On my many college visits, I have learned that most top schools practice “holistic admissions.” To my understanding, part of this means that they look at you (as an applicant) relative to your high school, rather than the rest of the world. That doesn’t seem fair, as I go to one of the best high schools in the country and tons of people there are far more qualified than I am. However, while I may only be in the top 15-20% of my high school class, I am most likely in the top 5% of everyone else applying the same year as me. To what extent will this hurt my applications? Theoretically, would I be better off in my current situation or in the top 1% of a mediocre high school?
If it matters, my favorite schools so far are Brown, UChicago, and Columbia.
Holistic admissions means that they will consider your application across a wide range of criteria. They will try to see you as a whole person as opposed to just a test score or gpa. So test scores, GPA, rank, EC’s, jobs, essays, letters of rec will all contribute to a school trying to paint a picture of who you are.
In holistic admissions, the student with leadership skills, passion or talent in one area, glowing recs and essays with real voice might out-shine a student with higher tests sores and gpa and might get a coveted spot.
Yes, they will look at your school, community, parental education etc, to get a further picture of who you are. They will know that your HS is top-ranked and more competitive than others and will see that your 20% percentile still reflects an excellent academic record.
Good luck!
You’ve misunderstood somewhat. They consider the resources around you and what you have done with them.
And just to assuage your fears before I get into anything else: I went to a high school with a median SAT of 1490 (i.e. 50% of the class got 1500+/1600). 9/47 kids in my class were accepted to Brown (I don’t remember how many applied). As you can see, it’s literally impossible that we could all be in the top 1%. I was outside the top 20% of my class, but my SAT score was still in the 99.9th percentile nationwide. Not a legacy, not a recruit, not a URM, not a development case.
Now, onto what holistic admissions really means: Pretend you are the coach for the olympic sprinting team trying to build your new team from talent around the country. You’re picking this team 2+ years ahead of the olympics so you’re not picking guys to run tomorrow, you’re picking guys you’re going to train even further - being the world class coach that you are. Just for simplicity, you’re down to your final spot and deciding between two athletes.
Athlete A:
A’s parents have provided him with private coaching for years - his technique is flawless given all of this training. He’s used to running on the nicest tracks in the country, he has the fanciest track shoes and running suit available. He has a long pedigree of success in various races around the country.
Athlete B:
This qualifier is B’s first ever formal race. He runs in old, worn down sneakers and baggy sweatpants as that’s the only equipment he has access too. His technique is poor because he has no access to track coaches.
In the race, A finishes ahead of B, but not by that much. Given that you have 2+ years to train them with your world class coaching team (even better than what A has had access to), which runner do you choose? Non holistic admissions says you absolutely take A. He finished ahead of B in the race. Holistic admissions says that maybe B is in fact the more talented runner because he’s almost as good as A is right now, and he’s had none of the opportunities and support that A has had, so it’s a reasonable assumption that with all the support and opportunities you could provide for him, he’d end up being faster than A if they had the same access to resources.
In other words, no, you wouldn’t be better off if you were at a worse school.