Please re-read the earlier post – comparing similar stat students at HW to similar stat students in overall pool. Mentioning honors students was an arbitrary example to show that your earlier method of looking at rank with controlling for measures of student quality is not appropriate.
So rather than including the information that is available about stats, you want to ignore available information and instead look at admit rates alone as if kids who apply to Ivy Plus type colleges at HW have similar stats to the overall applicant pool? If you compare the stats for HW kids to the stats published for the overall applicant pool at nearly any Ivy, you’ll see that the pools are very different One example source for such stats is the Harvard lawsuit sample.
I expect this is particularly true when comparing applicants from highly selective HSs to applicants from a typical non-selective HSs. For example, the basic public HS’s I attended certainly shows a completely different pattern in Naviance, particularly with test scores. Ivy applicants from my HS average much lower scores than the average for the full student body at HW, which is no doubt lower than the average score for the mostly higher rank HW kids who apply to Ivies. I’d expect most publics to show a similar pattern. Most kids who apply to Ivies do not have 99th+ percentile test scores like typical HW Ivy applicants and/or are not well qualified in numerous other areas. A good portion of applicants are essentially auto reject for being not well qualified.
I’ve reread your post and my point stands. I have no idea of the makeup of the group to which you claim to being examining. Among other things . . .
You allude to the Harvard data but haven’t provided any actual Harvard data to back up your claims.
Whatever the Harvard data, it isn’t necessarily applicable to top quality schools which do not take such a high percentage (or number) of hooked HW applicants. That was my point from the beginning, but you continue to try to apply the Harvard data well beyond Harvard.
You haven’t even specifically identified the other schools, except for the broad and partially undefined reference to “Ivy plus” schools, which, beyond the Ivies, means different things to different people.
You apparently consider Chicago and WashU as part of the “Ivy Plus,” yet you arbitrarily exclude both from your analysis.
You vaguely reference data from Brown, but haven’t provided any of that actual data either.
You make assumptions about the distribution of the test scores at HW with very little basis.
So, again, I have very little idea what you think you are comparing, Or how you think the “data” supports your conclusions. Or even what point you think you are supporting.
The post directly above yours says, " One example source for such stats is the Harvard lawsuit sample." I’ve posted relevant stats from the lawsuit sample in this thread earlier and in numerous other threads. I didn’t repeat them again in the post above because I did not expect the conclusion that HW Ivy applicants average higher stats than the overall Ivy applicant pool to be controversial, it should be straightforward for you or others to externally verify (many colleges publish stats about overall pool), and I didn’t see the point of taking the time to convert HW stats that don’t accept to Harvard applicant pool AI stat deciles. Similarly I’ve also posted other information about admit rates for particular groups, scores, and similar… I can and will repeat them again or go in to detail about Harvard applicant pool AI deciles, academic scores, and how they convert to the expected HW stats that you don’t accept, if you believe it will change anything. Do you really think seeing the stats again or any of the above, with the same reasoning and estimations about admit rate for HW with those stats vs overall with those stats, is going to change anything about your opinion?
The lawsuit sample referenced above separates hooked vs unhooked and lists different admit rates for both groups, along with different other characteristics. I’ve mentioned some specific numbers in other posts. One can compare hooked or unhooked HW to hooked or unhooked from Harvard lawsuit sample.
The Chetty study which I’ve referenced and linked to in this thread defines "Ivy Plus "as Ivies plus Chicago, Duke, MIT, and Caltech. However, the general idea is highly selective private colleges that are similar selectivity to Ivies. It’s not critical whether a particular colleges, such as Northwestern is included or excluded. The conclusion is still going to be similar.
Chicago was not excluded. I’ve specifically mentioned Chicago and related Chicago admit patterns numerous times throughout this thread, in particular about how Chicago shows a different pattern from Ivies and most others, including how attending HW may be an advantage for Chicago. This different pattern for Chicago is the primary point of the entire thread and the reason why the thread appears in the Chicago forum. Chicago or Duke appearing to have a different pattern from typical doesn’t mean that the conclusions for Harvard, Brown, MIT, and most other Ivies (I won’t say “plus”) must be false.
I listed numbers for Brown in earlier posts, as I have for MIT, Harvard, and others. I didn’t provide a link to the stat web page because Brown removed it from their site. I can get an archived version if you need it, but again, it sounds like seeing a link to the listed stats is not going to change your opinion about anything.
The assumption was that 3.8+ UW GPA/top rank HW kids who choose to apply to Harvard/MIT/Brown/… average higher scores than the overall average for the full HW class (33 ACT for full class, so 3.8+ UW kids who apply to Harvard/MIT/Brown average >33 ACT). I know you’ve implied you disagree with this assumption, but I think it is extremely likely to be true. We’ll have to agree to disagree on this point.
Interesting to me that there is that level of transparency on who is a non-legacy/athlete. When the annual “graduation” edition of the alumni magazine for an East Coast H-W day school peer arrives for our oldest that shows where all of the graduating seniors are going, we can figure that status out pretty easily. However, the HoS would never parse the data that way since outsiders could then see that the large majority of the admits to top tier schools fall into those two buckets, and that the school’s perceived admissions value isn’t all it’s cracked up to be. Very few unhooked kids achieving success there as well.
The school provides the data in order to help current HW students make informed decisions about college admissions, and it helps the school manage student (and parent) expectations. If school only provided stats on the whole class, students (and parents) would drastically overestimate their chances of admission. For example, for the three year period ending in 2019, HW applicants had a 19% chance of getting into Harvard, but unhooked HW kids only had a 8% chance while hooked kids had a 43% chance. (While it is tremendously useful information for students/parents, I do wonder why the school doesn’t do more to limit the pubic’s access to the information.)
Unless I missed it, you haven’t provided the data necessary to support your conclusions. And some of what you claim doesn’t quite make sense without actual data backing it up.
For another example, when I asked you, “Are you comparing the unhooked HW kids to all Harvard applicants, or only to unhooked applicants?” You responded:
Given that about 1/2 of Harvard’s students are hooked (30% ALDC, URM, or similar), your claim makes no sense, does it? If you cut the number of available spots by 50% for unhooked students, then their admission rate is going to be substantially different than the overall rate, right?
Also, not sure why you throw out URM. It is unlikely that the unhooked HW stats include URM or any other group receiving special consideration.
The reason is so we can have a 250+ thread discussion on HW college admissions. In all seriousness, I think their transparency is commendable so people outside the HW community can have realistic college acceptance goals
I am familiar with the criteria in both the old and new handbooks.
If it is not clear, then why do you treat the statistics as if they include URM applicants? In my opinion your assumption that unhooked HW statistics include URM students is unfounded.
The purpose of providing HW students with this data is so that kids without any sort of special characteristic of interest the school will be better informed about their actual chances. This goes beyond athletes and legacies, and it is my understanding that it would include URM, among other applicants.
I am aware of the situation at Georgetown, but as for your suggestion that this may explain the high admission rate for HW students? To put it kindly, that makes no sense.
As I explain above, it is my understand that these students would not be included in the unhooked statistics.
Georgetown’s HW admission rate isn’t out of line with comparable schools, so there is no reason to suspect this policy has had an impact.
A relatively large number of HW students apply to and are accepted by Georgetown (this has long been the case), and there is no reason to believe that a significant portion of the either applicants or admitted are directly impacted by the Georgetown initiative.
Frankly, it seems you are overreaching to try to find an issue where none exists.
This seems backwards. When a school like Chicago (or Georgetown) brings in a large number students from a certain place, it isn’t because they have to alter their standards to attract all those students. Rather, it is because there are an abundance of qualified students to choose from. This is good for the schools but not necessarily for the applicants. California is such a place.
Academic Rating 2 – . Magna potential. Excellent student with top grades and,
a. SAT and SAT Subject tests: mid 700 scores and up
b. 33+ ACT
c. Possible local, regional or national level recognition in academic competitions
Academic Rating 3 – Solid academic potential; Cum laude potential: Very good student with excellent
grades and
a. SAT and SAT Subject tests: mid-600 through low-700 scores
b. 29 to 32 ACT
The academic rating 2 type of profile suggests a 33+ ACT and corresponding top grades, and the academic rating 3 profile suggests a 29-32 ACT and corresponding very good grades. The referenced sample group for HW kids had 3.8-4.0 UW GPA. The profile for the full class at HW mentions an average ACT of 33. I think (I realize you don’t) it is safe to assume that the highest GPA kids at HW who choose to apply to Harvard would have a higher average ACT than the overall average for the full class, so I think an average of >33 can be assumed. As such, I’d expect the average top GPA applicant from HW to be somewhere within the 2 academic rating category above.
The majority of Harvard applicants in the lawsuit sample did not have a high 2 academic rating. Instead 3 was the most common rating. A good portion of applicants also had 4 academic ratings, as well, which is described as “Adequate preparation. Respectable grades and low-to mid-600 scores on SAT and subject tests or 26 to 29 ACT.” See links below for specific numbers.
If you look at the 2nd link below, the admit rate by academic rating for unhooked non-ALDC were as follows . If you assume the HW kids are primarily 2 academic rating, then the non-ALDC admit rate for this group was approximately 10%… slightly higher than occurred for unhooked (without distinction) top GPA HW kids.
However, the HW applicants did not just apply RD Many HW kids applied REA. Given the wealthy student body and quality GC, I’d expect a larger portion applied REA than typical. The lawsuit found that applying REA offered a major boost, which relates to why the author excluded REA applicants from the baseline non-ALDC group mentioned above. The lawsuit stat document http://samv91khoyt2i553a2t1s05i-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Doc-415-2-Arcidiacono-Rebuttal-Report.pdf regression analysis found the following degree of boost for applying REA compared to academic rating increasing from 3 to 2, with full controls. This effect further increases expected admit rate above the 10% mentioned above.
Student Applies REA – 4.2x increased chance of admission
Academic Rating Increases from 3 to 2 – 3.8x increased chance of admission
I realize there are a variety of estimates and lack of precisions, so these are not precise figures. But the information that is available suggests that HW unhooked Harvard applicants had a lower admit rate than the kids with similar stats across the full domestic applicant pool.
The admit rate for URM and non-URM is similar, so portion URM has little impact on overall admit rate figures. For the purposes of roughly estimating overall admit rates, hook groups with similar admit rate can be ignored. For example, suppose a theoretical college had an overall admit rate of 10% and had a similar admit rate for URM and non-URM. It doesn’t matter if half the class is URMs, the admit rate for non-URMs is still going to be similar to the overall admit rate of 10%. Instead you need to focus on hook groups that do not have similar admit rates, such as ALDC in the Harvard sample. You also need to consider the magnitude of the difference in admit rate, rather than just divide admit rate by the portion taken by hooked kids.
A summary of admit rates for various groups as listed at https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w26316/w26316.pdf is below. None that the unhooked non-ALDC + Non-URM have a 5% admit compared to 7% admit rate overall. In my earlier post, I meant that the difference between this 5% for unhooked compared to 7% for overall was not huge. You’d draw similar conclusions, regardless of whether you use the 5% admit rate or 7% admit rate. In contrast the admit rate differences from ALDC hooked and overall were far larger. However, only a small portion of applicants are ALDC hooked, so the higher admit rate for this group does not dramatic impact on overall compared to unhooked.
Admit Rates for Various Groups in Harvard Lawsuit Sample
Non-ALDC + Non-URM – 5% admit rate
Non-ALDC + URM – 7% admit rate
LDC Hooked – 34% admit rate
Athlete Hooked – 88% admit rate
Overall – 7% admit rate
I did no such thing. I offered possible reasons that G-Town could have a high admission rate. Some might be true, or all, or none.
That may well be. It’s not listed as such, so it’s not clear. But those with more insider information would know. Otherwise, it’s an assumption - perhaps a good one, but an assumption nonetheless.
Nope - just offering some possible reasons that make use of unique factors at G-Town. I think you need to go back and re-read my post.
There’s no evidence here that either school has had to alter its admissions standard, nor have I mentioned the possibility of either school doing so. Where are you getting that assumption from? To target a high performance school is usually to preserve or enhance admissions standards. That’s clearly been the case for UChicago over the years.
Your evidence as to why a large number of HW students apply to and are accepted by G-Town is: a lot of HW students apply to and are accepted by G-Town and there is no reason to assume otherwise. As long as we are all clear!
If true, that’s a good reason. @Data10 provided one example. What others are there?
You have access to this year’s handbook, so see for yourself.
It’s pretty clear to me, and I have reason to know.
Nice try, but that is not my “evidence.” The relatively large number of applicants combined with the demographics of Harvard Westlake make it extremely unlikely that enough students could be impacted by the initiative to shape the HW statistics. Further, Georgetown’s initiative is only a few year old, and the application and admission pattern hasn’t shifted before to after.
Your theory is so far fetched and predictable, it isn’t worth discussing further.
For sure, the hooked group in the HW data includes URM. It is not explained in the handbook because of general squeamishness regarding race preferences. Subsumed within “etc.”, it is just not polite to mention it explicitly.
Yes, being a legacy, child of an employee or a recruited athlete are huge factors for admission to Stanford
."
Well, legacy gets you a second read. That’s it. Child of a major donor may double the odds. Probably depends on the employee who’s your parent for that to matter. Recruited athlete – very hard to be one, but that’s the jackpot! With that
said, I would guess the HW probably has some major donor kids…
Oh - if you are talking about just HW students, which sets of comparable universities do you mean? WUSTL, Emory, NYU and BC are all ED1 and ED2 (G-Town is not). ND has REA similar to G-Town but a very different admit rate. Same with Vandy, Cornell, Wake Forest,Tufts and Rochester. So as @Data10 was saying, G-Town has something different about it. But maybe they target the prep schools. That’s what I thought you were saying.
Well, that’s settled then! As you will recall, my earlier post #220 mentioned several potential reasons other than hooked URM’s for the bump in admissions. These, again, are:
Targeting HW students in particular, similar to what other top schools are doing;
Preference in the REA round, potentially related to #3:
The unique G-Town application;
Secondary/tertiary legacy (assuming that HW defines “legacy” to mean parents).
In addition, there is the possibility, mentioned above, that G-Town has favorable admit rates at many prep schools across the country (similar to what we see for TJ).
Perhaps G-Town looks for those who have a strong first preference for it, similar to UChicago. If so, there is more going on than the specific application plans reveal. But if rationale for high admit rates is usually an ED vs RD issue - such as what @data was thinking - then G-Town is a bit of an odd duck compared to similar private universities.
Doesn’t appear they are getting that much of a bump - I mean, yeah, if you are top of your class your chances of getting in are bumped up, but that would probably happen anyway(?)
The Harvard documents suggest that legacy is an even larger bump for students with more middling academic credentials. Panel B on page 45 here is worth looking at closely: w26316.pdf (nber.org)
Legacy admit rates for white and Asian applicants in the middle and lower deciles of academic achievement are typically more than 10x the rates for non-legacy applicants with similar academic credentials. At the top levels of academic achievement it is more like 4 - 6x.
