<p>OK, we'll call it "incredibly poor odds" :)</p>
<br>
<blockquote> <p>"incredibly poor odds">></p> </blockquote>
<br>
<p>That works for me. Now we'll get posts here asking if DS or DD are able to beat the "incredibly poor odds" of acceptance into these schools :)</p>
<p>Quote: "We have a good friend whose kid had all the stats to be accepted to an Ivy. His top choice was the school that the previous Val (he was also val) from his school attended. He got flat out rejected. You have to wonder whether that school...when crafting the next class...didn't feel they needed to accept a val from the same rural school as the previous year."</p>
<p>I don't think the rejection of that second val had anything to do with the fact that they took the top student from the previous year. At some high schools, esp. certain private feeder schools, the val may get accepted very frequently because of what it takes to be val at schools like that. Rather, I think people (not so much on CC) make the mistake of thinking that two high GPA vals from the same area with excellent SAT's are the equivalent of one another. But as has been pointed out in previous posts, kids with those basic attributes apply in droves, and get rejected in droves. Those attributes just get you in the door...it's all the other, totally individual stuff in the form of essays, ec's and recs (much of which people outside of the admissions committe can't know about) that decide who makes the final cut.</p>
<p>I think that trying to make sense of admissions committee decisions is like trying to understand jury decisons. You think you know all about a case, but only those 12 people who were privy to all the ins and outs of a trial and legal rules and instructions can really understand what led to their decision.</p>
<p>Xiggi -- in general I found myself disagreeing with you as I read your posts in this thread and others -- but I am forced to agree with much of what you said in your last post regarding the "lottery".</p>
<p>I do have some observations on your comments though.</p>
<p>
[Quote]
However, the implication that the schools DO NOT KNOW how to select their students is easily debunked by the success of the students at the most selective schools.
[/Quote]
</p>
<p>I agree that the general success rate of graduates of these various selective schools is an indicator that they know what they are doing in the admissions process. BUT, by their own admission, the quality of their applicants is so incredibly high (especially top 50%) that they could populate their classes 4 or 5 times over without significantly diluting the quality of inbound classes. Their "problem" is having a surfeit of talent, and trying to compose a diverse class where the differences a microscopic (perhaps even at the nano scale).</p>
<p>
[Quote]
Princeton and Yale did not place thousands of names of potential candidates in a giant drum and picked a few at random..... (t)hat dismissing the process of admission at Princeton and Yale as a pure lottery
[/Quote]
</p>
<p>I don't think the poster really believes it is a lottery. I think they are simply using it as a euphemism for the inexplicable appearance of the admission process to external observers. </p>
<p>
[Quote]
Because of their ability to see ALL the files, they, better than anyone else, can measure the vailidity and strength of the test scores, appreciate the difference between THE school valedictorian and one of 41, ...
[/Quote]
</p>
<p>True, they can compare test scores but in general they do not even know (at the time of the admissions review) who will be the valdictorian, as this is not determined until months after the application review process.</p>
<p>Actually thumper it is probably much worse that 8.9%.</p>
<p>Once you take out the recruited athletes, the increased percentages of admissions for legacy students, the population of international students (who apply at lower rates), the sons and daughters of celebrities, major donors, politicos, etc. the rate is probably much worse for those in the general application pool.</p>
<p>
[quote]
.. in general they do not even know (at the time of the admissions review) who will be the valdictorian, as this is not determined until months after the application review process.
[/quote]
The colleges do know class rank as of the time of the initial application and as of the midyear report - so that may not correpond to the actual valedictorian, but it is a factor that they consider, and that is the one reflected in any statistical data they may report about class rank of applicants. The guidance counselor report forms specifically ask for that information.</p>
<p>Once the student is admitted, the schools receive a final transcript, but it generally is not accompanied by any further reports from the g.c., so unless final class rank is shown on the transcript itself, they may never know which student actually gave the valedictory speech. </p>
<p>I think that Xiggi just meant that they have more specific data about the applicant, drawn from the school report the GC submits as well as transcripts and recs.</p>
<p>spectator, most colleges consider (and report val) as of the end of the 7th semester of high school.</p>
<p>Colleges that give val scholarships usually and quite specifically set a time much earlier than graduation. I've always thought a more accurate phrase would be "#1 or highest GPA at the end of the 7th semester" but val seems to work for everybody else. </p>
<p>When it looked like #2 might catch her at the end, I asked D whether she would rather have the val at the end or #1 while she was applying - she didn't hesitate to chose #1 while applying. (p.s. He never caught her anyway.;) )</p>
<p>I liked your last post Donemom -- right on the money in many respects.</p>
<p>I'd like to throw out another factor in kids being admitted to PY vice some of the other very select schools. It has been my observations (reinforced I might add in discussions with some of the HS guidance counselors) that some schools tend to favor one advanced curriculum program over another -- namely, IB and AP. </p>
<p>Some schools appear to favor AP because they have the advantage of seeing at least some of the AP scores during the admissions process. Conversely, because the battery of very difficult IB tests come AFTER the admissions process they must rely on the reputation and rigor of the IB program vice the exact scores by a single student. Those that favor the IB program appear to do so because of the tightly integrated nature of the program and the various community service components of it. My sensing is that Princeton prefers AP, while Duke favors the IB -- and I have no clue as to Yale's view. </p>
<p>This is not to say, of course, that no IB student gets into P or no AP student gets into Duke. That would be nonsense; I'm only talking about trends and tendencies.</p>
<p>
[quote]
but he DID get into Brown, where he now is. So go figure ...I still don't know what he wrote or how that admissions department managed to read it.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I figure Brown deserves what it gets for asking for handwritten applications. Though I did hear about one computer nerd who designed his own unique handwriting font for the Brown application, and included a letter explaining how he did it. That said, when I was on the admissions committee for Columbia's M.Arch program I read an application that started off saying please excuse my bad handwriting I couldn't find a typewriter. After struggling through half the essay, I decided she couldn't have really wanted to come to our school or she would have tried a little harder to either make it legible - and besides in those days architects drew by hand and lettered in little capital letters. She happened to be the daughter of a very well known architect and the professors on the committee were not particularly happy with me that I hadn't taken the politics of her parentage into account.</p>
<p>Brown no longer asks for handwritten applications.</p>
<p>Calmom, </p>
<p>I must respectfully disagree. The colleges only get the data you are talking about IF the school provides a numercial class ranking (one of XXX, e.g.). </p>
<p>Fortunately (for some), unfortunately (for others), many school systems (including highly regarded public school systems) DO NOT provide a numercial class rank -- and in some cases not even broad percentages (top 10%, top 20%, etc.).</p>
<p>You can debate til the cows come home on whether these schools are helping or hurting their kids by not providing rankings, but it is indeed a fact of life.</p>
<p>And then there was our school that didn't really have AP or IB! :)</p>
<p>Curm, here the state U, which gives a full scholarship to every Val in the state, awards that after junior year or real early in Senior year (basically after the sixth semester).</p>
<p>Cur -- see the note to calmom -- NOT ALL schools (including some very prestigious school systems) report class ranking during the application or mid-year report. Thus the colleges are working from an uneven playing field when trying to evaluate standing and GPA.</p>
<p>Sigh.... Spectator, I was REPLYING to your comment about Xiggi's "valedictorian" comment... now you've gone and changed the subject.</p>
<p>Schools that don't rank don't have "Valedictorians" selected by virtue of their GPA rank either -- they use different criteria. Xiggi was talking about the situation of a school that labels all kids with a certain GPA as "valedictorian" vs. schools that rank and have a clear indication of which kid comes out on top.</p>
<p>Xiggi was talking about the data that the colleges are looking at. That is the data, however reported, that they have with the midyear report.</p>
<p>Susan, Texas on the other hand plays till the last card. You get your val certificate after graduation.</p>
<p>And spec, I'd see about getting that changed. ;)</p>
<p>and calmom's right. You are moving the target and claiming we missed. Stop wiggling. LOL. ;)</p>
<p>
[quote]
True, they can compare test scores but in general they do not even know (at the time of the admissions review) who will be the valdictorian, as this is not determined until months after the application review process.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>At our school, class rank is determined at the end of the first marking period senior year and never again. So in fact colleges DO know who is the valedictorian for our school. I think it's stupid, but I don't care enough to do anything about it.</p>
<br>
<blockquote> <p>I don't think the poster really believes it is a lottery. I think they are simply using it as a euphemism for the inexplicable appearance of the admission process to external observers. <<</p> </blockquote>
<br>
<p>The poster may not believe it, but shocking number of people on CC apparently do believe that high-end schools choose randomly from among their top candidates. And the use of the "lottery" metaphor only serves to reinforce this nonsense.</p>
<p>What I think is often happening is that people are confusing random chance with subjectivity. What they called a lottery is really a subjective choice being made. Take two students who cannot be distiguished based on their dry stats -- one gets in and one doesn't. Observers who were not a part of the process say "lottery." But what probably really happened is that the committee saw something about one candidate that they simply liked a little more than what they saw in the other --> a better-written or a more heartfelt and enlightening essay, better recs, having overcome more obatacles to get there, etc. </p>
<p>No two candidates are exactly alike. You can always make a choice if you must.</p>
<p>calmom, </p>
<p>I just re-read what you, xiggi, and I posted and fail to see where I have changed the subject. However, IF I did then I am beginning to feel right at home on this thread, as that seems to be a common problem. :)</p>
<p>But you missed the point in my observation -- or (heaven forbid) I didn't state it clearly. Xiggi was raising the issue of the single versus multiple valedictorian issue with the implications it has on the admissions process. But my point was that since the college gets NO information on the class standing or valdictorian status from some school systems this could not be used by the colleges as a discriminator, either pro or con. That information is simply not available in the application, in the mid-year report or elsewhere.</p>
<p>cur and calmom, </p>
<p>At the risk of attempting humor online (aways dangerous) -- </p>
<p>Nope, I'm not moving the target or wiggling. It is only the brandies or beers that make it appear so to you. </p>
<p>:)</p>
<p>Spectator, since you're insisting on discussing and evaluating my posts, I'll return the favor. I believe that your comment about the timely availability of the ranking information, as well as your comments about the AP and IB programs show a lacking and imprecise knowledge of the finer details of the admission's process.</p>
<p>Most everyone on College Confidential is aware of the questions asked in the School Report in the Common Application, or in the precise form of Princeton. If a school is ranking, they have to answer the question, "How many others share this rank?" </p>
<p>Inasmuch as some schools try to play games--including naming multiple valedictorians--they only end up vexing the schools. For your information, colleges have reported that when confronting "playful" schools, they simply do something they do not want really to do: weigh the SAT more heavily. So, in the case of your favorite applicant, hiding the shared rank or not reporting the rank would have equally backfired. </p>
<p>From the P'ton application: </p>
<p>*** Candidate ranks ______ in an entire class of ________ , covering a period from _<strong><em>to</em></strong>_</p>
<p>*** If no precise rank, please estimate to nearest decile</p>
<p>*** Rank is ___ weighted ________ unweighted _____ We do not rank. </p>
<p>*** How many others share this rank?</p>
<p>***Cumulative GPA _<strong><em>, covering a period from _</em></strong><strong><em>to _</em></strong>_</p>
<p>*** Highest GPA in senior class?</p>