<p>^ A couple of thoughts. </p>
<p>I was under the impression that some sports lower admissions standards more that others. I have heard the term “helmet sports” thrown around to indicate that these are the athletes more likely to need and be given lower admission criteria. I don’t think all sports are treated equally.</p>
<p>I am betting that very few legacies (this is after all a thread about legacies) fall into that bottom 25%.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So what if Harvard has a small percentage of students who have SATs below 690 in Math or in Critical Reading? Harvard is not the kind of school that accepts based on numbers alone. I bet very few have below 650. Harvard must feel that those with at least a 650 in each section of the SAT are smart enough to succeed at Harvard, when combined with other academic indicators such as GPA, rigor of courseload, class rank, and so on. They are not attempting to take the highest SAT scores off the pile of applications. As long as a student is in the ballpark with test scores and other academic “stats,” the many other qualities of the applicant comes into play. So, if some kid has 1350 on the SATs (CR/M) and some other kid has 1550, but the 1350 kid brings many other qualities to the table that perhaps the 1550 kid doesn’t, they will take the 1350 kid because they want students at their school for various qualities they possess and ways they may contribute to campus and as long as they meet the academic threshhold, it won’t matter so much who has higher SATs than someone else. Also, you have no way of proving that the athletes and URM or legacies are the ones who fall in the lower 25%tile on test scores at a school like Harvard. I mentioned elsewhere on this thread that a majority of my D’s teammates at her Ivy made Academic All American while in college and went onto selective med schools, law schools, PhD programs, and other professional schools. These kids were no slouches in the academic area. </p>
<p>In any case, it makes perfect sense to me for adcoms to whittle the pile of apps down by who has the ballpark stats and then put the stats aside and pick who to take from that pile who offers up other qualities attractive to the college. Not to even mention that test scores are not necessarily the best indicators of who will be successful in college and beyond. There could be kids who score 1500 on CR/M who are not motivated learners or go getters and who contribute nothing to the campus life and there could be kids with a 1380 who get excellent grades and excel in the classroom with many academic achievements and contribute to campus activities. The difference in academic achievement may not favor someone who has scored 120 points higher on the SAT.</p>
<p>I wonder if some of you have an opinion on the grassy knoll and the third man? :D</p>
<p>There’s no conspiracy. These are the odds: Not good. If you go into the application process believing your kid is going to get into one of these schools, which is the only reason I can even imagine for being disappointed for more than a few days, you are setting yourself up.</p>
<p>Maybe sooz and I just have a different perspective since no matter how talented your kid is as a performer, they are going to get turned down. Actually, my daughter says if you aren’t getting turned down for a role or two when you are auditioning, you aren’t stretching yourself and you certainly aren’t putting yourself out there very hard.</p>
<p>Se la vie. Sometimes they need a redhead.</p>
<p>
It’s not why I wanted to go, but I was attracted to the idea of a family tradition. Part of me was sad that my son didn’t want to follow in our footsteps. But my point is that, there’s a reason that Harvard is the most popular school in the US and it’s not because they only take the highest stat kids.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That says it all for me in a nutshell. My kids entered competitive college admissions/auditions realistically understanding the odds, even though they were qualified. They did not expect specific schools that had very low admit rates to come through, though realistically hoped they’d get in somewhere. Nobody was overly upset or disappointed about a specific rejection. It went with the territory of competitive admissions. My kids considered themselves very lucky to get into most of their colleges and grad schools in fact. The odds were not in their favor. If they got a rejection, they did not find it unfair, nor did they wonder why they didn’t get in. They knew the odds were such that not getting in was a very realistic possibility and not because they reached too high but because the acceptance rates were so low and they knew very qualified students would be turned away. They went into it with realistic expectations. In my line of work (college counseling), I see many who do not have realistic expectations and are devastated by rejections.</p>
<p>poetgrl also brings up the analogy with auditions in the theater world. The odds are extremely low at the highest levels such as Broadway auditions. You can have an amazing audition with super duper talent but if your look or height is not what they were seeking, tough luck. It is not just a talent contest to get cast. You have to have the talent to be in consideration of course, just like with elite college admissions where high stats bring you to the table and nothing more. Factors beyond one’s control then enter into the odds. I recall when D2 went to NYC at age 11 and was one of three finalists to replace the role of Annie on the national tour. The other two girls were blond. My D has brown hair. The casting director told her that she was going to pick one of the other girls because they had fairer skin and would look better in a red wig as my D doesn’t have fair skin at all. My D had the voice and talent to get that far in the process but she could not control her skin tone. I thought this was a GREAT lesson for my D to experience at a young age at the highest levels (she subsequently was cast as Annie in our community where the competition is not nearly as stiff) because this is what a life is like in that field in the most competitive casting situations. When my D now auditions professionally in NYC (she is now an Equity actor and is 22), she never expects anything and takes it with a grain of salt. She auditioned recently via an agent for the biggest role she has ever tried for in her life (it truly is huge) and while she fits this role’s type and voice, she knew the odds of ever getting cast are close to zero (not only due to the low odds and the zillions of women they will see for this role, but another factor beyond her control is she is not a name and the likelihood of casting a name actress is very high…sort of like “legacies” in college admissions! 
)</p>
<p>^^#560, Actually, it is bleaker than that since the remaining 60% has to be split with the ultra competitive pool of applicants, internationals and orms. They together take 30%. Most kids are not used to that kind of competition. All their life they were told to take their time, the race will be on foot. At the last minute, speed cars were thrown in.</p>
<p>Oh boy.
Sooz,
You seem very at ease with all this. Perhaps it also because you are a college counselor.
The fact is most families find themselves dealing with college admissions WITHOUT all the data, the information, the experience, maybe using old experiences…
Getting the data about how admission decisions are made, how the game is played is NOT easy!
So it is VERY PUZZLING to most people as they go through it.
Don’t you think it is NATURAL to be surprised at how random holistic admissions seems?
We are hard-wired to think that hard work, talent, achievement will get results.
Setting goals is a VERY important part of getting results.
Yes, following a passion is admirable, but there are many ways to do that…
So it does not surprise me that people are puzzled.
It has been CHANGING FAST IN THE LAST DECADE.
So puleez, stop your repeated messages. Many people are just confused and asking questions, wanting to know what IS happening if what they knew from the past is no longer happening.
Stop labeling people by insinuating that people asking questions are angry, misinformed, sour grapes, entitled, out of it, unrealistic…
We KNOW it is competitive, but in WHAT WAYS? HOW SO? How has the landscape changed?
We are told it is “Holistic” , but what method is there behind that, up to what point?
I mean, doesn’t someone auditioning for a Broadway Show or doing a job interview try to understand how the process works, what the employer is looking for? We are trying to find out whether they need a red-head, if the director likes to cast based on prior experience, hates certain songs in auditions, whatever…!</p>
<p>Pizza, Really, people do not choose or reject a school just based on its admission practices.</p>
<p>performersmom, CC is full of a variety of parents and students, some who are brand new to admissions and some who are very experienced with it and have been through it already with one or more of their children. On this thread in particular, there are many of us who have been around the block in college admissions with our own kids, and I imagine there are newbies too. However, I am seeing SOME people who have already gone through admissions with a child who are not simply trying to understand how elite college admissions works but already know how it works and are lamenting how it works. </p>
<p>This is different than, for example, when I start the college process with a student and his/her parents and particularly if it is either their first child and/or first child to apply to highly selective colleges or to enter the extremely selective BFA admissions process in theater or musical theater or music or dance, whereby I patiently explain the odds so that they can get a realistic understanding of how it all works. In fact, I am in the middle of proofreading a 79 page document, which I individualize for every advisee, in which I have evaluated their background, done a college search, have suggested colleges and their chances at these schools, have provided in depth descriptions of these colleges geared toward their interests, and have discussed the entire process in relation to them to plant the seed of how it all works and how to guide them to go about it. I took a break from proofreading my report I prepared for a student to read this thread. So, I can assure you that I fully explain how it works to newbies. </p>
<p>But not everyone on this thread is new to this process. They know how it works but are still complaining, whereas some others who also know how it works, are fine with how it all works. :D</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I actually do believe these things will get results. Sooz’s daughter will be a “name” at some point. Even a great audition can create a buzz. You are not just auditioning for the role you are auditioning for, you are audition for the director and whoever else is in there. You never know what role you will get out of which audition, actually…or even for which play. This audition might, in fact, get her daughter a role in six months. LOL. It’s crazy. You just go and have fun and move on.</p>
<p>As for the college admissions game? You will get results. Maybe it will be UChicago or Vandy or UVA, but you will get excellent, compelling results from that hard work. In the meantime, if it is meaningful to a kid, they ought to toss their hat in the ring for a few of the Ivy raffles, or LAC raffles. Why the heck not? You could end up there, but you probably won’t, @ 6%, or even, frankly, @ 30% for a legacy.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You mean, for example, that the 1350 kid has such “qualities” as being a legacy, or a celebrity, or a development admit, or has an uncommon ability to throw or catch or run with a football, or adds to the school’s diversity profile? I.e., is “hooked”? </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No, of course I have no way of “proving” it because they don’t show us those stats. I only maintain that it’s far likelier that an applicant with a hook is going to be admitted with sub-690 SATs than that an unhooked applicant is going to be admitted at that level. Unhooked applicants at that level are a dime a dozen, and even with brilliant essays, stellar ECs and all the rest are easily replaced by others with similar profiles in the soft admissions variables but higher GPAs and test scores. Prized athletic recruits with higher academic stats, on the other hand, are much rarer. Which is precisely why athletic recruits are “hooked.” </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Of course. You think I don’t know that? I’ve been as critical of reliance on SAT scores—which some experts say are a better predictor of household income than of future academic performance—as anyone. But look, schools like Harvard get the creme de la creme in their applicant pools. They don’t need to rely on SAT scores, but they do. And once they do, they certainly don’t need to dip down into the sub-690 SAT range to find academically motivated and accomplished kids to fill up the class. Harvard doesn’t give us much detail on who they admit and who they reject, but Brown does. Brown rejects 78% of applicants who score 800 on SAT CR, 82% of those who score 800 on SAT M, and 79% of HS valedictorians. They reject 85% of those with SAT-CR scores of 750-790, 87% of those with SAT-M scores of 750-790, and 84% of HS salutatorians. I simply maintain that it’s likely when schools with such strong applicant pools, who routinely reject huge numbers of extremely well qualified applicants—measured not only by SAT scores but also by GPAs, class ranks, and other indicia of academic achievement—do dip down to take applicants with sub-690 SATs, it’s because they have what they think is a darned good reason to do so, i.e., because the applicant is bringing something special to the table other than academic talent. And what’s more special in the minds of these schools than the qualities they value so much that they make them “hooks”?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Good for them, and it clearly indicates that they were capable of doing the work. As were probably 80% or more of those who applied to Harvard. I have great respect for varsity athletes who make Academic All-American, because given the time they devote to their sports, that’s a very difficult thing to accomplish. But I’d also point out it doesn’t mean they were at the top of their class. The Academic All-American nomination process requires a cumulative GPA of 3.30, which is pretty good, except that the average GPA at grade-inflated Harvard is 3.45 (or was in 2005, the latest year for which I’ve found a figure; it’s probably higher by now). So the fact that a majority of the team were at 3.30 or higher wouldn’t be at all inconsistent with a pretty substantial minority of the team being in the bottom quartile of the class.</p>
<p>Let me ask you, performersmom, are YOU “confused and puzzled” about how it all works? Don’t you have a kid at William and Mary and haven’t you already examined college admissions a bit given you have been through it with one kid and have been reading CC all year? Perhaps you are and that’s fine and hopefully you have gleaned some information from this thread. </p>
<p>But this thread has been much more than factual information sharing. There are opinions galore about it all. :)</p>
<p>
Wouldn’t any group getting an extra boost be more prone to being in the bottom quartile?</p>
<p>
Is it? I would probably give that distinction to the one with the most applicants.</p>
<p>Soozie - I dont know too much about architecture as a career (except for Ted on how i met your mother) but depending on the popularity of the sport, coaching can be very lucrative as a career. Lot of coaches keep taking breaks and go on TV instead to rejuvenate before they get back to coaching again.</p>
<p>^Maybe I have just hung around here too long, but I don’t find it that surprising how random holistic admissions is. And when I look at where kids are accepted from our high school, or my kids’ admissions results I see about what I expect. They were accepted at some but not all of their reaches, they were accepted at all of their safeties. (Neither kid had much in the way of matches.) For the HYP type colleges kids in the top 2% of the class have about a 25% acceptance rate. Often kids get into at least two similar Ivy’s. </p>
<p>I think that on the one hand admissions to the elite institutions has gotten much more competitive, but I really do believe that it has gotten much fairer as well. Every admissions officer I’ve ever heard speak on the subject has said they could have put together just a good a class out of their reject pile - and probably filled all the same institutional needs. (Sports teams, legacies, URMs and ORMs, the right number of oboists, the handful of weird talents - my class had a juggler.)</p>
<p>I know too many high stat legacies who were rejected to think they populate the bottom 25% unless they were developmental admits and that as we know is another category all together.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I actually agree with you on this! Where I don’t agree is the assumption that all those who have below 690 on a subtest of the SAT who are admitted are either an athlete, an URM or a legacy. Some may be but some will offer something else attractive to the school on top of their academic talent. Likewise, there are many legacies and athletes and URMs who have stellar academic records too.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Some likely aren’t at the top of their class at their Ivy (though, so what??). From personal experience, my kid was Academic All-American and I assume she was at the top of her class because at graduation she won the top award in her department. Further, she, along with many of her teammates, got into competitive graduate programs (in her case, she got in many of the top programs in her field). She is not unique by any means. In fact, while I don’t share my kids’ test scores, you might have poo-poo’d them as not being at the highest end of admitted students to her college. Test scores don’t give the whole picture of who will succeed at a top college.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>My D has no intentions of going into coaching her sport. All of her summer jobs during college and jobs between grad school were ALL in architecture (has a pretty full resume for her age so far), but as she had an unexpected break (she came home from working in Europe in architecture sooner than expected), she took the offer to coach at her college alma mater for the season as she enjoyed it and got to do her sport at the same time and travel and so on and it was a short term job before moving onto her next grad school program. But normally all her work is in her career field.</p>
<p>Jym - How long ago was this (How bad was your school?)?</p>
<p>"In HS, the best clarinetist-- first chair, was as dumb as a stump. He thought veal cutlet was a fish Sweet guy, just not too endowed in the brains department. Granted this is an N of 1, but , just sayin’, he wasnt too swift. The second chair clarinetist was average in intelligence. Also a great guy, and still is a good friend, but went to a 2nd tier university and wasn’t in the honors or AP classes in HS. Generalizations are often not supported in fact. "</p>
<p>I have bigger samples than N 1 or N2.</p>
<p>I have seen my kid’s orchestra class in high school and I believe most of the group is in the quarter or half of the class (very competitive high school). The atheletes on the other hand get recruited by UT and A&M for basketball, football, and baseball on a regular basis including this year, some ranked in the top 25 in the nation in their position. The school had a tool for last year’s batch called PrepHQ (it got killed this year and will be replaced by Naviance next year) where a parent can go through the general GPAs of applicant pools and admits for various GPAs for that year. Considering the valedictorian’s weighted GPA of 4.9 or for a baseline - the admitted GPAs for Rice went 4.86, 4.88, 4.83, and then rejects at 4.65, 4.7, 4.75. You see a blip saying a 2.9 was admitted. That GPA is in the third quartile of the class. I was scratching my head for a while trying to find a reason Rice would say no to a 4.75 but take a 2.9. Finally it dawned on me - of course an athlete since Rice plays division I sports and has a nationally ranked baseball team every year.</p>
<p>30%?! That’s ridiculous.</p>
<p>I agree that athletes, URMs and developmental admits as a group most likely have lower SAT scores- among the applicant pools, the admitted pools and the attending pools at the top schools.</p>
<p>I am not at all sure that the legacy pools have such characteristics. For instance, I doubt that the average Harvard legacy applicant has lower SAT scores than the average Harvard applicant, and I doubt that a legacy applicant with SAT subscores uniformly below 690 in all 3 components would have much of a chance of being admitted.</p>
<p>Responding to one point made earlier in the thread:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Probably a significant number of these sub-690’s are students who scored 800 on the other two components. Or who scored really well on the ACT, and/or on several SAT subject tests.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>Not in the case of legacies according to the Harvard Dean of Admissions. A quote from the article linked in first post that started all this discussion:</p>
<p>“If you look at the credentials of Harvard alumni and alumnae sons and daughters, they are better candidates on average,” said Fitzsimmons, part of what he sees as the explanation for the disparity in the acceptance rate. “Very few who apply have no chance of getting in.”</p>
<p>Because of the family background of legacies, he said, students are more likely to be aware if they are unlikely to be accepted."</p>