This is the big picture- if your kid lives in Scarsdale, they are competing against kids from Atherton and Winnetka and Wellesley, NOT with kids from the South Bronx or Yonkers or Bridgeport… even though the three latter communities are within a one hour drive from Scarsdale and not across the country. The schools are pretty transparent about this- so analyzing reams of data to conclude that the bar is higher for a kid from Great Neck (substitute another affluent suburb with professional parents, one acre zoning, or whatever else you’d like as a surrogate) than it is for a kid from Dorchester… jeez, what exactly are you learning?
I don’t know the socioeconomics of your town and your HS. But a quick look at Naviance will tell you what it takes from YOUR community to get into a variety of colleges. Learning about the kids from North Dakota? How does that help the kid from Lake Forest IL???
Even if some algorithm could tell you the mix of measurable qualities that gave one the best overall chance for "elite" acceptance, the very identification of it would quickly render it useless. Ten years ago, it seemed apparent that adcoms were kind of bowled over by kids doing service projects in poor communities overseas. So the number of kids doing that increased exponentially, and all of a sudden it was a negative marker for economic privilege and trying to game the system. The idea went from 0 to 60 to a total wreck over the course of 3-4 admissions seasons. And even if you are not talking about a fad, if in one year a college admits three oboe players, the next year oboe players don't have any chance at all. (There were three harpists in my college class, and as far as I know not a single additional harpist was admitted until my class was about to graduate.)
The broader your dataset is in terms of numbers of colleges, the more the results are going to fail to describe what happens at any particular college. The more you focus on one college, the more you are going to need longitudinal data -- multiple admissions seasons -- to get enough data to draw conclusions, but the conclusions you reach won't necessarily describe "now," much less what you really want to know: "sometime next year."
Description is not necessarily prescription. No one should doubt that higher SATs are correlated with a better chance of admission, and at the same time no one should think the admissions departments are lying when they say they don't care about relatively large (30-40 point) differences in SATs. It's not so much that the colleges value higher SATs as that they value other qualities that are certainly correlated with higher SATs. Taking the SATs a third time and raising your score 50 points won't do a thing to give you more of the qualities that are actually taken into account.
If you can't take into account things like school strength and teacher recommendations (and maybe even if you could), I doubt you are ever going to have data with practical meaning. Even if you got over the humps of the previous points, it simply isn't going to help anyone much to know that such and such a collection of stats and ECs gives you a 25% chance of admission somewhere, vs. a 20% chance for some other collection of qualities and a lottery-ticket chance if you don't have them.
I’ve worked with data all my life (10 years at oracle), I’ve thought about this over the course of the last five years, some, observations:
naviance is sitting on an incredible treasure trove of data. I can't understand why they don't monetize their data.
We've used parchment and anecdotally found its predictions to be directionally correct. Yes, it's self-reported data but there's a lot of it, and I'd guess most of it is accurate. Also, I believe they put a lot of thought/work into their model and may try to eliminate outliers.
My D may apply to Dartmouth this year, parchment gave her a 25% chance. I changed her profile to maximize all the quantitative metrics (gpa, test scores, number of aps, etc.) and found it moved her probability to about 40% (I don't recall the exact number). My conclusion is that admittance to Dartmouth has more to do with the holistic portion of the eval than pure numbers. It might be interesting to do this for every "elite" school.
Wouldn’t a student prefer to attend a school that chose them for who they are rather than choosing them because they were trying to be what he/she or their parents thinks the school wants them to be? Great students put enough pressure on themselves just being who they are. Why do they need the pressure of trying to be some nebulous personification of something they think others might want them to be. Finding some kind of algorithm seems almost cruel to me. What if you found it? Would you mold your student to fit the perfect profile of specific schools regardless of their strengths, goals, desires, and personality? It sounds like you’re creating some Frankenstein’s monster rather than trying to find a university for your student to learn and grow at. I realize that most are just looking for ways to improve opportunities but most kids can be happy at a multitude of universities. I say apply to the schools you would like to attend, make sure you have some that you know you will be accepted at and can afford (the greater challenge for some) and enjoy the process. You might be disappointed but you’ll still have great opportunities and end up happy in the end.
How do you know that a perfect GPA and scores don’t also correlate with better holistic elements too? But it was the holistic elements that really made the difference or not.
The year my son was accepted to Harvard (as a prospective CS major) they announce that they were adding an engineering school and 100 new professors over the next few years. Of course they were desperate for kids like him. How do I know? Because the head of the comp sci department called him and tried to sell him on Harvard. He was a viable candidate any year, but he looked particularly desirable that year.
OP, I know you had another thread on sending your child to private school to give him/her an advantage in elite college admissions. I think your child is still in middle school, which concerns me. I hope you are not putting undue pressure on your child to be a superstar. Now you are collecting data on elite colleges and who they accept and why. You can scheme and plan all you like, but you can’t escape some truths: Your child is going to have to work HARD. Without great grades and test scores, your child won’t get near the gate of elite colleges. Without a hook, your child’s chances are even lower. Personally, if I were hell bent on getting my kid into an elite college whatever the cost, I would look into moving to North Dakota. It will probably be cheaper than private school in the long run.
Reread what @blossom said. I don’t think anyone needs to gather data on what special achievements accepted students to elite schools have. It’s pretty obvious. They have special talent (NOT just the piano or violin, but nationally ranked chess player), or major prizes (Intel), or they are from N Dakota and no one else qualified enough is, or they work a farm in Montana, or they are a gifted URM from an inner city, or their parent donates millions, or any number of things. THOSE kids stand a better chance. Not a high one, but a better one than the umpteen kids from excellent private and suburban high schools with excellent everything. And there will be ordinary kids too, with great grades and test scores and a good range of ECs who haven’t done anything earth shattering, but they play sports or are the class president. Those kids definitely get in too, but it is more difficult.
I think learning all you can so you can guide your child is great. But you need to let your child be who they are and not plot and scheme to get them into an elite school. If that is truly what your child wants, then I suspect he or she is motivated enough to do what it takes to get him or her self into an elite college. We have lived in our district for 12 years with pretty much all the same kids moving through school together, so I know most of the graduated seniors. Having a college kid myself now, and thinking about the kids in our high school who ended up at Harvard, Brown, MIT, Johns Hopkins, Cornell, Columbia, etc…there weren’t really that many big surprises. Many of the kids in our school who have always been the high achievers and who excelled in one way or other have ended up at top schools, and these kids have been the way they are for years. It was obvious in seond grade that ____ _________ was going to be an outstanding and gifted student, far beyond ordinary. It was obvious that _____ _____ was going to be an Intel semi-finalist, back in 7th grade. It was obvious that the girl who was recruited for soccer as a tenth grader to a very prestigious university in the South was going to be recruited, as far back as fifth grade. There were a couple of surprises and everyone was shocked that so and so was accepted to Brown, and no one can figure out what turned in that kid’s favor. So it can and does happen, but your scheming isn’t going to make it happen. It has to come from your child.
“Personally, if I were hell bent on getting my kid into an elite college whatever the cost, I would look into moving to North Dakota. It will probably be cheaper than private school in the long run.”
Totally agree. If the OP is on CC already (with a middle school child) the best/easiest thing to do is to move to Grand Forks. Seriously. Or Wyoming or West Virginia.
Totally agree. But description does give one some perspectives. This is the reason why for most social studies, the first table is often a table of summary statistics, along with some descriptions along with it. The author of the book is adamant and quite careful about this; his writing shows it. IMO, he tries to not reach strong interpretations given the limitation of the dataset.
Everyone knows that if one has a hook or special attribute, say URM, athletes, or even living in a rural state or poverty, the odd is quite different. It is obvious. The more interesting, and rather unclear thing is then if one does not have a hook, what would it take to be academically qualified for the consideration of institutional fit? Would race play a role? etc. In this regard, IMO the author has done a pretty good job of providing a big picture (subject to biases such as self-reporting) about Ivy admission.
I have to laugh when people say “move to North Dakota” or “impoverish yourself.” One of the reasons why there are so few students from North Dakota or, say, North Philadelphia at elite colleges is that it is really, really hard to rise above a culture that totally fails to appreciate (for good reasons and bad) the academic values that govern elite colleges. Doing something like that would be a silly gamble with your child’s life.
" but your scheming isn’t going to make it happen. It has to come from your child."
I agree with it…99%. Forcing kids is not going to work. But for many competitive kids, they do need some guidances because they tend to do too much. Take my D as an example, she piled on way too many difficult courses and ECs simply because her brother goes to a top school and she thinks she needs to do better than him. We tried to talk her out of that mentality, but it did not work. In contrast, by providing her some information about Ivy admission, she now focuses more on EC quality and quantity and it makes her a happier kid.
I think people who say “move to Nirth Dakota” are often trying to point out how silly the whole obsession is.
I agree that relocating for the sake of college admissions is way over the top. But calling it a gamble with your child’s life is a but melodramatic. It’s not endangering life and limb, or even your child’s ability to be a productive member of society.
Actually, I am thinking of moving from a decent school district in Mid West to a super top school district in NJ, NY, or CT. I want my kids to be challenged in a competitive environment to their full potential.
I'm sure the advice from @Lindagaf to move to south dakota was tongue in cheek.
I don't understand why so many people in this thread are against the notion of creating better data/algo. Seems like everyone (that has access to it) uses naviance, isn't this just a better naviance? Could the tool be misused? of course, one could use a hammer to hurt someone but that's not the main purpose of the tool.
@mathmom I must have more cotton between my ears than usual today, I can't make heads or tails of what you're trying to say: "How do you know that a perfect GPA and scores don't also correlate with better holistic elements too? But it was the holistic elements that really made the difference or not."
@JHS of course everyone understands how extreme that would be. But there are obviously students in those places who do very well and go to elite colleges. In fact, when we toured an Ivy league college, our guide was from, yes, North Dakota.
I think each parent knows their child the best and tries to do what they can to give them the best opportunities. In our case, I could/would happily move to SD or ND if I thought that would help my child reach his goals but he has always done best when involved in a group of kids that are accelerated/interested/competitive. For that reason, we are looking at alternatives away from the easiest - the local public high school.
In theory he would stand out in the local high school and have a much better shot at elite colleges if that is what he desires but I do not think he would be nearly as successful as he will be if he is challenged/pushed in high school. Ultimately it may mean he cannot go to an Ivy school and that is ok as there are many great schools that are not in the Ivy League.
@quietdesperation what I am saying is you see that more kids with 800’s get in than 790s. It’s easy to conclude that those 10 points make a difference. But it is equally possible that kids with 800s are also the sort of kids who get beter letters of recommendations, or have more interesting ECs - and that’s what the colleges may really care about.
One of the reasons college admissions are somewhat incomprehensible from an applicants perspective is that every elite college - except pure merit colleges like Caltech- is trying to create a well rounded class. “Well rounded” differs college by college and year by year, follows fads and trends, and is influenced by the mix of the applicant pool. “Diversity” differs year by year too. Standing out helps a lot, but it is very difficult to stand out in a pool of 3.5 million seniors. Even if you take the top 5%, that is almost 200K kids who had very little time to distinguish themselves. Also, there is an element of self-selection, especially for high stat kids with parents in the donut hole income range of, say, $100K-350K/yr. who would not qualify for financial aid. Spots are reserved for athletes, artists and children of famous/wealthy donors. Throw in the different pots of LACs, Research Universities and Tech schools and it becomes even more muddled.
So from a parent’s perspective, just help your child be the best that he/she can be. The rest will follow from there.
Forcing kids is not going to work. But for many competitive kids, they do need some guidances because they tend to do too much. Take my D as an example, she piled on way too many difficult courses and ECs simply because her brother goes to a top school and she thinks she needs to do better than him. We tried to talk her out of that mentality, but it did not work. In contrast, by providing her some information about Ivy admission, she now focuses more on EC quality and quantity and it makes her a happier kid.