<p>This board is full of stories of schools getting ridiculous numbers of applicants for each slot. Which schools are accepting the long shots, students with GPAs and/ or test scores below the norm but who holistically are being given a shot and being accepted?</p>
<p>I don’t know if there is an answer to your question. Every year, every application cycle starts anew. You can certainly look at the data sets and see where entering freshman fell the previous year in terms of gpa/standardized test scores, but that tells you very little about the kids themselves. This is why a well planned list is important with a variety of schools one is willing to attend. Finally “what norm” are you talking about – is it 25-75 range? If so, that in itself implies that some are below and some are above which means there are definitely attributes of those students (above and below the 25-75 range) that the college wants or needs.</p>
<p>Reed is notorious for accepting “quirky” students… those who don’t match the profile but have something else to offer.</p>
<p>^^you know that a good response dmd77 and thinking about it that way perhaps Chicago fits that wholelistic view unless they have completely changed their attitude this year…Chicago had a “riduculous” increase in apps this year to try to tie the conversation back to the OP.</p>
<p>What about Whitman? They took my nephew, and I’m sure it was done “holistically”</p>
<p>Yes. There are great colleges that will forgive a subpar GPA or SAT, but you need to come in strong elsewhere. Without additional information, it is hard to tell you where you should go for your long shot. If you have a low GPA and class rank and hit the average mark on everything else, you still don’t have much of a chance at any tippy-top. You can check <a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/parents-forum/767118-under-3-6-gpa-applying-top-20-parents-thread.html[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/parents-forum/767118-under-3-6-gpa-applying-top-20-parents-thread.html</a> for examples of kids aiming for top 20 schools with subpar GPA’s.</p>
<p>Well, it depends on which colleges you’re looking at and how far away from “what they’re looking for” you are. You could be reaching ridiculously high for Harvard but could be statistically matched with Whitman.
However, all colleges would have you believe, that they look beyond scores, especially the saintly Ivy League, and if you’re lucky you might even make it if they actually practice it.
My experience with the top Liberal Arts Colleges has been particularly great though. Reed, as someone mentioned earlier gains its notoreity from among other things, accepting “long shots”. Reed really does look at you holistically, in my experience. However, like as has been mentioned you have to be distinguished in some area(s) and demonstrate interest in the college and its philosophy.</p>
<p>Well, call me cynical, but I suspect it helps an applicant who is “holistic” in the following ways:</p>
<p>1) offspring of alumni well known for donations to campus
2) offspring of a celebrity/royalty/billionaires
3) recruited athlete/ teen movie actress
4) Underrepresented group that the campus is seeking</p>
<p>No doubt it varies by college, but I do think “charming” and “quirky” and “original” fall a bit further down the list.</p>
<p>It also helps if the applicant is </p>
<ol>
<li>A strong writer</li>
<li>Talented in music, art, or athletics </li>
<li>A “leader” in the community (community service, participant on youth board, etc.) or in school (starts up clubs, has glowing recommendations, etc.)</li>
<li>Taking a challenging courseload or otherwise academically making up for poor performance (ex. low GPA but a lot of AP classes, independent study, good SAT scores can get you into a lot of great LACs)</li>
</ol>
<p>Generally it is the well-respected LACs that tend to do a more “holistic” look. I saw woman’s colleges especially as placing a lot of emphasis on recommendations, essay quality, class load, etc. above stats. But I am sure many other small LACs can be wow’ed by someone who writes well and has strong and/or unique extracurricular involvement.</p>
<p>Generally it is the Big State Us that will establish cut-off GPAs and SATs and not really pay much attention to essays, etc. And of course, hyper-selective schools (Top 20ish), probably have their fair share of kids with BOTH great grades and great “others.” So what they mean by “holistic” admissions is that you have to be good at everything, not that you can just be good at something :P.</p>
<p>A kid who has mediocre grades and SAT scores, mediocre involvement, and a “shining personality” is unfortunately going to have to aim a bit lower in terms of school selectivity, but there are a lot of great universities and colleges out there that aren’t hyper selective but still provide a fantastic education.</p>
<p>Sorry to have used the word “holistic” it was just that it is the one used by the Common Application. Please free free to condescend to them.</p>
<p>wsd - What does the term holistic mean within the context of college admissions? The dictionary definition isn’t much help: “Concerned with whole rather than analysis or separation into parts.” And you’re obviously no fan of the presentations by those who have posted here.</p>
<p>Think of holistic as meaning that courses taken, personal character and intellect (from interviews and recommendations), essays, and involvement (extracurriculars and community service) can overcome non-stellar stats.</p>
<p>wsd, didn’t mean for my post to be condescending, sorry if it came off that way.</p>
<p>I was very serious. I believe the best educational quality:holistic admission ratio to be fairly well-respected LACs. Amongst my friends I noticed women’s colleges to be especially less focused on stats (grades, SAT scores) and more focused on the essay, recommendations, ECs, etc. Other “hippy-ish” or alternative schools are probably the same, like Sarah Lawrence, Macalester, Reed, Colorado College etc. A male can improve his chances by applying to schools with low male:female ratios (many LACs apply haha). </p>
<p>Of course, those friends who were accepted to fairly selective schools with sub-3.5 GPAs (one with a 3.2, actually!) had exceptional writing ability, great recs, decent talent in the arts/music (I believe them to be talented and they now contribute to campus arts/music, but they were never “all-state” or won awards), strong courseload, community involvement, and fairly strong SAT scores (~2100+).</p>
<p>I don’t think any college is going to be willing to take a “long shot” on a kid unless kid is stronger in other areas, i.e. kid has talent in arts/music, can write really well, took a very hefty courseload, has demonstrated leadership ability, all of the above, etc. Harvard may take someone with a 3.5, but rest assured they took harder courses than you can imagine, got great test scores, and are probably athletes or musical geniuses or something - I do believe all of the top schools are holistic in their admissions, but “holistic” means little for most people (including myself) who are simply jack of all trades and not super talented in a particular area. The worst schools to go for would be the hyper-selective (top 20), since they receive enough applicants with super star grades and ECs that they don’t need to take any chances and/or “holistic” just means they’ll take you if you’re a star actress or something, and many Big State Unis (since they don’t have time to factor in ECs/other strengths as much). </p>
<p>Of course, it is all about packaging - well-written personal statements (easier to do if the app allows for more customizing and is not Common App), knowing what teachers to get recs from, knowing how to frame your interests in terms of “ECs that contributed to my character”, etc. can make or break. A college app is much like a resume, one shot to make everything you’ve done look really good. This wouldn’t have as much of an impact on the hyper selective schools, since there’s only so much you can “make it look pretty”, but it would have an impact on the fairly selective ones, such as good LACs.</p>
<p>Some colleges are in general less selective, however, and still provide a good education, so if kid has mediocre grades, test scores, and ECs (but may be a great and intelligent person still, just not the High Achieving High Schooler), then probably should find school where his/her data set matches school’s data set. But again, that doesn’t mean they have to settle for a mediocre school. Parents on here always cite the “Colleges that Change Lives” book for schools that provide a good education but range in selectivity.</p>
<p>I gotta believe that smaller schools are going to read a kid’s entire application and ergo would be more holistic. Large Public U simply has to make a first cut based on numbers (GPA, test scores) alone. With applications numbering in the tens of thousands, I think a kid really has to survive that first cut before everything else (recommendations, ECs, . . .) can be considered.</p>
<p>So I’d be thinking smaller school, and not first tier. The CTCL schools would be a great place to start. Worked very well for DS#1 (solid SATs, shaky GPA, great teacher recs and essay).</p>
<p>I believe, connections, URM or star status and regular “saving Africa from Aids” will probably open very many doors.</p>