Family Gets Lesson in Admissions

Parents Forum
621

<p>
[quote]
You are right, however, that top colleges do not care for val status per se, although they do use rank to evaluate GPA.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>marite, please see my post at 619 (we cross posted) about how at least one school DOES use it.</p>

<p>
[quote]
While the official naming of the val and sal at our high school is not done until April-ish, our students can submit transcripts in October (fall rank)-February(midterm rank on midterm report) with their current/up to the minute class rank.

[/quote]
The same thing I said. Just purtier. Thanks. ;).</p>

622

<p>Re the val/sal discusion, I suspect that most colleges who publish admission statistics listing these two honors are basing that on the mid-year report status. If enrolleed slip in or out of them how would the college even know?</p>

<p>And as an aside, I do find it curious how much time some posters are willing/able to devote to this single topic.</p>

623

<p>Which topic would that be o'loog? We seem to have several going at any one time. ;) It has morphed again to "the importance of val status in college admissions". I dunno how. ;)</p>

624

<p>Just to clarify, I didn't mean to focus on val, though my example of the rank being noted on the GC report in fall and again at mid year with whatever rank the student has at THAT TIME, happened to be "number one". Sorry about that. I got caught up in the talk of val and truth be told, my kid was ranked #1 so that was the example I gave. But basically was saying that the GC fills out whatever the GPA is at the time and whatever the rank is at the time, and on mid year reports. Here, it so happened that my D's rank didn't change and so she did speak at graduation but maybe it could be at the end of the year, a kid's rank could change but college admissions is over by then! My D did not care about being val and where I live, there is no race to see who "wins" and it is a pretty quiet thing until spring of senior year when the val really does give the speech at graduation. </p>

<p>I do think rank is weighed in admissions. For schools with no rank, then they may go by GPA distributions. I recall in Hernandez's book, though I read it a few years ago, she talked about how a rank is sort of assigned if you are in a GPA distribution band but numerical rank is given by your school. So, for instance, if you are in top 10% of a class of 100, you might be given a rank of 5 as an average when figuring out the academic index. So, a kid ranked 6-10 benefits and a kid ranked 1-4 loses a bit with that kind of estimate. I hope I got that right. I'm in a rush so can't look it up now. </p>

<p>Curm, you are right that kids who are vals or sals or ranked in the top 1% of the class are admitted at a higher rate than those who are not. But that is the same with lots of things like higher SATs and GPAs, etc. Those who have "stats" above the average of admitted students at X college, have a higher rate of acceptance than those whose stats are in range but at the mid or lower average of accepted students. So, when you see a college has a 20% admit rate, a kid who is val or a kid who has very high SATs for that school will be admitted at a higher rate of acceptance. </p>

<p>The Penn statistics are interesting but kinda what I would think and you can do the same with a 1600 SAT and get something like that as far as rates of acceptances. I guess my D's val status helped at Penn as she got accepted. If I had posted her SATs which were very good but not the highest as I have seen others have here, some might say, What? how was she one of the 100 Ben Franklin Scholars, but as we know many factors are weighed in these decisions. I guess her val status was on the "plus" side. Frankly, being val at our school is not an easy feat because they didn't use weighted grades and she took the hardest course load possible and then some and conceivably the kids in the easiest classes can end up as val. The sal and third and fourth ranked kids were not in the harder classes. She just was the only one with straight A's throughout the four years, even though her classes were way harder with lots more work.</p>

<p>Being a fly on the wall would be great. I found The Gatekeepers to be an eye opener.</p>

<p>Susan</p>

625

<p>
[quote]
Xiggi -- why are you getting so touchy about this? I thought that is what this "discussion forum" is all about. You do exactly the same to the others on this forum, frequently disagreeing with and evaluating their posts. Your response appears to imply that what is "good for the goose is NOT good for the gander".

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I am not touchy about this subject. Actually, I decided to ignore several of your posts, including your "original" newbie post where you discussed my participation in other boards, and attempted to define the contents of my thousands of posts--mostly incorrectly I may add. </p>

<p>Please go back and read your own posts--the ones written under your new identity that is--and count how many are adorned by terms such as great posts, elegant posts ... name it. For a "newbie", you seem to enjoy painting yourself in the role of a judge or evaluator, when the role of devil's advocate falters. </p>

<p>Despite having to voice my surprise that you took the time to read my previous posts shortly after joining our forums, I make no apologies for having my own opinions, which may lead to disagreements with other posters. When feasible, I do try to support my opinions with outside quotations. In addition, even in the midst of the strongest debates, I TRY to remain respectful, but admit to sometimes show my youthful exhuberance in the form of showing exasperation. I also admit to love a good debate, and I have always learned more from opposing views than from others. However, I respect my occasional adversaries for having the courage of their opinions and signing their posts without false pretenses.</p>

<p>This forum is open and free to all, and self-professed newbies are welcomed with open arms. New questions are answered with care, interest, and lots of patience. You did, however, decided to blaze a new trail, and one I personally find unbecoming of a new poster.</p>

626

<p>


I believe I've seen this to be true at most if not all of the colleges that publish such data. I do wish to stress that there are clear differences even between val and sal and sal and "third through top 5%". I'll repeat- at Penn , for the class of '09 the Val is twice as likely to be admitted than the kid "third through top 5%". (That could be why schools try to scam things with multiple vals.;) That's why schools ask -how many tied at that rank? ) </p>

<p>I also agree with you that those colleges who publish SAT ACT data in the same fashion show the same results . 36's get in more often than 35's. 35's more than 34's. 1600's more than 1550's . 1550's more often than 1380's. This isn't news.</p>

<p>And , if I'm reading xig correctly, I'm beginning to think that on this thread we have a "one-trick pony" or "single-issue voter" stirring the pot, too. ;)</p>

627

<p>This is reposted information from an earlier thread. Rice does a good job of detailing their entering class.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.ruf.rice.edu/%7Einstresr/ricestatistics/Pages/select04.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.ruf.rice.edu/~instresr/ricestatistics/Pages/select04.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>Class Rank
Ranked #1 Applied 683 Admitted 309 (45%) Enrolled 94
Ranked #2 Applied 239 Admitted 102 (43%) Enrolled 28
Top 5% Applied 2,494 Admitted 896 (36%) Enrolled 339
Top 6-10% Applied 665 Admitted 90 (14%) Enrolled 44
Top 11-20% Applied 568 Admitted 55 (10%) Enrolled 36
Top 21-30% Applied 223 Admitted 16 (7%) Enrolled 12
Top 31-40% Applied 101 Admitted 5 (5%) Enrolled 5
Top 41-50% Applied 49 Admitted 7 (14%) Enrolled 7
<50% Applied 62 Admitted 4 (6%) Enrolled 4
Unranked Applied 3,948 Admitted 733 (18%) Enrolled 280 </p>

<p>I believe that the above information is a lot more useful than the typical "xx% of applicants are in top 10%" we see on most sites. If we had more data points, we could determine if rank does indeed carry much importance. Having the same distribution for SAT scores and GPA's would also help us define the focus of the school on tests scores.</p>

<p>For more information, check <a href="http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?p=1565602&highlight=Rice#post1565602%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?p=1565602&highlight=Rice#post1565602&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

628

<p>spectator, </p>

<p>Numbers from Rice are similar to UPenn. </p>

<p>Ranked #1 Applied 683 Admitted 309 (45%) Enrolled 94 </p>

<p>Ranked #2 Applied 239 Admitted 102 (43%) Enrolled 28 </p>

<p>Top 5% (including 1 and 2) Applied 2,494 Admitted 896 (36%) Enrolled 339 </p>

<p>Top 6-10% Applied 665 Admitted 90 (14%) Enrolled 44 </p>

<p>411 of the 896 kids admitted to Rice that were in the top 5% were val or sal. Jiminy. That's even higher than I thought. </p>

<p>Now subtract the 1's and 2's from the cumulative "top 5%" and figure % acceptance for number 3 through top 5%. See what you get. 485 of 2494. Less than 20% acceptance rate. Pretty significant diifference , to me a least.</p>

<p>So, the difference between val and and 3rd through top 5% at Rice is very similar to UPenn's numbers. 45% to almost 20%. Val is again twice as likely.</p>

629

<p>I also found The Gatekeepers fascinating, and somewhat discouraging since my sons go to a huge public high school. What does jump out in that book is the heavy-thumb-on-scale given to students from private schools where GC counselors are on a first-name basis with the admissions officers of top colleges. </p>

<p>A "B" student from a well known private has her application championed vigorously by the regional admissions officer, and while it actually doesn't result in an admission, it definitely gives the impression that there's a huge advantage to coming from that private high school. There's no mention of pushing for the bright, hard-working, strong ECs but "B" student from no-name public school. Not raising a big flag of protest or anything, that advantage is what people are willing to pay $25,000 a year for (yes, I know, in addition to the superior education). I'm just sayin'. In fact, Gatekeepers makes it very clear how one can see the "luck of the draw" aspect to getting admitted to highly selective colleges based on "the draw" of which admissions officer -- with all their human quirks and preferences contributing to the subjectiveness of decisions -- is responsible for first or second reading of your application. Not to mention whether the ad officer went to undergrad with the GC at your high school. </p>

<p>Throwing back the curtain on the val-sal machinations of different high schools --- 40 vals! -- makes my opinion even stronger that standardized tests should not be abolished. For all the reasons already covered many times on other threads.</p>

630

<p>


I think most of the scammer schools (or "schools who won't play the game" if you prefer) like the school that the profiled kid went to are caught (by the "# tied at this rank" blank)and the kids are lumped in with the top 5% or 10% numbers.</p>

631

<p>Val status is clearly a substantial plus at the top schools profiled in the links . From the supposedly most holistic (by rep) to the more numbers driven (by rep). The same appears to hold true with SAT/ACT scores . *The utmost tip-top pinnacle rank and testing students get a big boost<a href="like%20susan%20and%20I%20,%20and%20others,%20said%20they%20would">/b</a> . I don't think this should be news. I have seen no hard and specific data to the contrary. **If you have some hard and specific data disagreeing with this at a particular school - please post it, and I'll be glad to discuss it. * Especially if you have a topmost school that consistently takes more "3rd through top 5% kids" than vals. Or more 1380's than 1550's. If y'all are right and these things aren't considered by top schools , you should be able to find a few. </p>

<p>Some who support the idea that national contest kids should get a boost for their participation are some of the same parents poo-pooing val staus and SAT/ACT. While some of us are suspicious about the possibilities of gaming in national contests and maybe less concerned with val and tests , some others are concerned with gaming in val and SAT/ACT tests and less concerned about gaming within far less representative contests (far less kids involved). I don't understand y'all taking the position but I accept that you do. </p>

<p>I'm in favor of a holistic applicant review. A complete review of every file, that requires adcoms to look at all factors in the bright light of the applicants advantages and disadvantages and their performance in relation to those advantages and disadvantages.</p>

632

<p>Cur, I would never denigrate the accomplishment of any val or sal. Those kids DO deserve the accolades for their effort. It's just hard for me to understand the significance in some cases, where there may be multiple kids who qualify for that recognition or who missed it by .0001 grade points.</p>

<p>I'm sure the data regarding admissions is correct, but I believe that if your D had been 3rd instead of 1st she would have been just as successful with regard to acceptances. I wonder if there isn't some mix up with causation and correlation. The kids who make Valedictorian probably also have high test scores, interesting ECs and good recommendations. I don't know how anyone other than the admissions people can really separate the weight of each attribute.</p>

<p>My only point of reference is my son's school, where kids who are ranked 10 - 15 out of a class of 250 still get into very selective colleges. I'd guess that kids ranked out of the top 10% at certain private schools are still accepted at schools like Penn. It would be interesting to see the relationship between rank and type of HS.</p>

633

<p>
[Quote]
I am not touchy about this subject. Actually, I decided to ignore several of your posts, including your "original" newbie post where you discussed my participation in other boards, and attempted to define the contents of my thousands of posts--mostly incorrectly I may add.

[/Quote]
</p>

<p>Xiggi, this is exactly what I am talking about. You mischaracterized what I said in that post. The exact words were “ I do have a question for xiggi, who appears to be also a frequent poster on other forums as well as here.” No where did I try to “define the contents of (your) thousands of posts”. I confined my subsequent comments to the posts in this thread alone. </p>

<p>
[Quote]
Please go back and read your own posts...and count how many are adorned by terms such as great posts, elegant posts ... name it. For a "newbie", you seem to enjoy painting yourself in the role of a judge or evaluator, when the role of devil's advocate falters.

[/Quote]
</p>

<p>Is it not permitted to note a particularly good post by someone? That is hardly setting myself up and judge and jury. What it appears you mean is that when someone agrees with you it’s fine -- when they agree with a contrarian view it’s becoming judgmental. Yet I recall you reinforcing the posts that agree with your position, so by default does that make you judgmental? </p>

<p>
[Quote]
Despite having to voice my surprise that you took the time to read my previous posts shortly after joining our forums...

[/Quote]
</p>

<p>Actually I read EVERYONE’s posts on this thread, I hardly singled out yours. </p>

<p>Finally, one parting thought. I had asked you in an earlier post for your prescription on how to fix the ills in the admissions system, yet have not seen a reply. In most leadership courses, and especially in the military, they teach even the youngest Lieutenant that if they bring a problem to their Commander, they should bring a possible solution to it as well. If we are to complain about the inequities of the system, should we not be providing ideas and/or recommendations on how to fix it? </p>

<p>It’s pretty clear by now that you and I are not going to agree on much. The only thing I am in TOTAL agreement with you on was your comment (at least I think it was yours) about the pains of listening to Nancy Pelosi and Hillary Clinton. :)</p>

<p>So here's a suggestion -- to save us both from high blood pressure and vexations in spirit you just ignor my posts from here on, and I will do the same for yours. What a deal!</p>

634

<p>I mostly agree with you sj, that's why I call for a complete and thorough review. I just don't want people to delude themselves into thinking that val or sal doesn't count at top colleges when it clearly does and the top colleges are the ones touting the data that says so. LOL.</p>

<p>I find that significant, don't you? They show the data saying val is the best indicator we're showing you for admission , the highest acceptance rate we show - and the folks here say - top colleges don't care about val. I give the colleges credit for knowing that if they wanted to diminish val status in their accepted profile they could do so. (Just don't show it .;))</p>

635

<p>


</p>

<p>Spectator, here are the first lines of the first post of Spectator on College Confidential. It is pretty easy to retrieve: simply click on your profile, check "other posts", and scroll to the bottom. </p>

<p>


</p>

<p>Did I miss something?</p>

636

<p>
[quote]
In most leadership courses, and especially in the military, they teach even the youngest Lieutenant that if they bring a problem to their Commander, they should bring a possible solution to it as well. If we are to complain about the inequities of the system, should we not be providing ideas and/or recommendations on how to fix it?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Well, my self-appointed Commander, you'll have to find another Lieutenant to spoonfeed the brass. This one has posted plenty of ideas and suggestions on this issue.</p>

637

<p>
[quote]
Val status is clearly a substantial plus at the top schools profiled in the links .

[/quote]
Cur, no one disagrees with you, with the exception of a certain one-note poster who is here to stir the pot. The only issue is one of semantics --Soozie and I and perhaps others have pointed out that when colleges SAY "valedictorian" in their PR, they really mean "class rank=1", using class rank as of the time mid-term grades are reported at the latest, as that is the only information they have to go on when the admission decisions are made.</p>

<p>At some schools that mid-year rank also is determinative at time of graduation, but at other schools the rank can change and there is often some last-minute jockeying around for position. At my kid's high school, kids can turn in grades achieved in outside college courses and these are weighted, and some kids wait until late in the year to turn in their college transcripts --so this year the "val" and "sal" were kids who turned up out of the blue at the last minute. (I believe Harvard and some other Ivies accepted the kid who was ranked #1 as of the midyear report, but he didn't end up being the val at the graduation ceremonies).</p>

<p>I am sure that the PR or data the colleges put out is based on info designating students as rank=1 as of the time they make the admissions decision -- I doubt very seriously that they go through any process of confirming class rank from final transcripts. What would be in it for them? They are not going to reverse their decision because the 1st place kid's rank fell to #3 after the final semester's grade reports came in.</p>

638

<p>Thanks, Cur. The data is very convincing. I'm glad that my S was not ranked. His GPA was nowhere near as impressive as that of the val and sal. And I have no idea how many students would have stood between him and them had he been ranked. :(</p>

639

<p>
[quote]
I'm in favor of a holistic applicant review. A complete review of every file, that requires adcoms to look at all factors in the bright light of the applicants advantages and disadvantages and their performance in relation to those advantages and disadvantages.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Umm, isn't that more or less what they try to do at the highly selective schools? And the explanation for why the results can seem counter-intuitive or even random to us? Or am I just easily gulled by what they SAY they do?</p>

<p>
[quote]
Thanks, Cur. The data is very convincing. I'm glad that my S was not ranked. His GPA was nowhere near as impressive as that of the val and sal. And I have no idea how many students would have stood between him and them had he been ranked

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Marite, I wouldn't worry too much. I think some of the posts in this thread have established that from the various other information that's sent from the gc, the college ends up with a pretty good idea of where your child stands, and knows what they're getting.</p>

640

<p>Conyat:</p>

<p>No worry at all. The reason my S was not ranked is that he graduated early. But even if he had not, the GPA would not have worked because he took a bunch of college courses, most of which ended up on his transcript as Pass/Fail. The two colleges to which he applied must have looked at the whole application rather than just at the GPA which was really not in the same league as that of the val or sal. I don't know how they could achieve GPAs of 97+.</p>