This is a correlation v causation issue. I read something somewhere from some elite AO that they don’t scrutinize test scores like people think. It just so happens that the students they want because of all the other things they do ALSO have high scores. Like the young man described above.
So it is not really correct to say the perfect scores are a hook, because they aren’t driving the AO decision to admit. But yes, there is a higher percentage of perfect score kids that get admitted to elite schools.
To put some numbers behind what many are trying to explain, a high school with which I am familiar sends about 10 kids a year to Harvard. Looking only at the top tier of students by gpa, an average of around 20-25% of applicants get accepted. However, if you separate out those with traditional hooks (about 75% of whom are accepted), the acceptance rate drops to less than 10%, and even among this group those accepted generally have much more going for them than just great grades and test scores.
Right. What they would need to show is that all things being equal, what is the boost for being a legacy? Is it merely a tie breaker between equally rated students or is it something that can vault a less highly rated student over others? Or, is it that legacies are often exceptionally well qualified with stats better than or equal to the rest of the applicant pool.
The admit rate by score page of MIT’s website links to the following quote that explains the difference between correlation and causation well:
Now, I and others are on the record as saying that we admit people, not test scores, and that in any case there is really not a difference in our process between someone who scores, say, a 740 on the SAT math, and someone who scores an 800 on the SAT math. So why, as the commentor asks, is there such a difference in the admit rate? Aha! Clearly we DO prefer higher SAT scores!
Well no, we don’t. What we prefer are things which maycoincide with higher SAT scores. For example, a student who receives a gold medal at the IMO is probably more likely to score an 800 on the math SAT than a 740. But if we take an IMO medalist (with an 800) over random applicant X (with a 740), does that mean we preferred an 800 to a 740? No. It means we preferred the IMO medalist, who also happened to get an 800!
It’s a similar idea with perfect stats in general. There is a far higher admit rate for perfect stats than the average, but that does not mean the perfect stats are the primary driver of that higher admit rate, and the colleges are obsessing with the difference between an imperfect 790 SAT vs perfect 800 SAT. Kids who have perfect stats are probably far more likely than the average applicant to have national-international level ECs/awards, stellar LORs that talk about best in years, incredible essays, certain powerful hooks, etc. If you have an applicant who just has perfect stats and not the amazing non-stat factors, then I’d expect the admit rate to be quite low.
Just a thought - at our HS, we honor 36 ACTs as well, but what “skews” the perception is, that each testing area has its own score - and still deserves recognitions. So there are a good number of students being called on stage, many achieving an admirable 36 in one of the categories, while their other scores may have been 34 or 35s.
Only if you listened carefully to each student’s individual itemization, did you find out how few (if any) had an overall score of 36 that year.
Thanks - that’s the quote I was thinking of. It will be interesting to see with test optional whether than ranges of scores tightens much.
My theory: If scores and acceptance are just correlated, you wouldn’t see much of a change (because the same students are admitted with or without scores). If the score range tightens a lot, then maybe the acceptances are more about the scores.
The only thing is, it is impossible to know what the scores were for those that didn’t submit. For those who didn’t submit because they didn’t have scores, their result shouldn’t be impacted if there is just a correlation. For those outliers who didn’t submit because they had low scores but otherwise fit the admitted student profile? Are there enough of those to skew the results?
Yes, this is going to be the problem. The published ranges will only be from those who submitted scores. You will certainly get a higher range representing a smaller segment of students.
I would wager that if you took the top 40-50% of the scores of admitted students pre-TO and compare them to the published range when TO CDSs are published in a few months, they wouldn’t be meaningfully different.
But we can’t do that. We will end up with NYU going from showing a 1450 25-75% midpoint on their 20-21 CDS to, based on a press release, around a 1540 on the 21-22.
Also…
If HPYSM reject, say, 95% of students w/perfect GPA and SAT/ACT scores, that means 5% get in. That’s not much better odds, is it?
If we just “say” a number, it can be anything. I’m not clear on the meaning of this hypothetical.
Of course not. All I am saying is that you could reframe “[Harvard] rejects 60-70% of applicants with perfect scores” to “[Harvard] accepts 30-40% of applicants with perfect scores” and, all of a sudden, it sounds less depressing than to lump everyone into the 4-6% probability of acceptance because it’s a “crap shoot.” As mentioned in the OP, this would apply to only the several thousand applicants possessing those stats and, even then, 30-40% is not a “shoo-in.”
I agree that it’s not as high as the headline number would suggest for the purely unhooked applicants (principally white and Asian students) but I don’t think the number of perfect scoring hooked kids would be so large - that’s why people here and elsewhere feel it is such an uneven playing field because athletes and legacies, overall, get in to with lower stats. As for URMs, this forum gets so excited when a high GPA, 1500 SAT URM asks for a “chance me” (while a high GPA, 1550 SAT white or Asian applicant will get a “meh” and “good luck!”) so I don’t think there will be that many perfect scorer URMs (I would love to be proven wrong on this).
But say you’re right and the admission rate for perfect scoring unhooked applicants drops to 20% (from a headline of 35%), that’s still very good - a 1 in 5 chance is much better than 1 in 20/25.
I’ve also seen this quote but note that to qualify for the IMO, you have to be successful in a series of math tests that are harder than the SAT/ACT math section (so, it’s not surprising that their math 25-75% range is 790-800). So, scores matter quite a bit.
Also, MIT is the only school that I have come across that asks not only for the math and verbal (SAT) scores but each subsection (“Cross-Test Scores” and “Subscores”) as well.
Here is the problem with that statement. Students and parents hear that statement and what do they do? They focus on testing. They spend many hours and thousands of dollars on prep. Students are taking the test many times. You read many times that students are retaking when they already have a 1500+ SAT. Super scoring and not having to submit all results make it worse. Why do they do it? They fall for the fallacy of the confounding variable. They see the perfect score because the schools brag about them. They think that if they can do that same thing, they will get the same results. They don’t understand what the other student did with their time instead of test prep.
This is basically a correlation/causation discussion that suffers from the absence of dependable stats supporting the correlation argument, but that’s because holistic admissions processes depend on a lot of qualitative factors that aren’t readily disclosed or easily quantified, as others have noted.
I do see the problem but facts are facts. But, to your point, the rejection rates of perfect scorers might increase if perfect scores are increasingly achieved through multiple attempts, to the point that perfect scores will no longer have any predictive effect. At the same time, universities could also impose limits (i.e., they will consider scores from the first 2 sittings only, will no longer superscore) to stem abuse.
There is a causal relationship (rather than pure happenstance) because colleges ask for them and tell us they put weight on them (although GPAs/scores are not the overriding factors) and the correlation is meaningful as (using the above headline) 35% of perfect scorers are admitted (versus, say, 5%).
So, there is some predictive value - similar to the GPA/LSAT tables for law school admissions (see UGPA/LSAT Search Results (lsac.org)) - even though law schools consider other factors as well.
I am repeating myself a lot so I think I will stop here. Have a nice day, everyone!
It is misleading to compare undergrad and law school admissions. For most law schools, knowing GPA and LSAT is HIGHLY predictive of the admissions outcome. The most notable exception is Yale- it is tiny, they can afford to pick and choose based elements that cannot be quantified. But otherwise, besides relatively minor tip factors, law school admissions is by the book (or stats as the case may be).
Lost- if you are trying to eliminate the “depression” caused by going in to competitive admissions knowing that your chances are relatively small, there are better ways to do that. Better as in more effective, yielding a better outcome in April, etc.
But sure- tell folks that their chances are 10 times what they think they are as long as they have a 4.0 and a 1600! 50% chance vs. 5% chance. That’ll cure depression!!!
The Head of Admissions at the accepted students event described their admissions process as going through several rounds. The first round was an academic screening that served to eliminate approximately 1/2 of applicants and that those that passed this initial screen received a score based upon academic rigor and result that was weighed into final decisions. All candidates were then reviewed in greater detail with an eye on the more subjective aspects of the application.
In other words about 50% of candidates don’t get a second look beyond the quantitative measures and those with “perfect” scores or gpa advance to the second and final rounds with an advantage.
Statistically very tough to quantify but wrong to simply dismiss the disproportionately high acceptance rate of those with perfect scores.
Here is a picture taken at Cameron Stadium while Dean Guttentag spoke.
Similar processes were described to us (although not as explicitly) at several other elite school.
@tarator Are you really suggesting a candidate with perfect stats doesn’t have a better likelihood of success then a candidate with less then perfect? If so basis for your claim please beyond hyperbolic dismissiveness as it defies logic.
