<p>A while ago I was roaming CC, and I found this post that went along the lines of, 'Sometimes school's will choose the less than average candidate over the one who succeeds because they feel that the student would thrive more at Everfield Academy than the other candidate - since XYZ seems to succeed greatly at whatever school their in.' Is that true? I would go bak to the thread but I can't remember what it's called...</p>
<p>Please clear up your definition of “less than average.” Do you mean less than average applicants to highly selective prep schools, admits to highly selective prep schools, students in general…?</p>
<p>Like students who gets mediocre grades and don’t really do sports or music or arts.</p>
<p>Well, since I don’t know the profile of every single admitted kid at every highly selective boarding school, I can’t give a definite answer to that. I’d guess that a kid like that might get in if he was a legacy whose parents were big donors to the school. But then again, I can’t really answer that question because I don’t know every admitted kids profile.</p>
<p>If it were possible to rank candidates on some sort of scale, by definition, assuming a normal distribution, just under half of accepted applicants would be ranked below the median score for that institution.</p>
<p>Actually,</p>
<p>Students who don’t fit the average “on paper” but have extenuating circumstances are accepted by all the schools every day. Brilliance, and potential, are not always quantifiable. </p>
<p>Boarding Schools are not an “entitlement” program limited to the most elite students in the world. Nor are colleges. It’s time students and parents got their heads around that. They are private institutions that are free to take whoever and whomever they please - and as such, tend to look holistically at the student’s circumstances and how that fits within the school’s culture, mission and vision.</p>
<p>I’ve often told the story of a male student (not a URM and not a full-pay) who was chosen last and at the request of an Adcom who had a feeling that his less than stellar stats was hiding a gem. They took him - the Adcom knew it was a huge risk - and the boy went on to graduate as valedictorian.</p>
<p>Admissions is as much art as science honed by decades of experience. It’s natural to bristle if - having been declined at a top choice school - you assume someone less deserving got “your” spot.</p>
<p>But the reality is - there is no “dedicated” spot. Only a chance in a lottery that uses heart and intuition as part of the process. Sometimes it is more gratifying to give a chance to a student who has not had all the advantages, than to nurture one who has. Luckily - boarding schools are a combination of both.</p>
<p>Still, the reality is that BS can only take a tiny percentage of the people who apply. Let’s be happy for those who made it through the gauntlet. It was likely a harrowing journey.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This coming from an MIT alum, haha. I hope MIT foks don’t read this post lest they may request the degree back. :D</p>
<p>No, they can feel good about one more alum with her head screwed on straight.</p>
<p>MIT doesn’t take a NO for quant, so they would still recall, head screwed straight or not.</p>
<p>:) (ten character)</p>
<p>@rizzle,</p>
<p>For all the applicants with creds above the school’s average there are students with creds below the school’s average. </p>
<p>The numbers have to balance out to the average-- it’s not Lake Wobegone…</p>
<p><<let’s be=“” happy=“” for=“” those=“” who=“” made=“” it=“” through=“” the=“” gauntlet.=“” was=“” likely=“” a=“” harrowing=“” journey.=“”>></let’s></p>
<p>Amen to that. :)</p>
<p>There’s a tendency of mystifying an AO’s work. In reality, most of them review applications using “common sense”. Things we know are important such as grades, SSAT, EC, teacher recommendation, etc. are indeed most important. However, once they have determined that a student has reached a certain threashold and know he/she can handle the academics in their school, the following factors may affect the chances of a student getting accepted: red flags of any kind indicating the student will not be able adapt to the boarding school life or could be a trouble maker, whether the student is a (potential) development case, full pay or FA, diversity factor (race, geography, etc) and other “hooks”.</p>
<p>So when you see student A who has a GPA of 3.5, 85% in SSAT and whose only EC is playing video games is accepted while student B who has a GPA of 4.0, does two sports, and scored 99% in SSAT gets rejected, look for these clues. Is student B a particularly high maintenance case? Is student A rich (a potential big donner), full pay, a URM, or from an under-represented area. Note that I am talking about a truely “less than average” applicant vs an “excellent” applicant, not an excellent applicant playing trombone vs another excellent applicant who swims. Hope this makes some sense.</p>
<p>Welcome back DAndrew. CC has been quiet for some time.</p>
<p>I teach at one of the schools considered the most selective and desirable. I have served on my school’s admissions committee. There are three factors which will <em>sometimes</em> result in admissions admitting a lower standardized tester or lower GPA:</p>
<p>Candidate offers special ability in arts or athletics (for most of these schools, the latter is more influential than the former)
Candidate would enhance diversity and pluralism of school environment
Candidate is from wealthy or notable family</p>
<p>…not in any particular order. I don’t think this is news to you all. Also, please do NOT assume I am offering criticism, just facts. In top tier college admissions, the same three factors as listed above also come into play.</p>
<p>All schools believe that they are “special,” with their own discrete “cultures,” and might decide that somebody is, or is not, a good “fit.” Sometimes, they just want to round out a class, and decide that they need a swimmer or a violinist. Even the largest prep schools (ie. Andover & Exeter) are hardly university-size: they can interview and consider each applicant fairly carefully. I also think some otherwise promising candidates can turn off interviewers. Assume that any strong student, who can pay most or all of the bill, will find a place somewhere. Otherwise, a little intelligent study is in order. There are lots of schools out there, and you can probably find a fit if you’re willing to do the fieldwork.</p>
<p>The mother of a lawyer told me yesterday her daughter didn’t need to take the SATs to get into her Ivy League college. She was a nationally-ranked athlete in a sport the college prizes. She applied from an established sports boarding school.</p>
<p>Now, was she “above average” or “below average” for the Ivy? I have no idea. I don’t think it matters. She has been a phenomenally successful adult.</p>
<p>As pointed out earlier, the overwhelming majority if not all of those admittted are acaemically admissible. So it’s not a matter of who can succeed but rather basically there are two sets of rules in the admissions game for those who have “hooks” and for those who don’t. Those who don’t face firece competitions. To them, to be “admissible” academically is far from being enough. They have to be the best of the best. For those who have “hooks” - be it that they are from a rich or powerful family, or URM, or have the talents and resources to tap into their atheletic abilities, the rules are different. Of course, in the pool of the “hooked”, there’s still competition, but mostly they are competing against each other in a smaller pool.</p>
<p>There is competition to stand in unemployment lines let alone BS admissions.</p>
<p>Invent, are you supporting my views or against them? I can’t quite tell. 
And you forgot to answer me - what school are you dropping out of? If you don’t want to answer, I do not mind. It’s just that after this long, I feel like you are part of the cc family so I want to know.</p>