We’ve all heard how there is an “initial academic review” for GPA and test scores, and once you pass that, it doesn’t matter that much anymore and AOs move onto other parts of your application. To what extent is this true?
Additionally, how high of a standard do you think this initial academic review is for T5’s? For T20’s? One piece of data is a former Vanderbilt AO’s AMA on A2C, where he says 20k out of 50k pass the initial academic review (SAT/GPA in line with past admitted middle 50%, GPA at or near 4.0 in most demanding load). I’m particularly wondering about the GPA part, as it is not standardized at all. A 4.0 at an average public school may be a lot lower than a very competitive/rigorous school. So how would 1, 2, 3,… B’s be viewed? Would that pass the initial academic review?
Funny - many schools say they review your entire app - I mean, that’s what you are paying for - but this would counter that.
I know someone whose been on the committee at Vandy and she confirms what you are saying…but these schools tend to say this isn’t true. Some say your app is read by multiple people.
Regarding GPA, admissions officers are aware that not all high schools are the same in terms of rigor and academic opportunities. They take this into account when assessing applicants. While a 4.0 GPA at an average public school may not carry the same weight as a 4.0 GPA at a highly competitive and rigorous school, admissions officers strive to evaluate applicants within the context of their high school. They consider the curriculum rigor, course selection, class rank (if available), and the school’s profile. So, a few B grades, particularly in challenging courses, would generally not automatically disqualify an applicant from passing the initial academic review, especially if other aspects of their application demonstrate strength and potential.
With respect to the standardized scoring component of this at Vanderbilt, it can be interesting to see the results of TO applicants as this information becomes available through various sources. For example, this article mentions the high school accomplishments of a current Vanderbilt student who scored a 25 on the ACT:
Duke does not say through that quotation that it does not consider applicants with less than maximum strength of the curriculum. It seems you have made an indirect inference.
The Head of Admissions described a three part process:
A qualitative review to identify academic viability or suitability (I forget exact term). Only those that could thrive were allowed to continue.
Those that advanced were then reviewed at the regional AO level more objectively against a holistic lens to determine potential contribution to Duke community
Lastly the remaining applicants were reviewed by a committee as presented by the regional AO. This was described as a very difficult and emotional last stage.
We were told no fewer than 5 AOs reviewed the application of anyone who was accepted. This context was offered to make the students and family feel great about having been selected.
My son was also put forward by Duke’s admissions dept as a Robertson scholarship finalist so we were provided information during these discussions that further validated the aforementioned process.
Hope this helps.
Actually I was conveying a first hand experience. Do you have any contradictory first hand experiences to share or contribute?
And don’t know if this is still true, but in the day, If a Duke applicant was a reasonable/viable admissions candidate and had been on their HS’s math team, their application was reportedly sent over to someone managing Duke’s math program for review. I don’t think this was public knowledge.
At many schools, the first pass is pretty quick - just to rule out those who aren’t suitable.
How this is done depends on school, major, etc. The screen for engineers will be different from the one for something interested in public policy or french.
Used to be a bit easier to get a gauge on whether your kid passed the initial academic hurdle. You could look at median SAT/ACT scores and GPA percentiles/ranking in the CDS. If your kid was at the 50% median or higher, your kid probably makes the hurdle. With the prevalence of TO and schools not reporting on GPA or rank percentiles, it’s gotten harder, especially if your kid is going to go TO.
I think the initial academic threshold is actually pretty low. Most students get the whole “holistic review” of their application, but the initial qualitative/academic review is just to make the pool a bit smaller and weed out students who they don’t believe are up to the academic standards. A few B’s definitely would make it past the initial review. Yale actually discussed their initial academic review in one of their podcasts and said they had to start doing it just because they were receiving SO MANY apps. Even with the initial review they said they do take into account if there were extenuating circumstances.
My context is 1560 SAT (760, 800), 6 5’s on APs, 12 APs, top 3-5% weighted GPA in my highly competitive public (from counselor, no rank though), but 3.95 unweighted with 2 B’s.
I know that should probably be fine for most schools, but like MCS’s AMA here did say it is very difficult to overcome B’s at a school like Stanford, so that’s why I’m concerned. I just want to make it past the academic round, I’m not saying I’ll get into schools of that caliber or anything.
A point of data for Vanderbilt which is a sub 10% school, Ben on A2C said that 50k gets weeded down to 20k. You need test scores in their range and near perfect UW gpa in most demanding. to come back from not meeting the initial round needs your other parts of app to pop
would you consider that weeding a lot or not that much?
for sure, i agree. your statement of screen for engineers reminds me that at my school, there is this insane calc teacher with a 100% 5 rate, but like only 30% of students get any kind if A. that really hurts everyone in college apps
yes, it is definitely that 5 or more AOs will see admitted files. usually at elite schools its one regional reader, then a secondary reader. they can decide to bring you to committee, which probably will get to that 5 AO number. the people in committee though will probably just listen and they arent the ones directly reviewing everything
I don’t think they care about the difference between a 3.9 and a 4.0. At that point they are looking at other things to tip the scale. The girl from my school who got into Stanford this year is a friend of mine. She applied test optional and had 3 B’s on her transcript. I had a 4.0, a high SAT score and was valedictorian and did not get in. Another friend of mine who is going to Yale also had a B on her transcript. All I’m saying is that having a couple B’s on an otherwise excellent transcript is not going to break you and they honestly could care less between a 4.0 and a 3.9.
I think it is yes and no. Can someone with those occasional Bs get stellar recommendations? Or somewhat more lukewarm recommendations? That will also matter.
I don’t know that the grades are the drivers of recommendations. The school DS attended had two categories of distinction each term - one related to grades (gpa of x and no grades below y) and then a separate list for exceptional work as nominiated by a certain # of teachers. While there was significantly overlap in the two lists, it was surprising how many kids would appear on only 1. The kid with great grades but less engagement would almost certainly get a worse rec than the kid who didn’t get the grades but made the effort, did interesting work, and genuinely was engaged.
Note that The Common Application recommendation forms do ask the recommenders for subjective rank ranges relative to other students the recommenders have encountered.
