<p>I don't understand how students with a sub-4.0 get into colleges such as the ivies, MIT, stanford, etc. Ivy League schools often brag that they could fill their class 3 times with the perfect combination, and could do the same with the number of valedictorians and salutorians that apply. So why do colleges accept a 3.8 student with great qualifications, when there are 3 times as many students with the same qualifications, but with a 4.0? Do subjective things like teacher recommendations and essays really make that much of a difference?</p>
<p>I am usually a very good student, I've received straight As in all my semesters of high school except for one, which was my junior year first semester. This was due to psychological problems that resulted in me missing a lot of school. My final grades were affected heavily because of this, and I ended up getting a few (3) ** in my core classes. I know that this is not the norm. I have the same calculus teacher now as I did last year, but I have an A in his multivariable class now, while I ended calculus last year with a B. </p>
<p>My guidance counselor did mention it in her LOR, but I feel as though this puts me at a severe disadvantage in the college admissions process. I feel as though everything else is perfect. Not to be cocky, but I feel as though my extracurriculars are more impressive than accepted students to colleges like Harvard or Princeton, and my SAT scores seem on par. But why would a competitive college admit me when there is another candidate with the same qualifications, but with a 4.0? I understand that this happens often, but I don't understand the rationale behind the college admissions process. Is there something that I can do to override my bad grades?</p>
Geographic diversity (same stats from Alaska and New York, I bet Alaska gets the nod)
Unique high level EC (read Cal Newport’s book “How to be a High School Superstar”). Gist is that a unique EC done with intensity and results really makes you stand out in the admissions process.</p>
<p>The first three you pretty much can’t control (you are or aren’t). The fourth one – well, you could move to Idaho or Alaska in junior year or so. But realistically, you are where you are. So that leaves the last one as the item students have the most control over outside of grades and test scores. And essays… although I would contend that the unique EC probably also provides fodder for strong essays, too, so those are linked.</p>
<p>If you are applying now, you have what you have. You really can’t change those factors. But believe me, hundreds of millions of people in this country can tell you that you do not need to attend one of those schools you listed to be successful. High school students obsess over this, as if admission to one of these schools will set them up for life – and going to another school will doom them. Ridiculous. Just make sure you have a list of matches & safeties you could be happy to attend. If you don’t have that now, you have not been spending your college search time in the right place. Go for a couple of reaches (I can tell from your name you will!). But then apply to a few matches and a couple of safeties that fit you well. Given the statistics for entry into the schools you listed, that is the smart thing to do.</p>
<p>Luck factors in as well. Essays can play a part too and can separate the students who seem like your run-of-the-mill students from the rest. </p>
<p>That said I agree with intparent. Thinking that the where you receive your education will directly affect the fate of your future is silly. Sometimes the best school for a student isn’t the highest ranking one.</p>
<p>There are hundreds of competitive colleges that are not super selective like those you named.</p>
<p>But, yes, post #2 describes some of the way to get into the super selective colleges without sky-scraping academic credentials. Unfortunately, most of them (other than recruited athlete and the extremely unique EC) are not ones that you can control or influence through your own ability and effort.</p>
<p>Elite schools don’t just admit top students - they BUILD a class. That means that they need all kinds of applicants, some of whom will get in over you because they have a skill that you don’t. So if the only French horn player at the university orchestra is graduating, the school will keep an eye out for a French horn player to fill that spot and he/she will get in even if your grades and overall ECs are more impressive.</p>
<p>The student who did something interesting will always fare better than the student who followed the well-worn path but with a one-tenth higher GPA or slightly higher test score. Imagine having to read 1000 apps over a 3-month period. Wouldn’t you want to advocate for that someone who you will actually remember two days from now?</p>
<p>If a college rejects me because I don’t have a 4.0, they’ll be rejecting me because I didn’t get an A in gym freshman year, and that’s a dumb reason. There are a million other reasons they could reject me.</p>
<p>I don’t see feeder schools mentioned in the posts above but I may have missed it. Being the #5 graduate from TJ or Exeter won’t be held against a student.</p>
<p>It’s been stated elsewhere many times - grades and test scores have to meet the cut off and a transcript has to demonstrate academic rigor within the context of what was academically available. After that, there is no difference between 4.0 and 3.9. There is no difference between 2400 and 2300. Students who meet the cut off academically, then get evaluated for other factors, described above. There would be no need for holistic admissions if it was strictly by the test score and GPA.</p>