True, but the 4.0/2400 could just as likely have something a bit more interesting than the other applicant too. I think the better point is this: if you aren’t an “interesting” applicant, you aren’t going to get into top schools…unless (and here is where I think the ambiguity occurs) you are so impeccable academically that a top school will feel compelled to admit you even if your characteristics aren’t all that special (do I know if this is true or not? No; have I witnessed its occurrence? Yes). </p>
<p>What does it mean to be one of those 700 well-rounded types at Harvard Dean Fitzsimmons talks about (yeah yeah Yale board; same issue though)? Most are unhooked, but are they all nevertheless unique in some truly distinguished way, or are there a few Joe Schmos with superb grades and test scores who have decent, if unremarkable ECs/“traits”? Or do those Joe Schmos not even necessarily have the valedictorian status or the 2350+ SAT? I usually agree with generalizations about admissions at top schools, but this is something that needs pinpointing.</p>
<p>If you are THAT “impeccable” academically, you are very special.</p>
<p>But I am going to jump all over your use of the word “impeccable”, because I think it illustrates a really common error that students on CC make. “Impeccable” implies flawlessness, a lack of mistakes or missteps. That’s a very high school notion of academic success, the result of taking lots of tests (including SATs/ACTs) where a perfect score is perfectly possible, and where what you are really showing is that you are trainable. That’s not a university concept of academic success, though. </p>
<p>A more mature concept of academic success has to take account of creativity, depth, critical thinking, passion, communication ability. Except for the last quality, in plenty of schools it’s possible to have a 4.0 GPA without much in the way of those elements, and Lord knows it’s possible to get 800s on SATs without them, too. You can’t test your way into being an academic standout.</p>
<p>YES. And frankly plenty of people who are 4.0 GPA / 2400 SAT could offer absolutely nothing in the way of what a future employer might look for, if they don’t offer creativity, critical thinking, passion, or emotional intelligence.</p>
<p>We can not claim people with 4.0/2400 could offer absolutely nothing. Otherwise, along this line, we can also fairly say plenty of people with lower GPA/SAT scores could offer nothing. – all these claims are meaningless.</p>
<p>I just wonder why people think students with 4.0/2400 tend to be boring, not interesting? More often, opposite is true. These kids usually try to challenge themselve to the limit not only academically but also in other aspects, including ECs, creativity, critical thinking, passion, or emotional intelligence. Think about it, if a kid doesn’t have passion in their study, it is impossible to imagine he can get straight A for 4 years!</p>
<p>The fact is HYPSM admit more (percentage-wise: i.e. admitted/applicants) 4.0/2400 students than those with 3.8/2250, and graduates from these highly selective colleges are usually very successful in their career. Can someone provide data or stats for unhooked students in HYPSM that students with lower GPA/SAT are more successful than students with higher GPA/SAT? </p>
<p>BTW, Bill Gates (admitted by H) had a very high SAT (1590/1600). Can any body say he offers nothing?</p>
<p>^^Good post. I am weary of the canard that 4.0/2400/36 students are one-dimensional droids. Sure, some of them are. But I bet that most of them offer the complete package.</p>
<p>My impression has been that HYP need to admit the highest scoring non-hook candidates because they admit a substantial number of hooked candidates with lower scores. </p>
<p>But these arguments all assume a bunch of things of dubious reality:</p>
<ol>
<li>That the best students will be the most successful. We’re talking college, not undergrad, and we focus on the handful of superstars and extend that halo to all in the top 20%, top whatever without supporting data. </li>
<li>That you need to be a star high school student to do well enough at HYP. Really? If you look at demographics and then at average GPA’s seems more that being there guarantees that you’ll do at least reasonably well. You may not have the ability to score high enough on the LSAT, but you’ll still get reasonable grades in this environment.</li>
<li>That it makes a whit of difference if you go to HYP. This is a big world and we’re talking undergrad, not grad school. It’s nice to put on your resume and maybe you like looking at the framed diploma on the wall but success comes from all over. Again, we focus on the standouts and extend that halo over everyone. Some will be washouts but they’d likely be washouts anyway and the rest will have done well enough no matter what. </li>
</ol>
<p>So in the end I couldn’t care less if George W Bush went to Yale or that Al Gore screwed around at Harvard or that Ted Kennedy was kicked out, etc.</p>
<p>Well Lergnom I envy your calm and perspective, however, to be able to accept the fact that an undeserving applicant was admitted to a top school that I wish to attend will forever irritate me. The fact that Bush “went” to Yale does not bother me, the fact that he GOT IN is what irks me. He went through the same process that we are all going through now accept he had the comfort of a guaranteed admission because of his background. Pitiful…</p>
<p>You’re going to have to demonstrate some emotional maturity – which BTW, which is something just as important as book-smarts – and get over it. Because the fact that you wished to attend a top school is immaterial; so did a lot of other deserving applicants. And Y only has so many slots. Make your own luck in this world. If you were smart enough to be a reasonable contender at Y, then you’ll do just fine wherever you wind up.</p>
<p>“My impression has been that HYP need to admit the highest scoring non-hook candidates because they admit a substantial number of hooked candidates with lower scores.”</p>
<p>The above statement may not be true. Of course, some hooked (Bush-like) students do have lower scores. But, the fact is that the pool of legacy applicants is substantially stronger than the average of the rest of the pool. </p>
<p>Here is the quote from <<yale alumni=“” magazine=“”>> (2004):</yale></p>
<hr>
<p>Q: About 14 percent of last year’s entering freshmen were children or grandchildren of alumni of the college, graduate school, or professional schools. The admissions rate for legacies is about 30 percent – three times the rate for non-legacies.</p>
<p>A: It’s important to understand that being a legacy does not guarantee admission to Yale College. But the pool of legacy applicants is substantially stronger than the average of the rest of the pool. The grades and test scores of the legacies we admit are higher than the average of the rest of the admitted class, and the legacies that matriculate achieve higher grades at Yale than non-legacy students with the same high school grades and test scores.</p>
<h2>When you stop to think about it, this isn’t so surprising. Legacy students are coming from highly educated households, where books, reading, and cultural life are prized. They tend to be more exposed to and more serious about intellectual matters. We are admitting very strong students as legacies.</h2>
<p>Pizzagirl either you’re naive or tranquil (probably the latter). I don’t know if you’re in the midst of the college process right now. If you haven’t experienced it then you will understand my stress; If you have, then you can at least understand where I coming from. O and “I have to make my own luck”? that’s cute, it reminds me of the Dark Knight lolol. I don’t have a double sided coin that can guarantee me admission like Bush (or Harvey Dent) did. It’s all in the hands of the admissions officers now</p>
<p>He attended Harvard Law School after getting his undergrad at Columbia and was the president of the Harvard Law Review. He must have had a high GPA and LSAT along with other accomplishments. Clearly HLS made a good selection because, lo and behold, he’s the president now.</p>
<p>^ Yeah, An0maly, if it was affirmative action, legacy, big ears or anything else that opened the door for Barack Obama, the admissions office needs to go back to that well for some more. Whatever it was that made them extend an offer of admission to him kinda worked out, didn’t it? If someone thinks he got in because of affirmative action, that’s a pretty darn good case they’ve made for affirmative action.</p>
<p>Moving on…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This doesn’t make sense to me.</p>
<p>[EDIT: Each of the three thoughts in boldface type, individually, makes perfect sense. It’s reading them in combination that’s got me bumfuzzled.]</p>
<p>If legacies with comparable stats do better at Yale than their non-legacy peers, then why do the stats of the legacies that Yale admits end up being higher than the rest of the admitted class? Doesn’t the excellent performance at Yale by legacies suggest that the admissions could – perhaps should – be admitting legacies whose numbers are lower than the rest of the pool?</p>
<p>It’s like this Q&A on legacies is trying to have some cake and eat it, too – in terms of defending legacy admits. If they said legacies did better at Yale than their counterparts, it would make sense to go on and concede that their high school numbers were at or below the numbers for the rest of the pool. Instead, they say that they’ve identified a group of students who overachieve relative to their high school data, but they only admit those whose high school data exceeds the numbers for the rest of the admitted student pool.</p>
<p>Could this be because they’ve capped the number of legacies for each class, even though they believe that the legacies they reject are likely to do better at Yale than other non-legacy students they’re making room for? And doesn’t this suggest that the (apparent) cap for legacies makes this a more highly competitive pool than the rest of the applicant pool, to the point where it might be advantageous to omit any claim to being a legacy? (I am not recommending that anyone do that. I’m simply trying to underscore why this answer doesn’t ring true.) What am I missing here?</p>
<p>You stated: “If legacies with comparable stats do better at Yale than their non-legacy peers, then why do the stats of the legacies that Yale admits end up being higher than the rest of the admitted class?”</p>
<p>Brenzel says average legacy applicants have HIGHER stats than non-legacy peers on average. The better Yale performance by legacy admits logically follows the fact that their HS metrics are higher than the rest of the admits – what’s unusual about this?</p>
<p>As to citing their above avg performance at Yale, I think Brenzel is indicating that they aren’t having to lower any standards or give a boost to non-stellar legacy applicants. Thereby deflecting criticism for the supposed “legacy boost”. That’s how I read this statement.</p>
<p>Could they have capped the number? Perhaps subconsciously i suppose. I know this stat is measured each year (kids of college alums, kids of grad school alum) and noted. I don’t know how consistent it runs however. Given the mercurial way of admitting students, it wouldn’t surprise me if a general percentage remains somewhat fixed – even if it’s not a stated goal. Your option to not claim legacy may, in some arcane way, have merit (although parents’ alma maters are requested in the app). Legacy kids are scrutinized more, assumed to have had more advantages than other applicants. However, I also heard that Brenzel personally looks at every potential legacy reject before being finalized – just in case…</p>
<p>First of all, let me be clear I’m arguing this for sport. Not because I think it actually matters in the grand scheme of anything.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>But he didn’t compare legacies to the rest of the pool. He compared legacies who matriculated with other students who had the same grades and scores. And his point seems to be that legacies do better at Yale than their numbers would indicate (if they were not legacies). (Side observation: Wow. I can’t believe they actually track that data with such a fine point.) So we have the mythical, “all other things being equal” situation and he says that legacies are cut above the rest. And that, in turn, would mean that legacy grades and scores need not be as high to be an indicator of being successful at Yale…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>…but, you’re correct! He wants to disabuse people of the idea that there’s some insider gamesmanship going on in which legacies weaken the class. (Perhaps because he also concedes that legacies “enjoy” a 30% admit rate, which would, at first blush, suggest otherwise.)</p>
<p>Yet, even though he makes a perfectly plausible point that Yale legacies outperform their academic peers who matriculate, he also says that the pool of legacies who are offered admission have higher grades and test scores than the rest of the pool of admittees (which suggests its more brutal to be a legacy). And, again, this makes complete sense to me.</p>
<p>But to combine that fact with a 30% admit rate…it seems that Yale legacies exercise considerable restraint – in that they apparently self-select out of the application process far more than non-legacies. Right?</p>
<p>I agree that he was trying to make the case that legacy admits don’t weaken the pool. In fact, he goes on to say that they strengthen the pool. I totally buy that. It makes complete sense to me. If all he did was say that, I’d agree. I think it’s axiomatic. But I think he says too much here because even though the logic of his ultimate conclusion is totally believable to me, I can’t seem to process how all of his points can be harmonized in a logical manner.</p>
<p>EDIT: Unless there’s a cap on legacy admits.</p>
<p>I believe at the time Yale had many fewer applications, but had only slightly fewer spots available, so it isn’t as unbelievable as it would be know. Also, the SAT was recentered in 1995, so his score would probable be about 70 points higher if he had taken it today. Also, I know he didn’t have “amazing grades” or “amazing SAT scores,” but both his SAT score and grades at Yale were higher than a fellow classmate, John Kerry. Food for thought.</p>
<p>How did he get in? Who knows, but clearly they made the right choice. He went on to become President, after all. I think their goal is to find people who will do the most later in life with their Yale experience, and so Bush was a pretty successful guy by those standards, to say the least.</p>
<p>And Obama is probably an Affirmative Action success story, an obviously gifted kid without a lot of resources–who went on to become a pretty successful guy as well in part thanks to his education.</p>