I keep hearing that other than recruited athletes, legacies/children of large donors, high achieving URMs, and major award winners (e.g., IMO, RSI participants), the chance of getting into a tippy top university for everyone else is around 4-6% (or a lottery). But if the above is true, then there’s another category of applicants that stand a much greater chance of admission (i.e., 4-6% is not the relevant statistic for them).
Based on my recollection of articles/blogs I have come across, there should be several thousand students who fall into this category each year (please don’t @ me for being imprecise!). Maybe this is just a drop in the bucket but at least it provides a ray of hope for unhooked, academically excellent* applicants (4-6% sounds so depressing!).
That 35% may have had something else going on outside of school that distinguished them. For instance, an accomplished musician or artist might also have perfect GPA’s and test scores. You really cannot predict admission chances this way. The main message is that perfect stats is no guarantee for getting in to HYPSM and it is wise to have other schools on your list.
“ Yet a 33 still puts about 1% of the high school population above you. With 3.7 million high school seniors a year, this is about 37,000 students—many times larger than the roughly 2,300 students Stanford accepts each year. Consequently, top colleges such as Stanford need to look beyond academic scores to distinguish between these equally high-achieving students .
Where do the percentages in your title come from? I’ve heard higher numbers, such as 90% of students who apply are qualified to attend. How many people actually apply, (apart from some hooked students,) who are far from being top students, in terms of grades and test scores, especially with test optional coming into play?
True, academically high achieving students often have other things that help strengthen their profile. I am not at all saying it’s a “guarantee,” just like not all legacy applicants are admitted to HYPS (I believe it’s 25-30%?). My point is that outside of those with “hooks,” there are discrete pools of applicants for which the overall admit rate is much less relevant and for “perfect scorers,” their prospects are much brighter (and less of a lottery).
I came across a YouTube video in which a college consultant mentioned that Stanford rejects 60% of “perfect” applicants (the video was made a couple of years ago).
Even with a perfect score, the odds might be worse than you think. Back in the mid-2010s, Princeton reported its acceptance rates by SAT scores (this was toward the end of the 2400-point scoring system). Students whose SAT score was in the 2300-2400 range (i.e., near-perfect to perfect) had an acceptance rate of only about 15%.
For what it’s worth, one of my kids applied to Princeton around that time and was rejected, despite having a 2300+ SAT score and being a legacy, a state-level award winner in their primary extracurricular activity and a two-season varsity athlete. So by all means apply to HYPSM, LostInTheShuffle, but make sure you apply to some schools that are likely to admit you.
Given that test scores are much less important these days, I regard them as pretty unimportant. It’s all about grades and rigor and ECs and teacher recs now. A good test score is a bonus.
There are some unhooked “generic superstars” who will get into a bunch of tippy tops. I’ve seen their videos on YouTube. I’m talking well above the average excellent student.
But the top colleges seek so many other students who are not generic superstars. They want diversity. Diversity is the other huge in-demand factor. Diversity isn’t just URM. It can be geographic or economic diversity.
If diversity means accepting people who maybe haven’t got stellar grades and ECs, but the are perhaps a first gen student from Nebraska, I’m betting that kid gets in over an applicant who, on paper, is more qualified.
At the end of the day, if they think the student can succeed at the college, and the student matches some criteria they seek, they will admit them, even if they don’t necessarily fulfill every piece of the “standard” package.
By the time the limited seats are divided up between generic superstars, hooked kids, diverse kids, and international students, there is precious little room for the standard valedictorian from JOBO (just outside Boston, or NY, or Chicago, etc…)
I think is is waste of time to calculate the odds of a “perfect” stats student being admitted to HYPSM - it’s liable to result in a false sense of optimism about your chances. That being said, the valedictorian of our LPS goes Ivy (or equivalent) every year (MIT this year) so it isn’t impossible (and a handful of other top kids will go Ivy as well) just very, very difficult.
From the Harvard lawsuit, 42% of students received an academic rating of 2. The admit rate was 12.4%. That is the group that you can get into with just grades and test scores. The 1 academic rating had an admit rate of 69.2%. That was about 0.5% of the applications. To get a 1, you have to go above and beyond grades/test scores.
If that is the case, why have the 25-75% ranges at top schools remained so high (and drifting upwards) pre-pandemic?
Perhaps the students I am referring to in the headline (perfect GPA and perfect SAT/ACT) are your “generic superstars” and not “the standard valedictorian from JOBO?”
The difference in ability to succeed between an 800 and a 770, or a 36 and a 35, is not meaningful. Some students keep taking tests to get a perfect score, which is a waste of time. Time better spent in other ways.
I don’t disagree with any of this - all I am doing is pointing out a stat that appears to be true (i.e., a perfect GPA and perfect SAT/ACT score dramatically boost an applicant’s chances for admission at a top university (by up to a factor of 10) vs. the overall admit rate). Of course, I am aware that other factors are involved but these two data points are quite intriguing (to me).
Law schools also consider a variety of factors in admission but they also present odds of admission by GPA and LSAT score: See UGPA/LSAT Search Results (lsac.org)
I know for Brown, one year (2016?) they broke down admission ranges by SAT/ACT score. The only one I remember is that 73% of students with a 36 on the ACT were rejected = only 27% acceptance rate for even the perfect scores. And that includes recruited athletes (many of whom do have 36s, contrary to popular perception), donor kids, and fancy award people.
I remember that. So it was only one year - that’s why I could never find it again. I thought the acceptance was actually less than 27%
What I don’t like about the discussion is the “perfect” GPA - because what’s perfect - all As?? Where does rigor come in, course selection - maybe AP Art History doesn’t carry the wait of Calc BC, etc.
Also, I see prep scholar putting out this # - and it helps them - few are scoring perfectly. And I’m not saying they are wrong -but that # seems awfully low…because once a year at our school board meeting, they honor those with a 36 - and there’s always 8 or 10 - and we are a medium sized school district in TN. I’d like to see that # come from the organization that puts on ACT. Also, what is the ratio of SAT to ACT - meaning, maybe it is 3600 - but maybe not a huge population takes the ACT?