<p>I think I may calculate the results with and without the five school rule if a significant number of the disparities are for schools that are this clsoe to one another. I know the Swarthmore thing may have been very important to your S but I don't think this is what most folks who argue that the process is totally unpredictable mean when they say it. For example, I personally think it's a myth that adcoms reject people that they think are using the school as a safety. But I could be wrong.</p>
<p>I thought of another use for this survey. We should identify colleges that appear to reject candidates that use them as a safety. Others may want to propose other rules but I think this should exclude schools in the top 25 on either the University or LAC lists at USNWR but would include any other school tha rejects a student with scores in the top quartile and a GPA that is consistent with those scores. I'll have to leave it up to the posters to self declare that their grades are at least as good as their scores. I'd ask you to also exclude any cases where your S/D blew off the application essay or where there is some good reason for your S/D being rejected that you are aware of.</p>
<p>It may not be a crapshoot, but it is not easily discernable what the criteria are. S1 was admitted by much more selective reaches and either waitlisted or rejected at far less selective "matches," where he was in the top 25% in terms of their numbers, all of them in fact. Safeties did admit.</p>
<p>idad,</p>
<p>Thanks. I'll record that as a Group 3 data point. Did any of the matches that rejected meet the criteria for a "safety" that I give in post 102?</p>
<p>Another aspect of the "crapshoot" at smaller LACs is the performance of kids from the same high school admitted in previous years. When they have had one or two outstanding kids from a certain high school in the recent past, they are more inclined to admit a new one from that school.</p>
<p>Also as an alumni interviewer , I once had to call the college about a technicality of my interview report in early March, the admissions counselor said to me "we are on the fence about X, so what do you think--would X fit in here? " I said "yes, I think so." X was admitted.</p>
<p>pyewachet,</p>
<p>Both rational sources of variance that remain behind the curtain. It probably makes sense for HS's to keep in touch with students who go to competitive colleges or at least ask college reps how their graduates have done there.</p>
<p>@ curious</p>
<p>How does the adofficer have a conflict of interest over admissions? It was rude of you to say that. She took the time to grace your study with facts. There is an article about how Harvard (and basically every other elite school) does its admission decisions - preliminary entry based upon benchmark SAT/GPA/Ec requirements. The rest of the process is highly subjective, meaning it entails seeing the applicant in the lights of his passion, his fit, his abilities, and his potential. Group votings and regional adcoms sticking up for their applicants reflect this.</p>
<p>The strong correlation between high SATs/GPA and acceptance could mean something else - people who are more motivated and more passionate about their work tend to score higher on their SAT/GPA scores, but it isn't scores that got them into universities. It is the subjectivities. Note that strong correlation still does not necessarily mean causation. I'm willing to bet that the crapshoot myth is caused by so many people having high stats and applying for the sake of extrinsic factors.</p>
<p>Get your facts straight. No ad com officer has posted to this thread to the best of my knowledge, it was someone claiming to be a college admissions advisor. Yes, both professional college admissions advisors and college ad officiers have a conflict of interest on this question. If the process is believed to be more unpredictable the value of such advice will be seen to be higher. If the process is believed to be more unpredictable more students will apply thereby raising apparent selectivity.</p>
<p>Here is an intersting fact from "A is for Admission" by Michele A. Henandez former Director of Admissions Dartmouth. She says they divide the applicants into 9 groups based on the Academic Index which is fairly easy for someone to estimate for themselves based on test scores and grades. In the year on which she reports this data, almost 10% of the applicants were in the lowest group and they took exactly one student.</p>
<p>Curious, that's one college and how they do it -- or how they <em>did</em> it more than a decade ago when the book author worked there. </p>
<p>Also, the author of that book told me during the spring of my daughter's junior year that Barnard would not even look at student with my d's test scores; she suggested my d. try Middlebury or Bryn Mawr instead. (I has specifically mentioned my d's strong points in a friendly, "chances" type email exchange, and was told to forget it and aim lower). </p>
<p>So you've got to take even the advice of experts with a grain of salt. </p>
<p>I do think that her book is good though to get a sense of the level of competition; I think it's an eye opener for a parent of a high achieving kid who is thinking GPA and high test scores put the kid in the running. My son read the book and immediately announced he was no longer going to consider applying to any Ivies. You just have to keep in mind that she is talking about the upper end of elite admissions. </p>
<p>Also, I think AI is largely a concept developed in connection with Ivy athletic recruiting -- see:
[quote]
there are certain criteria that no batting average, shooting percentage, or lap time can eclipse, namely the Ivy League's Academic Index (AI).</p>
<p>For the past 20 years, AI has been a determining factor in the admission, or indeed rejection, of prospective student-athletes. It factors in SAT score, SAT II average score, and class rank or high school GPA and assigns a number to each applicant. The maximum possible AI is 240, with 171 being the lowest end. Below that, Ivy League schools are simply not allowed to admit a recruit, short of a compelling, non-athletic reason.
[/quote]
<p>I have seen very little evidence to doubt the author's point, which is that kids with very low stats are rarely if ever are admitted except for reasons that would be obvious to anyone like a recruited athlete, a legacy, or a URM and that even these factors have a limited effect. IMO way to many kids are waisting their time and their family's money applying to schools at which they don't have a snow balls chance of getting into. What exactly was it that you think convinced Barnard to accept you daughter despite relatively low scores and grades (for Barnard)? Do you really have no idea?</p>
<p>I never said I had no idea -- I said my daughter had strengths in areas that made her a good fit. I know exactly why she got in. I also didn't say her grades were low - they just weren't extraordinarily high. (3.85 GPA UW, 4.1 W) </p>
<p>We knew going in Barnard looked like a great fit for her; it just happens to be a very competitive college that turns away 4 out of 5 applicants. But it was also a college that was likely to value her areas of strength. So she had as good a chance as anyone. Advice I got to the contrary was simply mistaken, largely because of too much importance placed on a factor -- test scores -- that most colleges do not weight in the way people think they do.</p>
<p>
[quote]
IMO way to many kids are waisting their time and their family's money applying to schools at which they don't have a snow balls chance of getting into.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>All S's reaches accepted him, and none of his matches. If he would have followed that advice he would not be happily and successfully attending the school he is at today.</p>
<p>As I see it, the upshot of this thread is that for the applicant there is a strong element of "crapshoot" in college admissions but a close reading of CC posts can help you avoid a scattershot approach to applications and get a sense of where, why and how you might have a better than snowball's chance--even when the official numbers seem daunting. Take any one piece of advice with several grains of salt but build up a full picture --- by preferably suspending all other activity and gluing yourself night and day to this website!</p>
<p>LOL, Pye... I actually think the college search is enhanced somewhat by avoiding this site. ;) I've picked up some good info here, but I honestly think my d. got better info from outside sources. </p>
<p>My d's experience was essentially the same as idad's son, although I'd word it: accepted at her favorite's, turned down by some of her backups. (A little odd since she applied to super-reach Brown - but her preference sheet for colleges showed NYU (Gallatin) & Barnard as top 2 choices.... Brown was running no higher than 4th place). In hindsight, her top 2 colleges had the closest thing to "perfect" in terms of offering what she wanted and fitting her talents and interests.... and maybe that worked both ways.</p>
<p>Maybe the mistake is the idea that there needs to be a spectrum -- a kid has top choices, then backups, then safeties -- but the backups maybe are chosen less for fit than for being perceived mistakenly as better quality safety... and they simply are not safeties. </p>
<p>In other words... maybe those "match" schools are a heck of a lot better at assessing "fit" than we give them credit for.</p>
<p>When my daughter initially applied to college, I think I focused too much on her weaknesses instead of on her strengths. With my encouragement, she applied ED to an LAC where her SATs did not put her in the upper echelons of the student body and was awarded a merit scholarship, even though the school had no incentive to give her one since she was committed to go there. It was a great school, but for various reasons unrelated to this thread, did not turn out to be the right place for her. She successfully transferred to one of the top LACs even though her SATs put her just a little above the 25% of their range. I know that many students with much higher SAT scores are rejected from this school. She is not an athlete, legacy, or URM. The school obviously judged her holistically in reviewing her application, focusing on her strengths, not her relative weaknesses.</p>
<p>Calmom,</p>
<p>So you don't line up with those who think it's a "crapshoot." You just think it's more comlicated than test scores?</p>
<p>Idad,</p>
<p>Wow, how many reaches and how many matches? Do you think there were any special circumstances in your son's case that explained this?</p>
<p>Pyewacket, </p>
<p>Honest question, do you think everyone would be better off if the whole thing was less "holistic" and more transparently predictable?</p>
<p>Mother of two,</p>
<p>Were her grades particularly strong?</p>