Don't be misled by CollegeConfidential...

Applying to College
21

<p>to tell all of you the truth, CC opened my eyes to the real world. back at the pre-CC times, i thought the smartes kids in my batch are all that, but when i stepped on this site and read all these threads, i was all, "god, is this for real?". i nearly keeled over in shock after learning that teens with 2300 SAT scores and 4.5 GPA and passionate EC get outright rejected.</p>

<p>point is, i used to think that schools like HYPS were a cinch to get into. now, i really don't think so. on the bright side, it has a postivie effect on me, really. visiting this site made me aim higher and work harder... and i really hope it's going to pay off.</p>

22

<p>
[quote]
Admission to HYP is crazy enough without inflating: where is the source for the statememt that the median SATs are 1530?

[/quote]
Is it that statistics lie or that people don't understand what they mean? The article you mentioned is talking about means, NOT medians. If the 50% SAT range, is 1400-1580. then obviously 25% are above 1580 and 25% are below 1400. It is a very skewed population and the mean and the median are going to differ by quite a bit. You got your 1490 "median" number by taking the mean of 1400 and 1580, but that is extremely unlikely to give you the correct median. It would imply that 25% are from 1200-1400, 25% are from 1400-1490, 25% are from 1490-1580 and 25% are 1580+. In a population this skewed, the median is much more likely to be around 1540 or 1550. Colleges are going to publish means instead of medians for obvious reasons. </p>

<p>Did you notice in the cited article that Princeton filled 49% of the freshman class with ED applicants. The SAT scores for those applicants were lower than those accepted during RD. That makes a bad situation even worse because it encourages high school students to apply ED because they are afraid that if they don't apply ED somewhere, they won't get in anywhere. The social concern is why Stanford, Yale and Harvard went to SCEA. They all should.</p>

<p>Obviously people do get into these schools with "lower" SAT scores. The 50% SAT range definitely says the 25% are below 1400. For the people who are posting that they know somebody who got in with a 1420, I have a question. Why do you think they were admitted? Was it because they had average EC's and a good essay, and nobody said anything negative in the recs? Try harder and come up with a reason why they were accepted, because that doesn't make sense.</p>

23

<p>If you believe that standardized tests define the person then you can limit yourself to the schools for which you will be in the middle. But schools utilize much more in making decisions. They read your essays, they read your recs, they recalculate your gpa and they review your ECs. They look at your need for financial aid (schools are a business and they need to be profitable) despite what they say and they look at your race, background, geographical location among other factors.
Do not fall into the trap that SAT scores define you or your attractiveness to schools. Always build your applications to schools from your safeties to your reaches. Kids who apply to all Ivies or reaches run the risk of not being admitted to any even if they are close to perfect (at least in their own eyes or their parents').
Having been thru this once before and amazed at the results, you can dare to dream but you also must be a realist. You are in a baby boom, there are a ton of applicants and e-apps make it very easy to apply to multiple schools with a click of the mouse.
Last but least, your college choice will not make a success out of you.
I know a Cornell graduate who sits and eats potato chips all day, not able to buy a house. I know a public university graduate who has built a business and is thriving. You can't rest on your laurels saying I'm a graduate of such and such. It means nothing in the real world.</p>

24

<p>Addressing the main point of the OP: The information on CC is not wild ideas without foundation. They are the same as what you see in college admission guides and from former adcoms. Probably some people are discouraged by the information on CC and are less likely to apply to ivies because of it. However, average applicants (by CC standards) are simply not admitted to the top 12 colleges. If somebody is admitted with low SAT scores, they are certainly NOT average. Perhaps they don't know how unique they are. (There are posts on CC where somebody will say that they are an URM with a 1480 and don't know if they should apply.) </p>

<p>My point is that you are no doubt right that some people are discouraged when they should not be, but many, many people are learning what is required to be accepted to these schools. If a few are wrongly discouraged, then many are being educated. It ain't perfect. For every little anecdote about somebody with lower SAT scores (but not an average app) who is admitted, there are hundreds of post about people with very high SAT's (and exceptional apps) who were not accepted.</p>

<p>If somebody wants to apply, I would never directly discourage them from applying. They should know for sure. Maybe there is something unique about them that they are not even aware of, and then they can be one of the counter anecdotes. However, I am not going to make it seem easier than it is just so that people can strive (fill out an app) in order to pursue their dream.</p>

25

<p>Amen. I'm not like a super perfect-stellar candidate, but I'll at least try. Even knowing low odds, etc., one should at least make reasonable attempts, 100% of the time you won't be accepted to a college you don't apply to. Just as long as one's conscious of the chances.</p>

26

<p>I agree that CC is very educational, especially the admitted threads. You learn far more from those than the "What are my chances? threads. </p>

<p>(As an aside: My only problem with CC is the blatant anti-athlete attitudes of so many posters. In my D's school, most of the best athletes are also among the best students, so I find that dumb athlete stereotype offensive.)</p>

<p>Back to the OP's subject. Yesterday, a former Adcom for one of the LAC's featured on this site, was talking to a small group about the application review process and how quickly some colleges actually make their admit decisions. She said these colleges get so many high score qualified applicants that it is easy to get bored with the sameness of the applications. So, they begin looking for something unique, something that makes an applicant stand out from the crowd. They want a balanced, diverse class, not just a class of A+ clones. As a result, some kids with just high scores quickly get overlooked in favor of other applicants, possibly with lower scores or fewer EC's, whose personality, talent, whatever, comes through loud and clear on their application or essay. </p>

<p>Her point was simple: applicants should take the time to identify what is unique and special about them as an applicant and how a particular school may benefit from having them as a student. All things being equal on scores, she said if an applicant is able to demonstrate or articulate their special value to a school, chances of admission go up substantially. In fact, she said in many cases, it took only a few minutes of review to determine whether an applicant stood out from the crowd. (I'm not saying this is good or right, just reality.)</p>

<p>As musictoad noted above, the probability of future success is not measured solely by SAT/ACT scores.</p>

27

<p>daaaaad- stick around. There are a number of us with student-athlete kids. My son is a recruited athlete and got into his ED school and a few others. There IS a stereotype on CC that whenever you say "athlete" you are talking about a football player for Western Alabama State with a 700 SAT. We are trying to change this image here on CC.</p>

28

<p>MoWC - Ohhh, I definitely plan to stick around to defend the student-athlete on CC. </p>

<p>My d has been a varsity athlete since freshman year, has a 3.9+ uwGPA, and most of her student-athlete friends share similar profiles. Her boyfriend is being recruited by an IVY because of his high SAT/ACT scores, not just his athletic skills. The amazing thing is my daughter doesn't think of herself as a "smart" kid, even though she was the only one to "ace" the AP math final this past semester. </p>

<p>So it is easy to see why you can definitely count on me to be part of your student-athlete defense team.</p>

29

<p>MomofWild Child and Daaaad,</p>

<p>I have a question about athletics & ECs. </p>

<p>My sophomore son is very smart (his PSAT score as a sophomore would have qualified him for NMF). He is a good kid but his only ECs are baseball (quite good, JV as a freshman, but probably not so good he will be recruited), music (plays at school only, he doesn't audition for Honor Band or anything like that), and he works hard on our family farm. That is it.</p>

<p>Is this enough (EC wise)? Band takes a lot of time in the fall and baseball takes a lot of time in the spring. All summer he is working.</p>

<p>I and the GC have encouraged him to check out some of the clubs on campus and the only thing that interests him is the school newspaper. But, he can't take that class due to a scheduling conflict so he can't be on newspaper staff.</p>

<p>Thanks.</p>

30

<p>As a former farm kid myself, I understand your concern. "In my day" I got involved in anything and everything I could, athletics, drama, band, newspaper, work, etc. Somehow I got my chores done, fit in all my activities, kept up my grades and got into an excellent school. My D on the other hand, has focused on a few things, with athletics taking a majority of her time because of the commitment required for highly competitive high school and club teams. Her other passion, art, she does in her free time as relaxation, because unfortunately, her AP course schedule leaves little room for many fine arts electives. She also is active in a couple service clubs and a church group. Bottom line, she has decided to do a few things well, and not stress over the lack of a long list of EC's. We've talked with enough Adcoms to realize that she doesn't have to join everything to look good. A few EC's, very well done, can yield the same results.</p>

<p>As to sports after high school, although she loves her basketball and soccer, she has no desire to play at the Div I level because of the time commitment. She knows first hand from family and friends the time and physical demands DI colleges place on their recruited athletes. Further, she wants to go into architecture and that major doesn't mesh well with athletics. However, a DIII school, where she can play for the love of the game, may be a possiblity. The DIII hook is it can get you admitted to a top LAC. Although they don't have scholarships, DIII coaches can flag applications for approval. They love good athletes who are also good students.</p>

<p>One last piece of advice is to have your son write and submit articles for the school newspaper regardless of whether he takes the class. If he's good, they'll find space for him. If they "stick by the rules" then go to your local community newspaper and offer to free-lance. I'm a former journalist and I often was frustrated with j-school grads who knew nothing about the real-world. But we always found room for reporters who could write well, regardless of their training. Further, I liked hiring and working with small town and farm kids because something about growing up on or around a farm gives a person a better appreciation for the cycle of life and the hard work needed to produce results.</p>

31

<p>I am not a believer in padding one's resume by doing a bunch of ECs. Neither of my kids did this. I think if your son's passion for his sport and his music come through, that is enough. Working on the farm IS time consuming and is also a strong statement on his application. My son is a year-round athlete in one sport and really didn't do much else. It surprised me that when it came time to fill out the applications, he really did have a few other things to put down. He had written some articles for the paper and had some leadership positions over the years in his dorm. It will all add up just fine. Don't worry.</p>

32

<p>I agree with the poster!</p>

33

<p>colleges often count work as an extracurricular, and they'll see that he has other committments/responsibilities besides school :)</p>

34

<p>"Is it that statistics lie or that people don't understand what they mean? The article you mentioned is talking about means, NOT medians. If the 50% SAT range, is 1400-1580. then obviously 25% are above 1580 and 25% are below 1400. It is a very skewed population and the mean and the median are going to differ by quite a bit. You got your 1490 "median" number by taking the mean of 1400 and 1580, but that is extremely unlikely to give you the correct median. It would imply that 25% are from 1200-1400, 25% are from 1400-1490, 25% are from 1490-1580 and 25% are 1580+. In a population this skewed, the median is much more likely to be around 1540 or 1550."</p>

<p>Yes, the Princeton article used the word "average." Yes, average is supposed to be the mean. But do you really think that the mean would produce all nice round numbers like 720, 730, 720. Not very likely. I'm pretty sure those are medians.</p>

<p>As for your point about 1490 not being the real H median. Yes, the distribution is probably not going to break down quite so neatly to give precisely the 1490 figure. </p>

<p>But your figure of 1540 or 1550 (it's now gone up, no less) is just pulled out of the air. </p>

<p>In fact, the differencees between the medians and the means are not as dramtatic as you imagine. </p>

<p>Swarthmore, for example, includes both on its Common Data Set for the Class of 2009.</p>

<p>The middle 50% numbers (median) are 680-770V, 670-760M (1350-1530).</p>

<p>The actual medians: V730, M710 (1440)
The actual means: V719, M708 (1427)</p>

<p>You'll notice that the 1440 figure equates pretty well with the hypothesized 1490 for H. Yes, the Swarthmore numbers are lower than the H numbers. But the difference between the 25% and the 75% is the same 180 points. Same skew, just at a slightly lower (but still high) level. </p>

<p>So until you have a source for 1530 or 1540 or 1550 being the median SATs at HYP, perhaps you should stop repeating it.</p>

35

<p>Wesdad:
Average can indicate either mean, median or mode for a mathematician. In an article, one would never use the word "average". In normal speaking, average indicates the mean just like it does to everybody else. Mathematicians are people too.</p>

<p>The colleges are obviously never going to publish their medians. In "Admission Confidential", Toors at Duke said that the resident statistician on the adcom staff would present a report each morning verifying that they were on track to meet their goals for SAT scores and minorities. Publishing that the SAT 50% range is 1480-1580 encourages people to apply. Publishing that the median is around 1540 would discourage people to apply. The # of people who apply is very important for the USNWR rankings and that means money.</p>

<p>Based on a feel for this sort of thing, it is not likely that 25% of the accepted applicants at Harvard are 1580+ and the next 25% are spread out between 1490-1580. If you want to take the mean of the SAT 50% range and say that it is the median of the entire population which is obviously extremely skewed, there is no point in discussing it.</p>

36

<p>MomofWildChild and Daaaaad</p>

<p>Thanks for your input!</p>

<p>I especially appreciated Daaad's comment, </p>

<p>"I liked hiring and working with small town and farm kids because something about growing up on or around a farm gives a person a better appreciation for the cycle of life and the hard work needed to produce results."</p>

<p>You've put into words what I've known in my heart (but had a difficult time expressing). Thanks :-)</p>

37

<p>Some of the insider books point out that adcoms all have personal preferences. An adcom that played ball in high school will slightly favor athletes. An adcom who was an Eagle Scout will slightly favor other Eagles. I'm sure that a lot of people (and adcoms) feel that way about small towns and growing up on a farm. Of course, it is important outside of college admissions, too.</p>

38

<p>dufus3709 --</p>

<p>So your idea is that at H 25% are above 1580 and another 25% are between 1540 and 1580; and then there is 25% between 1400 and 1540 (and 25% below 1400). I suppose it could be. But what is your support for that assertion; you offer none; you just keep saying there is a skewed poputlation. </p>

<p>Well, Swarthmore is hardly chopped liver and its population is also skewed and the Swarthmore data I posted would not be consistent with your speculations about H (or Y or P).</p>

<p>And I don't see you defending the proposition that those numbers for the Princeton ED round are anything other than median; it is still a long way from 1450 to 1540, even if the ED numbers are somewhat lower than those for RD.</p>

39

<p>better be safe than sorry</p>

40

<p>wesdad ---</p>

<p>Median SAT score at Harvard</p>

<p>I am going to just make one assumption. It is that the population curve for SAT's of accepted applicants at Harvard does not drop off sharply after 1580, 1590, and 1600. I think this is safe because there is no reason why 1580's should be heavily favored over 1570's or 1560's. </p>

<p>The 50% SAT Range at Harvard is 1400-1580 so 25% of the accepted applicants are 1580+. Because of rounding, I will split the difference and say that 30% of the accepted applicants have either 1580, 1590 or 1600 (lets say 10% for each, but it doesn't really matter). The problem is to spread out the next 20% in such a way that there is no sharp drop in going from one score to the next lower score. It is possible to create a curve that has peaked at 1590 and dips off sharply, but this not consistent with the fact that admission guides say that adcoms do not split hairs between SAT scores or the margin of error attributed to SAT testing.</p>

<p>Based on this assumption, a totally madeup list of possible values is:
1600 - 10%
1590 - 10%
1580 - 10%
1570 - 8%
1560 - 6%
1540 - 4%
1530 - 2%
?????????????</p>

<p>I actually find this drop to be much too sharp, and I would find some curve where the median turned out to be 1490 to be practically a cliff.</p>

<p>In my opinion, half the people accepted at Harvard are exactly the kind of people that you would expect to be accepted at Harvard, and they spread out the other 50%.</p>