Yes, and…a teacher who has seen a student really put an effort into a subject that was a challenge in order to pull up a grade might feel that student’s persistence and effort were exceptional. That can make a more powerful impression than a kid who is invisible but dcores well on tests.
I guess my point is that the gradecis already available as a data point - the rec is something else.
My unhooked kid who two yrs ago got into a tippy top clearly had a good enough GPA which UW was probably around 3.65 ish, weighted was close to 4.2 out of a max possible 4.4, all in all was prob top 5th% of a good inner ring suburb public school with a racially and socioeconomically diverse population, certainly top 10%. ACT overall 36, but the math was 34. The ad com noted an upward trend. But kid had extraordinary achievement in music. Point is, even for unhooked kids, a few B grades will not keep the committees from looking at the entire picture. I suspect that an unhooked kid with a 3.5 UW or higher would still get their entire application reviewed, lower threshold for hooked applicants.
Do teachers do the forms plus a letter? Also my school uses Naviance, do you know if they woulf still do the forms?
I think the data that came out of the Harvard admissions lawsuit was pretty useful for this sort of question.
To summarize a complex topic, “unhooked” applicants basically needed at least an academic 2 rating to stay in the running, and almost no one got a 1. According to the information discovered in the lawsuit, Harvard defined an academic 2 as “Magna potential: Excellent student with superb grades and mid-to high-700 scores (33+ ACT).” That’s a high bar, but not impossibly high. And in fact about 42.3% of Harvard applicants in the study period got a 2 (another 0.5% got a 1).
I do think there is plenty of evidence that over time, at these schools the bar for getting into that “Harvard 2” range is increasing. But I also think we need to be cautious about assuming a lot more applicants and a lot lower overall admit rate automatically means a much higher bar. Like, it is still the case only so many people will get the equivalent of a 33+ ACT, and even fewer will do that and get “superb” grades in a challenging set of courses (of course in a test optional world you might not need the test score, but that will likely mean even more selective grade requirements). So more applicants doesn’t necessarily mean proportionally more students meeting those requirements. But it may mean some upward creep in requirements.
I think the bottom line is it is a good bet colleges like Harvard will keep using an academic screen for unhooked candidates that gets them down to a manageable number of applications for full holistic review (understanding other people may get a quick-look holistic review too, but are very unlikely to be considered for admission at that point unless something really unusual quickly stands out).
These days that might mean letting less than 42.3% of the total applicant pool through the academic screen, but I also think schools like Harvard will continue to want to use their other “holistic” criteria (in Harvard’s case, activities/athletics and personal factors) to do a lot of the final cutting. So I don’t think it is likely they will make the academic screen so difficult to pass it does not let through plenty of people to consider in gross terms. It just might be significantly lower in percentage terms given the higher volume of applications.
You have to ask your HS GC. Many GCs and teachers use their own forms. Even if they use the Naviance forms, some don’t completely fill out said forms…for example many leave the rigor and/or other comparative questions blank.
100%. At least with the Yale AO’s I have talked to, they indicated that LoR’s were key in their admission decisions when they have to sort through 10,000 plus similarly academically qualified applicants. The AO’s have GPA and tests scores and it is easy enough to compare Johnny and Susie from the same school (and historical Johnnies and Susies). What they are looking for are indicias of intangible qualities such as perseverance, intellectual curiosity, leadership, empathy, open mindedness and teamwork. The AO’s are measuring, how will this person contribute to the college community.
I note the Harvard admissions data confirmed the same basic insight. Applying their more “objective” criteria (academics, and then activities/athletics) only got their “unhooked” pool down to the size that they still had to cut something like 75% of those people to create their admit pool. And they did that basically by determining which of those objectively qualified people got a personal 2 (very strong) instead of a personal 3 (generally positive) (almost no one got a personal 1, and in fact almost no one got worse than a personal 3).
This was clearly intentional, meaning Harvard wants it to be true that this more subjective “personal” factor plays a large role in determining which of their many objectively-qualified applicants actually get admitted. So they don’t set their objective standards so high that they won’t have plenty of people to then choose between based on this personal factor.
And at least most of the highly-selective non-tech private colleges (including highly-selective LACs) have in one way or another indicated that they follow something like Harvard’s model. They really value that personal factor, and they want it to play a big role in determining who actually gets admitted, and so they set their objective criteria low enough that the personal factor can play a big role (understanding that those objective criteria are still quite high, just not impossibly high).
And the major inputs into that personal factor are recommendations, essays, and (where relevant) interviews. And so for those seeking “unhooked” admissions to these sorts of highly-selective private colleges, they need to try to use all that to paint a picture of themselves as someone who will be in the equivalent of Harvard’s 25% “very strong” category, and not the 75% merely “generally positive” category.
Whatever that looks like in detail at the college in question.
In other words - once someone looks like they’ll successfully handle the rigor of a certain college, it matters less where your stats fall by the n-th decimal, but now the totality of the application will help inform which few are admitted to shape the class they are looking to put together that year.
Why are you even talking about ACT SAT when most elite schools don’t value them very highly when submitted?
Indeed. And I think to the frustration of some, that seems like a black box because no matter what they do to get better test scores, win higher-level awards in ECs, and so on, all to go along with all their AP 5s and near-perfect grades–someone else who seems objectively less distinguished will get admitted when they don’t.
But these colleges have been very clear about all this. They are not just going to rank applicants by the most objective factors, and start admitting from the top until they run out of room. They take those more subjective factors very seriously, even if that makes it frustratingly hard for these HS students to know what exactly they need to do to actually get admitted.
Because, once at that level, near-perfect stats might be the “least” distinguishing factor.
Well, in this case I am doing that because that is what Harvard’s internal documents said as of the time of the lawsuit.
Things have changed since then, though, as there has been a mass movement toward test-optional application processes. However, most of the schools in question are being pretty clear and consistent what that means.
On the one hand, if you do not think your test scores reflect your academic abilities, you don’t have to submit them, and you won’t be punished for it. But a necessary consequence of not submitting test scores is higher weight will be placed on the remainder of your academic qualifications. And if that is fine with you, that is fine with them. That’s what they mean by it not being a punishment.
On the other hand, if you do think your test scores reflect your academic abilities, it may well help you to submit them. Of course if your other academic qualifications would have been enough for admissions anyway, it will turn out it doesn’t matter. But if it turns out your test scores help assure them you meet their academic qualifications, then it is fine with them if you submit.
So they really mean it when they say it is optional, and you can submit or not based on whether you think it would help them better assess your academic abilities. And, in some cases it might help, and in some case it might be irrelevant.
But anyway, my point above was not to emphasize standardized test scores. My point was just that what Harvard deemed to be an academic 2 is a high standard, but not an impossibly high standard. And that is because they want to leave plenty of room for other factors to play a very large role in their admissions decisions too.
Sort of a tangent, but I think the next thing some HS students try to do is “win” admissions with ECs. These days people are doing all sorts of things that were once very unusual for HS students, starting businesses or non-profits, assisting in research, publishing papers or books, interning at important institutions, and so on. And, of course, there are many organized competitions in which you can win state or national prizes.
It is fairly clear it is extremely hard to actually impress these top colleges that way. Like, that all might be good enough to keep you in contention, but then some “normal” HS student who is “just” captain of a locally successful varsity sports team, debate team, or some such will be in contention too.
I think the same issue with ECs is happening with academics. Harvard and the like do not want to fill their class up with just those factors before getting to the personal stuff. They actually still specifically value the type of people who are leaders in their school, not just off scoring individual awards. So they have high standards for activities, but not impossibly high standards, so they can leave room for the personal stuff being really important too.
And frankly, it does sort of seem like a lot of that is not really saying all that much more about these obviously smart and ambitious students. I mean, a few HS students are actually Olympians, or contribute real new scholarship to a field, or so on. But the schools seem to be pretty good at identifying things that might seem impressive to normal people, but are really just intended to impress them.
And you state this based on what? For which schools? In the 90s the first screen at MIT was test scores - no idea if it’s changed, but they were among the first to require them again. I have no doubt some schools don’t value them, but the emphatic statement that no one does is just wrong.
I note the “Common Data Set” questionnaires the schools make available address this issue in C7 (“Relative important of each of the following academic and nonacademic factors in your . . . admissions decisions.”). The possibilities are Very Important, Important, Considered, or Not Considered. Standardized test scores are one of the six academic factors, and there are many more nonacademic factors.
Just to continue using Harvard as an example, their latest questionnaire (2022-23) involved checking almost everything Considered, except importantly class rank, state residency, religious affiliation, and level of interest (all Not Considered). I know this is not particularly fine-grained, but I think Harvard is basically being honest here in saying class rank isn’t considered, and then test scores are considered, and so are “rigor of secondary school record,” “academic GPA,” “application essay,” and “recommendations.” But none so much more than the others such that it should be elevated above Considered (say to Important or Very Important). And generally, they are trying to tell people here that admissions to Harvard is not dominated by academics alone.
MIT was somewhat similar in that they ranked all the academic factors the same (Important, in their case), except class rank, which they ranked only Considered.
CalTech is test-blind these days. They didn’t even check a box for test scores, but interestingly they checked rigor, application essay, and recommendations Very Important, and class rank and GPA only Important (I think they are pointing out they are really looking for people unusually well-prepared for their specific subjects).
Brown is not test-blind, but I think they count as being relatively test-light. They check everything else academic Very Important (they want you to know that despite the rumors, Brown is very much a serious academic institution), but test scores only Considered.
Chicago is an interesting variation. Rigor, essays, and recommendations are all Very Important, class Rank, GPA, and test scores only Considered (they want you to know that despite the rumors, Chicago is not just numbers-driven).
OK, so that’s a range. At MIT and Harvard, test scores are co-equal. Chicago and Brown say other things are more important but test scores are considered. And CalTech says we are test-blind and so stop asking.
Wow long winded response for - sorry some schools do use test scores and my emphatic statement was incorrect.
I note I was not the person to whom you were originally replying.
I was actually providing Common Data Set results in support of what you were saying.
Apologies, I got lost in the response and only saw that it didn’t support the original contention.
No problem. And it was objectively long-winded!
How much does the personal factor really matter in the long run when places like Harvard mold their interesting diverse classes of students into heavily choosing a small number of unusual (in the general college graduate population) post-graduation paths like investment banking and management consulting?