The LoR forms have check boxes for the recommender to rank the student.
From Member Support
Presumably, the top category LoRs will have the “One of the top few I’ve encountered (top 1%)” check boxes checked, plus plenty of supporting written comments.
LoRs, while perhaps objective, are among the least equitable. A well-resourced private school can direct its students to apply to different colleges, which opens up the possibility that muliple students could recieve the higher recommenders’ ratings without the appearance of inconsistency.
The well-resourced elite private school is also more likely to have a dedicated college counseling staff (separate from the regular counselors) who may be well connected to elite private colleges and therefore know how to write the free-response part of the LoRs optimally and train the teachers on that as well. At an ordinary school, (overburdened) counselors and teachers may have little practice in writing the free-response part of the LoRs to what elite college admissions readers like to see.
It’s been my experience that people seem more likely to forget that admission is not a choice among only GPA in isolation, only scores in isolation, or GPA + scores in isolation. No highly selective college in the US I am aware of uses this type of admission system. Instead they usually consider course rigor, which classes had higher/lower GPA, LORs, essays, ECs/awards, desired character/“fit” with mission qualities, etc. This makes test optional more of a question about what test scores add beyond all the rest. Every test optional study I have seen that evaluated this (including at least a good measure of course rigor), found the answer is not much. For example, earlier I posted a link to the Ithaca test optional study which found that they could explain 44% of variance of 6th semester cumulative GPA using everything in their model vs explaining 43% of variance in cumulative GPA when using everything in their model except test scores.
The vast majority of applicant LORs fell in the middle 3+ / 3 / 3- grouping. A minority ~25% of GC LORs and 30% of teacher LORs had a high 1-2 rating. Several other ratings had a similar distribution. For example, the vast majority of applicant EC ratings fell in the middle 3+ / 3 / 3- grouping, and a minority ~25% of ECs had a high 1-2 rating. The maximum 1 rating was especially rare in all listed categories and seemed to be especially influential for the rare few who receive that rating. (I realize that ratings are a shorthand)
Yes. If the goal of elimination of test scores is equitability, as some have claimed, then nearly every other major component of an application is even more inequitable. The result will be more inequitability, not less.
It depends how you look at it. If a particular teacher at a well resourced elite private school is saying the quoted phrases in the Harvard guidelines such as "the best of a career” or “one of the best in many years” for a large number of Harvard applicants, then it may raise some flags. Instead the wording seems to imply it is limited to a small number of applicants at a particular HS. Furthermore selective elite private schools tend to have a high concentration of having stellar students. One could make the argument that it is more difficult to be "the best of a career” or “one of the best in many years” at an elite private HS than at a non-selective public, putting elite private HS kids at a disadvantage in this section.
In the Harvard lawsuit, LDC hooked kids (who are more likely to attend elite private HSs) were more likely to receive high LOR ratings. For example, 39% received 1-2 on teacher LOR #1 among LDC hooked kids vs 31% among unhooked kids. I only included applicants who submitted LORs in this grouping, and LOR #1 has higher average ratings than LOR #2, so % is higher than my earlier post. Although, it’s unclear how much of that 8% difference relates to LDC hooked kids tending to be stronger applicants in general. Every other category had a larger average ratings gap between LDC hooked kids and unhooked than the 8% ratings gap for teacher LOR #1 mentioned above. Instead teacher LORs seems to be a relatively weak section of the application for LDC hooked kids.
I do not understand what you mean.
What I meant is the standardized tests are relatively the more equitable part of a college application. The other parts of the application are more influenced by SES and those influences will be even greater as the role of the tests diminishes or disappears.
Without exception, test optional admits are lower average SES than test submitter admits at test optional colleges. This implies that test scores tend to be a relative weak point for lower SES kids, compared to other sections other sections of the application.
Why test scores tend to be a weaker section of the application for lower SES kids than GPA or other admission criteria is more complicated. There are some obvious more direct factors such as lower SES kids being less likely to take prep classes, less likely to get extra time on SAT/ACT, less likely to take the tests several times and superscore, etc. However, I suspect other less direct factors tend to be more influential, such as generally attending lower quality K-12 schools and being part of a community that tends to be less focused on college admission tests.
Can you please give your source for this? Every study I have seen shows a pretty solid positive correlation between household income and SAT/ACT scores.
It’s a correlation that has gotten slightly weaker over time, but it’s still there and very strong, at least as far as I have seen. If you know otherwise, please provide a pointer to the evidence.
That test-optional non-submitter admits tend to be lower SES than test-optional submitter admits suggests that SAT/ACT is more influenced by SES than “the rest of the application”.
It is possible that some part of “the rest of the application”* may be more influenced by SES than SAT/ACT, but other parts of “the rest of the application” make “the rest of the application” less influenced by SES.
*For example, letters of recommendation can be reasonably speculated to be such a part, although data is lacking. On the other hand, HS GPA tends to be a major part of “the rest of the application” and appears to be less influenced by SES (although greater grade inflation in higher SES schools may be increasing the influence of SES on HS GPA). Obviously, if the admission process considers favorably such aspects as overcoming difficulties, first generation status, etc., these tend to correlate to lower SES. On the other hand, considering favorably legacy status correlates strongly to higher SES.
Based upon everything I have ever read on the subject and my experience assisting a good number of lower income students through the process, this is not a conclusion I would come to. What your points do not consider is that the daily challenges and accomplishments of lower SES kids are just better for the college application. Their essays, LOR, activities and interviews, beat the rich kid camp, teen tour, finance internship for a family friend and other bought experiences 9/10x.
If a college had gone grades optional, there would likely have been more lower SES admits. Does it imply or suggest that grades are the biggest impediment to admissions by students of lower SES? If a college had gone essays optional, there would likely have been more lower SES admits. Does it imply or suggest that essays are the biggest impediment to admissions by students of lower SES? The statistics imply nothing of the sort. Students of lower SES are underrepresented in colleges, especially top colleges, so the loosening or elimination of any admissions criteria would increase their representation. Test score data are the easiest to obtain and the others are jealously guarded by the colleges. They don’t seem to want the public to know their impact.
I’m in favor of giving students of lower SES special considerations to offset some of the disadvantages they faced. The hurdles they faced aren’t limited to standardized tests. Some poor but smart kids actually have great test scores because they got them without much (or even any) preparation. But they don’t know how to “package” the rest of their applications to properly impress the AOs. Those most deserving students would have lost the edge if tests are ultimately eliminated (which I predict will happen sooner or later on our current path).
@1NJParent says, Students of lower SES are underrepresented in colleges, especially top colleges, so the loosening or elimination of any admissions criteria would increase their representation.
So if a college takes 1000 students to its freshman class, and they, next year, say students no longer need to offer a LOR or essay, you believe that they will increase their applications from low income students, and therefore, will be able to justify admitting more - and they will actually increase low SES enrollment?
I think I get your point, but the logic feels off to me.
One of the best things about these kids is that they many don’t need the packaging the rich kids might because their background is their story.
Lived in a shelter, still got A’s and B’s, dad is incarcerated, worked 40 hours per week while getting good grades at a school where you walk through the metal detector each day. That person does not need a private college counselor to weave things together so she/he can stand out. And, somewhat fortunate for the high SES kids, that kid does not want to go to Middlebury.
The logic is actually very simple. Think about it this way:
Just take the logic to the extreme. If a top college eliminated all admissions criteria and replaced them with a lottery system, lower SES students on its campus would increase and be fully represented by its proportion in the population.
Maybe, maybe not. I wouldn’t use the word “better” to compare based on SES, I’d use different. The national chess champion groomed from age 5 and the kid working every night in the family business are both impressive. And the select collect acceptances reflect this.
There is an assumption on CC that the high SES is shallow and conveying that via essays etc. And the low SES is deserving and hard working. Not true.
My two points ( having been a low SES and having high SES kids), 1. Personal characteristics in teens are not dependent on income level. 2. High and low SES have very different experiences. High SES kids have high expectations almost from birth. Activities galore and competition in Pre-k. Low SES often are not given the same opportunities so their experiences are not comparable. Their personal journey can be more interesting but not always. After all, all applicants are people so they have unique experiences ( not SES based).
Who loses? The middle class kid. The middle SES who doesn’t have outstanding ECs supported since birth or a story of overcoming obstacles ( often low SES position).
Agree on the TRUE middle, but isn’t that the problem in many aspects of life.
Here is the difference IMO - There is an expectation of certain things and even a bit of packaging with high income kids. When a student is lower income, you don’t expect that and sometimes, what you imagine is better than any package you could have created. I say this having helped and evaluated both types of kids. The point by @1NJParent was that low SES kids need packaging and many in-fact do have the high scores. I, respectfully, do not agree that is the case most of the time.
That’s more like a trope.
Poor kid’s parent is in jail and supports the family.
Ok, how about rich kid has sibling with terminal illness and wins Intel science fair by studying the causes?
There are great stories to be told by many applicants. To reduce people to their SES level is nonsense IMO.