<p>Guys i was just wondering, if your qualities except from your class rank (ECs, science olympiad awards and standardized test scores) are really really hooking, would your class rank hurt you? I'm in like top %10 in class rank. And I am considering the top tier schools, like Harvard, MIT, Stanford, Caltech, Yale and so on... If anyone who knows the correct answer, I would greatly appreciate your response..</p>
<p>Class rank is the number one most important factor at the majority of selective colleges. Unless you have a true hook (athlete, URM, legacy) ivies and peers will expect you to be top of class.</p>
<p>^False for some schools
For example, Michigan and Cal do not care about class rank.</p>
<p>If anyone ever mentions class rank, you’ll see Waverly posting in that same thread. While class rank is important, I haven’t seen anyone on this forum who makes it out to be more important than she does. A very significant percentage of high schools do not even rank their students. </p>
<p>The more important question is, are your grades, scores, EC’s, and course rigor all tippy top? If not, then the low class ranking means you’re not academically qualified for those schools.</p>
<p>I’ve always wondered how class rank is evened out between a large rigorous high school with a very high percentage of college bound kids and a less competitive high school. Obviously it would be much easier to be a the top of the less competitive school. Of course, I’d guess an Ivy bound student would be at the tippy top of either, so this question is more relevant for an average college bound kid.</p>
<p>The majority of unhooked students accepted at ivies were Val or sal of their class.</p>
<p>Seahawks, I worked in college admissions for 2 decades, so I kinda know the facts.</p>
<p>What decades? More and more schools are turning away from using ranking systems in HS. Did you ‘reject’ applicants on the sole basis of their ranking not being top-2 in their high school? Or was it a more overall approach that those ranked higher tended to be more qualified inherently? All I see is correlation, and not causation, to a degree. Ranking is not as useful of a metric in itself- why would Harvard, Yale, and Stanford all reject the same valedictorian in favor of someone ranked 5th in the class?</p>
<p>Even if Waverly worked in the medieval time it’s still better than someone who just barely finished HS with no working experience at all. BTW, she is also Harvard educated.</p>
<p>I’m just trying to point out potential bias in opinion. Quite frankly, and I mean no disrespect, but you’re coming off as someone who will take anyone’s word for something because of the mouth it came out of. And what does her college education even have to do with this? Please enlighten me. </p>
<p>I respect her opinion, and I know that class rank is one of the top-5 factors in college admissions, but on what grounds can you flat out state that class rank is the single most important factor and trumps everything else? That an applicant ranked slightly lower can’t gain admission over the valedictorian because of a superior all-around application? That fit, personality, voice, and even other stats are thrown out the window when you can look at rank? She goes just short of saying this in many of her posts. </p>
<p>In a stats-based evaluation of applicants, is the category “Class Rank” given singlehandedly the highest weight? Are you giving valedictorians and only valedictorians a special augmented second review? If so, then I politely bow down.</p>
<p>Waverly is correct. Class rank is important, as are a number of other measures. There is not a single measure that will “guarantee” you admission to the the top schools. It’s a holistic eval. Make sure your essays are great.</p>
<p>Qialah, are you agreeing with this statement: “Class rank is the number one most important factor at the majority of selective colleges.” This is the first time I have heard this on CC. Coming from someone like Waverly, this is why I am baffled by her statement. It suggests that not only can a holistic evaluation not take place unless you are a valedictorian or salutatorian, but that a single evaluative measure can take primary presidence over anything else. Most informed members of CC can tell you that class rank is an important factor and one of several important ones in a holistic process. I’m looking forward to hearing how exactly Waverly justifies this, beyond the blunt statement of it as a fact.</p>
<p>Check the Common Data Set of the colleges that you are interested in. For example, for Harvard, nothing is listed as very important, everything is in the considered category.
For Penn, it’s also in the considered category. For Princeton, it’s important because it’s in the very important category.</p>
<p>@Seahawks06: “Holistic” by definition means that they look at a lot of different factors, and there is no “most” important. As much as stats and APs and essays matter, when you get down to less than 10% acceptance rates, it’s luck. As I said. There is no one measure that will guarantee you acceptance. Pay your money and take your chances. Don’t waste your time figuring out who should get in and who should not. And great kids do great regardless of where they go. It’s not who accepts you, its what you make of what you’ve been handed.</p>
<p>^Exactly what I was getting at- class ranking is undeniably an important factor, but to put it forth as the “number one most important factor at the majority of selective colleges” is why I asked if you were behind Waverly on that statement. The second part is very true as well; ultimately, smart students do well almost wherever they go, so just apply, write good essays, show your personality, and hope for the best.</p>
<p>The bottom line is that it’s no coincidence the top schools come up with a group of kids with the same overall stats year over year. If the process was holistic in the way many here seem to think, average GPA or SAT might be up this year, down the next. Same with percentage in the top 10% and number of vals and sals. But that doesn’t happen. Numbers just keep inching up.</p>
<p>The process is not as random as many think.</p>
<p>I was a member of an admissions committee at an ivy league college up until 5 years ago and a college counselor at an elite boarding school up until last year. The only admit decisions that surprised me during my career were the ones where amazing, high stats kids did not get in.</p>
<p>I would disagree, Waverly. Yes, high stat kids get in, but high stat kids also do not get in. A holistic process could keep tha average GPA and SAT constant while still denying lots of kids with equivalent SATs and GPAs. When you are dealing with wchools who have sub 10% acceptance rates, it’s really impossible “chance someone”. It may not be random, but it isn’t predicatable.</p>
<p>I don’t think the holistic you’re thinking of nearly the one I’m thinking of. Holistic to me means having people within a qualified range of scores, stats, etc. vying for consideration with acceptances ultimately coming down to the people with the best overall application, scores and essays and personality and recommendations and all. It doesn’t surprise me at all that given at least 2,000 admits, the slightly higher and slightly lower scores tend to average out into a steady overall average, with the inching up being accounted for by the increasingly competitive nature of elite college admissions. And wouldn’t yield rates be subject to over 20% fluxuations by year too?</p>
<p>By the way, sorry to the OP for this discussion… to answer your question very simply, class rank is important, but at least you’re in the top-10% of your class. You’d be in better shape if you were at the top of your class (and maybe you are, i don’t know) but no college can throw you into the reject pile on the basis of rank alone given where you currently are. Write great essays, represent who you are well, and know that if you don’t apply to a school, your chance at that school is 0%.</p>
<p>Your statement is misguided at best and at worst comical… you pretty much just contradict yourself when you say “they say its what makes you unique that will get you into these schools is pure bs.” and “you need volunteering.” Aren’t EC’s what make people unique and therefore desirable to the community of a school?</p>
<p>The academic component alone has so many factors it’s impossible to be precise.</p>
<p>Example, how does a 3.7 at school A compare to School B. Is it better to be ranked in the top 5 % of a middle of the road public school or top 25% of an elite private school. What do we do with SATs – and how do we take into account SATs and ACTs, especially when they aren’t consistent with grades. </p>
<p>I guess in answer to the OP’s question – the question is what top 8% means. For some high schools, based on what people report for admissions, it looks like this rank will be good enough to be considered seriously at top ivies… ummmm maybe. For others not so much so…</p>
<p>What everyone needs to understand is that half of every class at ivies and their peers is hooked. They are recruited athletes, URMs, legacies, staff and development kids. Even these groups need mostly to be top 10%. So the 5% that are not are not just athletes, they’re impact athletes. Not just legacies, but super wealthy, connected legacies. Not just URMs, but inner city, impoverished URMs. Not just staff kids, but super star prof kids.</p>
<p>After they meet institutional needs, making up half the class, the remaining half need to bring up the averages. The unhooked half is very predictable. There is not a counseling professional or committee member I know who can’t predict who will get in 90% of the time with all the info.</p>