<p>Compared with the openings available at the top schools, there are a lot of smart kids. There are a lot of smart kids who also do well on SATs and have done well in school. Many of these kids also have a long list of clubs and activities. If you believe all of these attributes are very important to admissions, then it must seem like a lottery. All of the attributes mentioned have some importance, but the most selective schools are looking for something extra. As interesteddad stated they are interested in other interests and experiences. Maybe we use the word "passion" at bit too often, but I really think it fits. The short answer supplements and the essays are all opportunities to demonstrate these extras.</p>
<p>Thank you for the links to the very interesting Web pages. The replies to this thread show that this is food for thought for many. </p>
<p>One thing that is easy to see from those charts is that odds of admission do increase as test scores go up or as school grade averages go up. In other words, the system is not totally a "crapshoot," but rather a system in which probability of admission increases as desirable characteristics increase--which seems fair to me. Definitely, apply to a truly safe safety school, and apply to more than one "reach" school, but the take-home message is READ, READ, READ, and READ (to boost verbal scores) and THINK about math (to boost math scores) and do your schoolwork. That's part one of getting ready for college. There are approximately 38,000 high schools in the United States, hundreds of perfect scorers on the SAT, and only a few thousand spaces in the entering classes of the most desirable colleges, so a student has to stand out with something that goes beyond even having a good high school record. </p>
<p>And that leads to the issue not shown in those charts. I am aware of nationally ranked young people in one extracurricular activity ("EC") that I follow news about pretty closely, and the nationally ranked have a much higher probability of acceptance at the top colleges than one might guess after seeing the helpful charts linked to in this thread. Almost all applicants can be compared by entrance test scores, and almost all applicants (homeschoolers are often an exception) can be compared by high school class ranks. But students who learn beyond the confines of their high schools and reach truly national, or better still international, levels of performance in a major EC can lift themselves beyond comparison with most other applicants. I know of a girl who was admitted to all seven of the seven extremely selective schools to which she applied, with phenomenal merit scholarship offers from the schools that have merit scholarship programs, and she got into those schools because she had already proven she had the goods by her EC involvement over several years. Students with that kind of background stand out among other students with the same test scores and class rank, and also can even gain admission over students with HIGHER test scores and higher class rank--because they are "well-lopsided" enough to reach an indisputable level of excellence in something they care about. </p>
<p>It's never a sure thing to get into any particular school, but probabilistically there are known things to do to raise the odds.</p>
<p>tokenadult: I believe you are very correct when you mentioned the importance of achieving a level of excellence in something of interest. I disagree about your take-home message: "the take-home message is READ, READ, READ, and READ (to boost verbal scores) and THINK about math (to boost math scores)." I believe there are more than enough kids who are lopsided about academics and very few with the maturity, drive and ambition to succeed at something they chose outside of school.</p>
<p>It's not necessary to have "national or international levels of performance" in an EC to show extraordinary commitment, but I agree that getting involved in an unusual or meaningful activity and showing a true commitment to it can be a strong differentiator. I am thinking in particular of community service: not "I volunteered for 20 hours last year at a hospital" but rather "I got involved in this activity because it meant something and I could make a difference, and I stuck with it, possibly for years, even when I could have been doing other things". That can be just as powerful as ranking high in some competitions.</p>
<p>getting top grades in AP classes, getting top scores on tests, and joining or even leading school clubs is just too common these days --and while it indicates intelligence and enthusiasm and certainly great competence, and in fact even qualifies these kids to do extremely well in these top schools-- all this alone does not demonstrate that extra "brilliance" these schools are looking for. Back in my day, a 1500 on the SAT was very rare (even in my high school, Bronx Science.) Now this score is not at all unusual, and does not mean the same thing. After the athletes, the legacies, the foreign students and URMS, there are limited spots left for your garden variety great student from the burbs. People have been gaming the system for so long they have finally gamed themselves right off the field by virtue of ever more students learning to play. As a result of this explosion of players, the game has changed.</p>
<p>I agree with tokenadult regarding the EC issue. The kids from our local ARML team are admitted to Ivy League and other top schools in droves. The same is true of the kids in our local boy scout troop who both have good grades and SAT's and rise to the rank of Eagle.</p>
<p>Yes, I would agree with edad when he stresses the "out of school" aspect of outstanding extracurricular activities--the students who are not programmed into activities by adults, but pursue those activities on their own, are the students who stand out. </p>
<p>As to the importance of the threshold school-based credentials, I would point out that it is possible to be a very good basketball player indeed and not get into ANY college. The local example I'm familiar with is Kevin Garnett, a star of my hometown NBA team. He was so outstanding as a high school player that coaches all over the country predicted a brilliant future for him--but so low-scoring on the SATs that he didn't even meet the NCAA threshold for playing NCAA-regulated college basketball. So he went straight into the pros. Yes, a great singer, actor, athlete, inventor, etc. doesn't need to go to college to have a great career, but a college aspirant still needs a bare minimum of academic credentials to be a competitive applicant. Happy are the applicants who have "both-and" credentials developed by years of practice.</p>
<p>I think one of the biggest problems is that students go into the college process with a very myopic view that revolves around stats, grades, rank and a laundry ecs. </p>
<p>While all of these things are important many students and their parents tend to forget that the college looks to :</p>
<ol>
<li><p>build a well rounded class of students</p></li>
<li><p>build a class that is aligned with the institutional mission that they
are trying to achieve</p></li>
<li><p>their mission changes year over year (which is why kid accepted in
the class of 2009 may have had a,b, c, & d but kid b who brings the
same thing for a spot in the class of 2010 may be rejected/<br>
waitlisted</p></li>
<li><p>build a class that is reflective of people in the U.S. (many
schools look for a global perspective). Yes this includes, rich kids,
poor kids, athletes, urms, developmental admits, the gifted musician,
the kid that raises chickens or goats, the rocket scientist. If the
college were planning a meal it would be more like a buffet
containing many dishes than a 3 course meal where everyone is
being served the same thing with no variety or subsitiutions.</p></li>
<li><p>finds students that understand the concept of learning taking place
both inside and out side of the classroom.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>As Carolyn previously stated, if students go into the process accepting the reality that 91% of qualifiied students will be rejected/waitlisted in a process that really is at many levels capricious and arbitrary, they could hopefully look at a wide variety of rings which to toss their hat.</p>
<p>At the end of the day you have a lot of students thinking that they are turning in the perfect application and not taking into consideration that they are being evaluated by imperfect people who feel that they are doing the best they can to fulfill a lot of different needs.</p>
<p>Look, the TRUTH is that cookie cutter success re: top grades and APs, membership in clubs, and high SAT scores (which no longer require any level of brilliance to achieve) with nothing else in the mix WOULD make a school full of widgets --bright and well-honed widgets, but widgets-- and a society full of widgets, too. We all know that no one is going to win the Moon race or produce great art or find a theory of everything if other qualities and talents aren't factored in. </p>
<p>What these top colleges are looking for is the "X Factor."</p>
<p>When they see it, they imagine, they know it --and for each institution, the X Factor is something else.</p>
<p>It's hard to get up in arms about this when any reasonable person would agree that just getting the grades (1), the scores (2), and the club memberships (3) is no longer extraordinary --and certainly does not indicate genius. If it is genius, or some X factor, that these colleges seek, it will be much harder to bottle by gamesters, and much more difficult to play that game, than just by following steps 1-3, above. If something becomes too easy to do, and too commonplace, of course there will need to be other factors that separate people out.</p>
<p>We still live in a Darwinian world.</p>
<p>some comments on some points that have been made:</p>
<p>as for colleges letting people know what they are really looking for -- the problem is that they aren't looking for one thing - they don't want a homogeneous student body from their point of view it makes sense to encourage as many applications as possible so that they can then sift through and create their entering class how they like. </p>
<p>as for the value of national recognition in an ec -- well of course this is true because by definition only a handful of kids are going to be able to achieve this!! no matter how hard a kid works, it can't guarentee be nationally ranked in anything.</p>
<p>Used to be top grades and satg scores was enough. Then too many kids had that. Then being really good at an instrument or a star on the debate team could be what got you in. But then, low and behold, there are so many with that on the resume, you can't count on that getting you anymore. </p>
<p>Students (and their parents) keep looking for the magic bullet that will set them apart - but at the same time everyone else is looking for it also. You end up with a lot of applicants who have what they think is the magic bullet. But when all is said and done, its up the the adcoms to figure out what collection of acceptees will overall give them the class they desire - and how any one student will fair in that process is just something that we as parents will never be able to predict. Even with the kid who is nationally ranked number 2 -- if the school just accepted the kid who ranked number 1, chances may not be as great as at another school where number 1 didn't apply.</p>
<p>Here in the Boston area we have many excellent public high schools and many excellent private schools. I personally know a boatload of highly talented, prepared, poised, high achieving teens, all of whom are competitive for Ivies or next tier schools. I have to assume that other geographic areas in the US produce a similar amount of qualified kids. There are X freshman seats in the top colleges, and 3X, 4X or whatever amount of kids qualified for those seats. They can't all get in. Parents and kids need to select a reasonable array of schools. the old "love thy safety" chestnut is so true - and I mean a real safety, not saying, "My safety is UMichigan" or some such.</p>
<p>"Everything you say is true to some extent. But, I really wish adcoms would stop referring to it as a "lottery", because it is really not."</p>
<p>I've never heard adcoms refer to admissions as a "lottery." They take their jobs very seriously, and don't see themselves as the Vanna White's of the college world. When it comes to top colleges, the adcoms are not only selecting excellent applicants from a group of excellent applicants, but adcoms also are building a well rounded class.</p>
<p>In fact, my regional Harvard adcom corrected me gently when I referred to "luck" as being part of the selection process. "We prefer to say 'various factors,'" she said.</p>
<p>Whom I see referring to a "lottery" are parents, students and some alum interviewers.</p>
<p>The flip side: You don't have to go to one of these most selective schools. The proportion of captains of industry with Ivy League backgrounds continues to fall. College faculties and the professions are filled with people who got their degrees at state colleges or institutions outside of the handful that generate most of the discussion on CC. Remember the Krueger and Dale study, and calm down.</p>
<p>This discussion could leave you to believe that no one but absolute "stars" can make it into any top school. My own experience going through the admissions process with my S last year shows that some bwrk's get through--our hs had kids admitted at most ivies and top 20 schools, and most of those kids were not international or national "superstars"--instead they were good kids, good students and good members of the school community. I still can't understand why some were admitted while others (who were similar in most ways) were not---my S included (not admitted to his first choice school but happy as can be where he is now attending).</p>
<p>So for those of you going through what I found to be a very stressful process (and a crap shoot)--choose a range of schools, try to think outside of the box (choose an option that all your child's (similar) friends are not also applying to) and definitely choose a safety or two that your child will be happy at.</p>
<p>I think we can overfocus on the very, very top selective schools. If we look at schools below the top 10 most selective, there is a lot more hope for a kid with good stats and some extra interests and abilities.</p>
<p>One thing we see so often, here on cc, is the applicant/applicant family working to "mold" the student into the ideal college applicant: given a competitive GPA, they seek to ensure the winning SAT score by way of tutoring and prep; given these two things, they seek the "right" list of ECs and leadership positions. To this, the very most driven add the bought-and-paid-for essay.</p>
<p>More and more applicants have all of these "ingredients" at the ready when they submit their applications. Beyond the colleges filling their institutional needs with a class of students who can succeed at the school, I believe they are now looking to "read between the lines" and determine who is presenting his/her authentic self and who has attempted to create an "acceptance-worthy" self. This is what other posters mean, I believe, when they talk about passion in your curricular and extra-curricular activities versus "laundry list" of same. </p>
<p>I'm not sure how often a black-and-white piece of paper enables an adcom to see the difference between these two types of applicants, but I believe sometimes it works and that is what they are seeking. It would be a beautiful world if kids would simply perform to their potential, follow their hearts and then present themselves to the adcoms as they are. </p>
<p>Don't suppose we'll get back there any time soon, but one can hope.</p>
<p>Don't discount the recommendations that most students are not privy too. I think that these are also used to filter as you say.</p>
<p>Yes, good point, hazmat. There <em>are</em> elements of the application which we can't control. (At least for now!)</p>
<p>hehehehe......but plans are in the works right? The discussions following 15 DEC should prove quite interesting and entertaining.</p>
<p>"Everything you say is true to some extent. But, I really wish adcoms would stop referring to it as a "lottery", because it is really not."</p>
<p>I've never heard adcoms refer to admissions as a "lottery." </p>
<p>I don't think ANY adcom truly believes that admission to a selective school is a lottery. And, frankly, I don't believe the majority of parents or students believe that it is a lottery either (interestingly, I just typed the word 'lootery' rather than lottery...a Freudian slip which may be closer to the truth), for all of the reasons enumerated in the posts below. "Lottery" is a term used to provide us poor parents and our kids with a degree of "comfort" when faced with the specter of rejection. Perhaps more for the parents than the kids. We have all invested between 15 and 18 years of our love, ego, and money in our kids and most of us believe that our child "belongs" at these selective schools...at least as much so as any other kid that applies. It is far, far easier to say to our S and D "I'm so sorry, honey, you know you're just as qualified as XXX from your school who was accepted, but we all know it's a LOTTERY" than to entertain the notion that our offspring have some "fatal flaw" that prevented his or her acceptance (NEITHER of which is necessarily true). Yet, we jump at the chance to uncover the "fatal flaw" if it happens to someone else's kid. Our entire high school was disrupted last year when our two "top" students experienced rejection after rejection. Our valedictorian with 1600 SAT AND 36 ACT was rejected from every school he applied to with the exception of Penn. Our very popular, very bright student council president with near perfect GPA and test scores was rejected from all except our flagship state U (a very very good one). Some parents acted like vultures trying to "dissect" why these students were rejected so they could "prevent" it from happening to their own kids. Others chose the "Well, you know it's just a lottery" explanation...it certainly lowered the angst level.</p>
<p>The real truth is that admissions to these school is NOT by the numbers, and NOT a lottery. It is HUMAN. With all the variability that this implies.</p>