<p>A couple times in "chance me" threads, I've been told my ACT score was low even though it fell into the middle or high end of the school's 50% range. I scored a 32 and I'm looking at schools like Oberlin (28-32), Vassar (30-33), Brandeis (28-32), etc. So what makes a 32 low or mediocre or not good enough? Very puzzled over here...</p>
<p>Some people on CC are idiots or snobs - nothing more.</p>
<p>Those scores don’t make you a lock, nobody’s does, not even a 36, but you are certainly a viable candidate if you hit the middle 50% range and have all the other things that go with it.</p>
<p>Because everyone that posts or comments on chance me threads are kids just like you that probably know the same if not less than you do about any of this stuff. Just don’t go to that section it’s a waste of time</p>
<p>People comment that to discourage you. You are FINE. Apply to those schools</p>
<p>Your scores are fine. Rely on the common data set. Just understand that your chances of admissions are still only going to be 15-20 percent. </p>
<p>Your scores are fine. This is College Confidential where a 2200 is low and a 3.99 GPA means you’re totally going to get rejected from every school you apply to.
Don’t worry about it. Once you hit the middle 50% you are fine and competitive!</p>
<p>Your score is definite not low as it is at or near 75%. However, it may be reach for some schools due to low admission rate. </p>
<p>Your score is a fine score. The chance me threads are very strange. I never understand them. But I’m a parent so I suppose that’s why.</p>
<p>A couple of things. Your score is just one part of the package. Once you have a score in good range, the other pieces become much more important and you can forget the score, think of what you have to offer to the life of the universities and how to express that in your essays and interviews.</p>
<p>I think kids often worry about raising scores because that is something you can still change about your data in junior year. It is possible for some kids to study up their standardized test scores by quite a bit with some hard work. But you aren’t going to change your math track or the general track of classes you are on, or raise your GPA by much, though you might put it to an upward trend. Or be able to add in depth years long ECs or add a long history of involvement in social justice etc. That stuff is done. You have control over how you present these things, but not what the actual things are.You might be able to squeeze out some more awards, but it’s likely in fields where you have already been active and there is only so much you can ramp up in a few months. But test scores are easily changed.They don’t matter as much as all the other stuff though, especially at the kinds of places you are looking at.</p>
<p>Another thing is that at some schools, not the toptop, but below that, the middle 50% from the CDS that is quoted and is for enrolled students is a bit below the middle 50% for admitted students. Because many of the admitted students with the highest scores also are top candidates in other ways and end up at higher ranked schools. For example, Vanderbilt lists mid 50% at 32-34 for 2013 entering class. But in the admissions blog in April 2013 (it’s still there, go look) they list the mid 50% of admitted students as 33-35. That is typical. This doesn’t mean your score isn’t good, and I don’t even know if the same process happens at the smaller LACs. But it is something to be aware of.</p>
<p>^^^ That is true. It is around a point higher in ACT in admission stat over enrolled freshman profile for UMich too. In addition, the score may be fine for a school overall but may be low for specific programs. Most Universities do not publish separated stats for different schools/programs. For instance, ACT 31 is around the average for UMich LSA admission but is only 25% for Engineering.</p>
<p>A question that cannot be answered from those statistics (but often can be approached with Naviance) is not “what is the range of scores of those who are admitted” but rather “what is the range of scores of people who are rejected”. Often they overlap an enormous amount. So someone who has nearly perfect scores might say “mine are higher than most of the people at Harvard” for example, needs to know that Harvard rejects lots and lots of perfect scores. Just an example. </p>
<p>UMN-TC publishes admissions data by school:
<a href=“Academic Profile of Fall 2022 Admitted Freshman Applicants by College | Office of Admissions”>http://admissions.tc.umn.edu/academics/profile.html</a>
It varies quite a bit. That matters if you are applying to schools where you are admitted to a program or school and not just the university. Guessing that LACs admit to the university as a whole and one applies to program some time later? </p>
<p>Just chiming in with the others… chance me threads are pretty useless. They are largely kids looking at the exact same admissions pages you are. They don’t have more info than you are capable of getting yourself. If you aren’t “perfect” then kids here are going to tell you you suck lol. Don’t buy into it. A 32 is a great score that won’t be holding you back. Go focus on the rest of your application and don’t stress over a bunch of kids who are giving you advice and then turning around and asking others to chance them lol.</p>
<p>I think there is some validity to the comment unless you are a recruited athlete, URM, etc. Small LACs accept many applicants with hooks. If you are unhooked, you need to be above average to have a reasonable chance at admission. Your score is certainly not mediocre, but these schools may be more of a reach than you realize. </p>
<p>One half of all students accepted are below average - therefore being in the middle 50% range is just fine. Just don’t expect to be a lock at any of them.</p>
<p>To echo what CHD said, it largely depends on the school and their policy with legacies, URMs, recruited athletes etc.</p>
<p>To put it frankly, the standard may be lower for hooked students. If they are accepted, they may bring the average test scores down. This means that for an unhooked student, the “average” test score actually lies above the average test score of the incoming class. It’s all conjecture, but it isn’t baseless.</p>
<p>Yes, they drag the average down, but they don’t generally drag the middle 50% down, since they’re in the bottom 25% regardless, and that’s what we’re talking about. The mean and the median don’t deviate all that much.</p>
<p>Since you are looking at LACs, should be thinking about how gender affects admissions. As a woman, you are not disadvantaged at Oberlin, which admits equal proportions of male and female candidates. At Vassar, which is more unbalanced and gets many more apps from women, about a third of male candidates are accepted but only 20% of females. So a higher test score might help you there. </p>
<p>I glanced at one of your other threads and see you are from NJ. So you won’t get any boost from your geographical location at most of these LACs. </p>
<p>MrMom, do you think the hooked admits are all in the bottom quartile? Really? I’m not sure I believe that, but if you separated them out they would have a lower mid-50 than the unhooked admits seems reasonable. I have no knowledge or data, just a feeling. Does someone have facts about this?</p>
<p>^^^ Whenever 2 numbers below median added to the pool, the median position would be shifted one downward. I don’t see how adding more below media/average numbers to the pool without affecting the population statistics. By the same token, when you add numbers to the 25% and below pool, it will become more than 25% of the total that the 25% figure has to go down a little bit too. Nevertheless, those numbers are already there to begin with. The mean and median don’t deviate that much mainly because of the large sample size so a few dozen students with below 25% stat may not affect then too much when there are 5000 data points already in the pool. The median position may shift down a dozen or two position but it may well be around the same value.</p>
<p>Are all hooked applicants in the bottom quartile - no, of course not. But it’s a good bet the lower quartile is made up mostly of athletes, legacies, developmentals, lower SEG (socio-economic groups), and URMs - an unhooked student is going to be a rarity there.</p>
<p>MrMom, I respectfully disagree. I say this as a parent of two recruited athletes at top 10 schools. LOTS of athletes, mine included, actually bring the averages up. Also, at the most selective colleges legacies tend to be the most qualified applicants.</p>
<p>As to the OP’s question, the problem stems from the oversupply of qualified applicants to highly selective colleges. While your scores may be in the middle range, you’re chances may still be low. In general, your chances will be higher if your scores are in the top quartile.</p>