QUOTE: "The influence of alumni in the admission process is consistently being eroded with some schools eliminating the interview process altogether ...and others placing only the slightest of weight on the alumni recommendations."</p>
<p>Perhaps. But other colleges are using alumni <em>more</em> in the other respects relative to admissions -- such as recruitment and scholarship selection. I know because I am being asked more and more to do this by my Alma Mater. (Three times already this calendar year.)</p>
<p>As to the tributary about professional school admissions, that process has always been different from undergrad admission. Who claimed that med school admissions are affected by lifelong e.c. involvement?</p>
<p>And again, I don't know where anyone has claimed that e.c.'s compensate for academics in undergrad admissions, merely that they are critical for some of the upper-tier admissions, AND can make the difference between two equally well-ranked students. Anyone with e.c.'s so strong that those can actually compensate for academics, is often a <em>celebrity</em>. That is a hook, and hooks are treated differently in admissions than non-hooks.</p>
<p>(I agree with you, though, that some hooks, such as legacies, are less so than they once were, & I agree with you on the likely trend in that area.)</p>
<p>advantagious: The people who matter know about Carleton and Wellesley.
BTW, I agree that many students do not do the proper amount or type of research during the process. There is more to it than looking at rankings and stats as many parents on CC have outlined.</p>
<p>oldolddad:</p>
<p>I agree that my approach would not work if HYPSM was the only target schools. Total RD enrollment is only about 6,000 and they can pick outside of the top academically ranked (still within the 20,000 group) and still have good enough stats for the entire class. You can be a top student and not get into HYPSM. </p>
<p>This no longer holds true at the level below that because of the lake Wobegon phenomenon. Not every kid is above average. Even if you rank kids by ECs within the top 10,000 academic elite (or 20,000), there are still only 10,000 kids to rank (or 20,000). Not 100,000. Even among this number there is significant attrition. Not every NMF, 4.0 UW or 2250+ SAT scorer applies to an Ivy or a top 10 private university. Possibly half or more don't apply because of various factors such a geography, finances, full ride scholarship, interest in a LAC as opposed to a private university etc... Maybe less than 50% apply. The fewer the better. In the end, I frankly don't care what "holistic" algorithm the college applies, it still needs to pick from the same pool of academic elite students which does not shrink or expand. </p>
<p>Again, these estimates are certainly confirmed by results in our region. CT is one of the most overpresented States among the Ivies, everybody even minimally qualified applies to at least some Ivy league school. This should make the acceptance rates low, as these kids are virtually "undistinguishable" as some claim. But the fact remains that year after the top 5% in My D's public high school (430 per year), all get into a top 10 school whether they won the math Olympiad or did crossword puzzles all weekend. This is far from unique and actually quite typical in the NY metro area. </p>
<p>When people look at the OP's son stats and say they are nothing unique, I certainly beg to differ. 2350 on SATs is in the 99.9% percentile, with MFN, straight A student with a bunch of advanced APs, he is a top candidate academically anyplace and would probably be among the top 10 students in any high school. Unless he is a complete dork, he can parlay his karate experience and numerous community involvements into a decent package. At my D's school, a kid with this profile is virtually guaranteed admission to at least Cornell and Penn and highly likely at Duke. I bet that applying to all three would give him a near certain shot to at least one of those. You can then a do a second subgroup composed of Brown, Dartmouth, Columbia where he would have a 50/50 chance for at least one and finally HYPSM where he may have a 25% chance. Thst is the subgrouping we used for our D and got a hit in each category. We also had a subgrouping for LACs as well which was less successful but still got Wellesley, Smith, Tufts and Middlebury most with great finaid packages. </p>
<p>Advantagious, you showed nothing to disprove that a blitzing strategy would not work. By your own admission, you did not use it and the other candidate did not either. I never claimed that blitzing increases your chances to be admitted to your top choice or even to your top 3. I only claim that if you apply to many schools (10+) with a specific profile, you significantly increase your chances of admission to at least one top school. In my D's case she wanted admission to a research university with a very strong premed track record and got a 450 batting average.</p>
<br>
<blockquote> <p>I want to make sure that his grades and his SAT scores are okay to apply for ivies and HPME at Northwestern. What are the cut-off points for these schools?>></p> </blockquote>
<br>
<p>Well...if you're asking if he should apply...sure, why not? Just keep in mind that these Ivies accept sometimes less than 10% of the applicants and that means that about 90%get letters of rejection. In that 90% there are many many qualified applicants. I'll also weigh in that emphasis on the Ivies at the exclusion of other very fine schools would, IMHO be a huge mistake. It conveys to your student that it's Ivy or bust. The reality is that there are many other schools out there with good med school admit records and some are not nearly as competitive as the Ivies. Also...many many students change their minds about potential majors once they are IN college. The best thing your junior student can do is create a well balanced list of potential colleges and I think should start by identifying a safety that they would love to attend if accepted. In my experience this is the hardest school to identify. The Ivies are a reach for everyone...EVERYONE...unless you have recently donated several million dollars to their building fund...or you are the son or daughter of a very prominent person who will bring "name recognition" to the school.</p>
<p>P.S. What happened to the OP??</p>
<p>Cellardweller, I should rephrase my concerns. I can buy that the blitzing strategy would probably work--I just think that for the vast majority of applicants, it is a theorhetical strategy only. Though I will accept it as the truth if someone swears to me, I think that the number of applicants who are actually good fits for even 10 to 15 of the top schools is very, very small--smaller than the number who apply to that many top schools, in my opinion. These are the only people who would benefit from the blitzing strategy, because they would actually be happy to attend any of the schools they got into. This is simply not the case for most people. I could have applied to each of the top 20 schools, and--assuming that my applications were all well-done, a shaky assumption in and of itself--I would estimate that I could have gotten as many as 7 acceptances (I base that off of the selectivity of the colleges as well as how people from my school fared at some of them). And I would have wanted to attend 0 of the schools that I think I could have been accepted to. What's the point of applying to a whole bunch of schools you don't want to go to?</p>
<p>In fact, I think that the blitz strategy would have been a risky one for me. Let's say, for sake of argument, that I applied to all of the Ivies, Stanford, and MIT and got the same 2 rejections and 2 waitlists that I did get, plus 2 acceptances from the remaining schools and the rest rejections/waitlists. I would probably have been tempted to choose one of those two schools--Cornell and Dartmouth, let's say--over Carleton or Wellesley because of prestige. Yet I know that I would not be happy at those schools, while I would be happy at either Carleton and Wellesley. And I say this as a person relatively uninfluenced by prestige. </p>
<p>I just think that, as much sense as the blitzing strategy may make in theory, it is more practical for the normal applicant (one who would not be happy at 15 of the top 20 schools) to figure out the schools that he/she would be happy at, to make sure that the list is balanced (has matches and safeties, too), and to put in lots of effort on the applications that he/she does complete, and then to let the chips fall as they may knowing that they have done all that they could with their applications and will have good options even if HYPMS is not a choice at the end of it all.</p>
<p>I just want to say that I am in awe of those who can imagine themselves in as many as all top 20 institutions (and therefore find it logical to apply to all). No one in my immediate family can. We see such differences in the programs offered, locations, student bodies, campus cultures, and other elements which we see as just as important to fit as the mere <em>level</em> of academics (which I agree is certainly critical to many excellent students). Again, not a judgment call; I'm just glad, i guess, of that, because we certainly couldn't have done 20 visits -- on ANYBODY's dime. There just wasn't the time in the calendar for that. (Student too busy with high school program and e.c.'s). And despite the existence of the common app., my D never used it because she did not find that as meaningful as using the particular app. I'm in awe that people have time for double-digit apps.</p>
<p>advantagious:</p>
<p>I agree that blitzing only makes sense if you are willing (and even happy) to attend any of the schools on the list. Otherwise you are only throwing money down the drain. My D was not overly excited about Duke for instance (too far) or Cornell (too cold) but agreed that if those were the only places she got admitted to, then she would go there. Her preferences were fairly simple: She wanted to eventually attend a top med school, preferred a college in the Northeast, and desired to do research as an undergrad. On top of that we needed a decent finaid package. Choices of universities (and some LACs) followed.</p>
<p>epiphany:</p>
<p>Maybe it is a cultural thing. Being raised in Europe and only coming over to the US for graduate school, I was always in awe of the extraordinary educational resources that US universities can offer as compared to the often underfunded universities in Europe. Studying at the revered Sorbonne can be a sobering experience. Even Oxford can look quite shabby to a spoiled US student. In Europe (and Asia) if you are lucky to be admitted to an elite institution, you just go. You don't start thinking about the size of the dorms, the climate, faculty/student ratios and so on. It is hard for me to believe that a kid would not be in heaven at any of the top US universities considering the resources they litterally throw at the students. These institutions are truly educational jewels, with exceptional faculties and facilities. I can understand preferences but for a 17 year old to say they won't go to Yale because they don't like New Haven borders on the irrational. In the US, the college experience has sometimes become this interlude between childhood and adulthood where you find your inner self and try to disconnect from the pressure of the real world and study esoteric subjects like Mayan architecture. Maybe I don't really get it. For most non-americans, university is a time to prepare for a career and if you are getting into debt to pay for it, it better be one with decent income opportunities. My kids are born and grew up in the US, but they still share the understanding that college should be a stepping stone in their future plans, whatever that may be. They can set certain parameters but within reason.</p>
<p>Well, that's why the American college system is so great--if you don't want to live in New Haven, you can say "No" to Yale and still get an education to rival that at Yale at any number of places. I won't claim that there are no differences in the excellence at education between the vaunted HYPMS and the rest of the top LAC's and National Universities, but I will say this with plenty of confidence: there are, in my opinion, a good 30 or so schools that a highly intelligent student could attend, receive an absolutely excellent education, and be well-prepared for grad school and beyond. With the right application strategy--not clustering your applications in one geographic area, not applying only to top 10 schools with no matches or safeties--an Ivy material student can receive an excellent education, whether they receive it from an Ivy or not.</p>
<p>Actually, I think that you are in the majority, cellardweller. Most kids I know are mostly preoccupied with college as a stepping stone to a career. In many cases, these kids are fine and are better served going to a very strong state university, like the University of Illinois. Studies have shown that for smart, driven people, success is equally likely whether they go to HYPMS or not. HYPMS may be a waste of money if career is all that one is concerned about. Personally, not that I don't ever think about a career, I look to my undergrad degree as primarily an academic and social experience--I want to learn foremost, and to be happy while I do so. I want to live in a specific place (I lean heavily toward the east coast), I want to go to a certain size of school (smaller as opposed to larger), I want to have a liberal arts education (as opposed to a preprofessional education), and I want other, more superficial things--to be pleased with the appearance of the place that I will live for 4 years, for one. Perhaps I am spoiled to take this approach, but I don't think so. I think that different people have different, but not wrong, things that they want out of a college.</p>
<br>
<p>will say this with plenty of confidence: there are, in my opinion, a good 30 or so schools that a highly intelligent student could attend, receive an absolutely excellent education, and be well-prepared for grad school and beyond.>></p>
<br>
<p>There are many more than 30 fine schools in this country where students can do the above.</p>
<p>Oh, I know...that was worded poorly. I meant that there at least 30 schools were one could get an education near to, if not equal to the education at HYPMS. There are many people who consider this an untrue statement (yesterday I was told that it was "absurd" to consider the education that one could receive at Wellesley equal to the education that one could receive at Dartmouth), but I strongly believe it to be the case. There may be differences, but not appreciable ones. </p>
<p>As far as being successful in life...a driven person could go almost anywhere and make that happen. As I have said elsewhere, the vast majority of the country attended schools that we probably hardly, if ever, talk about on CC, and they manage to survive in this world alright :).</p>
<p>cellar (& OP):</p>
<p>Since you mention "stepping stone" to the future...</p>
<p>IMO, most premeds are better off attending college #50-100, earning straight A's, and being the academic star, which will lead to research opportunities and top-notch recs. In contrast, attending a school like Hopkins is an extreme gamble since a huge portion of the Frosh matriculants are premed, but relatively few make it thru the premed gaunlet there. </p>
<p>Just something to consider.</p>
<p>advantagious:</p>
<p>Yes, you can get a good and even a great education at your local state U. but it won't be the same as the one you get at a top LAC or private university. The studies that compare achievements of students between top universities and State universities take students that were all admitted to a top university and then decided to take a different path. It does not compare typical students at both groups. </p>
<p>it is clear that certain colleges do much better than other at preparing students for medical careers. Theoretically, you can major in anything you want but you still have to take a big load of physics, chemistry, calculus and biology and at top medical schools, the overwhelming majority have strong backgrounds in the sciences. At some schools, nearly 25% of students declare themselves to be premed and by the time they take the MCATs the percentage has dropped to 5% or less. the vast majority of drop-outs are non-science majors weeded out by the physics and organic chemistry class. </p>
<p>Also theoretically, you get as good a chance at some of the top LACs as at the top research universities. What bothered my D. was that often claims of admissions was based on tiny samples. Wellesley only fields 10 or less medical students a year, hardly a representative sample. Swarthmore, reputedly very intense, only 5. My D. got a big scholarship to go to Smith but decided not to take it, when there was little record of successful applicants to top medical schools. It doesn't mean that it could not happen, just that it was not common. Some schools are the extreme opposite. UCLA is a virtual premed factory but is very cutthroat and offers a limited support structure.</p>
<p>The advantage of a top private university as compared to the Honors program at your State U. is that you can have the best of both worlds: strong pre-professional training and a liberal arts education without sacrificing either. Even a mostly technical school like MIT has reputed literature, linguistics and philosophy departments, all areas of interest to my D. And if she does not find what she wants she can cross-register at Harvard or Wellesley. On top of which she can spend a whole year at Cambridge in a unique exchange program. Again, the resources at these places are beyond your wildest imagination. That is why, beyond all the hype, it is often worth the effort to apply to these schools.</p>
<p>BTW: I do agree that a liberal arts education at Wellesley (or Smith) is just as good as one at Dartmouth or other Ivy league college. I am married to a Smithie so I should know!</p>
<p>bluebayou:</p>
<p>I agree that some schools like JHU are reputed as cutthroat for premeds and that is partially why it was not on our list. Most of D's top choices have excellent admit rates and no "weeder" classes. Even MIT, which my D. eventually picked, with its reputed grade deflation, is second to only Harvard at getting students into HMS. As long as you don't pick some crazy engineering major, your GPA is no worse than at other top premed feeder schools. Research opportunities are unmatched by any school in the US or elsewhere, especially for undergrads. And the reputation certainly does not hurt.</p>
<p>cd, regarding your post 133:</p>
<p>Maybe it's cultural, or maybe it's occupational. We're so education-oriented in our family that we make it our business to look quite specifically into the curriculum. If one is a Humanities emphasis or even a social sciences, all programs are not equal in content, even if the institutions being compared are 'equal' in level or prestige. The reach of a particular major can hugely vary by campus. The emphasis can vary. The "agenda" (frankly) can vary. This is tremendously important to a student who cares about content. While it never came to that (luckily), my D would have preferred a Tier 2 with an outstanding department in her major, than a Tier 1 with a less exciting deparment.</p>
<p>Some arts programs are abundant in one field of art and not another. Some Engl. programs are strong in writing but less strong in literary anaysis. Some excellent publics do not even include certain prominent, traditional majors.</p>
<p>In some areas of humanities, the curriculum is surprisingly provincial -- emphasizing the local, as opposed to the universal. Research universities (Berkeley is one of them) can be notorious for emphasizing theory over performance. No way would I recommend a Film Production major to choose any of the Top 20 that do not offer opportunities for production.</p>
<p>Many highly ranked colleges are limited in the scope of their foreign language offerings. Some highly ranked U's are much stronger in one scientific field than another, or (just as important to some majors) may have better labs or equipment relative to certain aspects of that science. I recently recommended a non-top 20 to a young woman interested in a particular modern science. I knew the facilities were much better at a Tier 2 than the sister Tier 1. She is extremely happy there.</p>
<p>So if a student is grad-school headed, you bet the content of that undergrad major can make the difference between a great and a mediocre grad school opportunity. </p>
<p>And for some majors, location really does matter because there are aspects to those majors that may or may not be abundant in the surrounding community & thus will make a difference in the extension & application of the learning.</p>
<p>For those needing large amounts of financial aid, location is crucial because of the flight cost (& associated ground travel), as well as flight scheduling from non-major airports.</p>