<p>fair enough. Tis true.</p>
<p>But it is also true that Churchhill finished at the bottom of his class every year because of his writing, and still emerged to be one heck of a writer.</p>
<p>Our system is too systemy, but I don’t see any solution to that, so I will be quiet.</p>
<p>[q]Top colleges will take a few outliers, sure. But they love balanced, interesting kids. That’s a big part of holistic.[/q]</p>
<p>A lot of people in this thread have made the point that colleges are seeking a balance. Not necessarily in each kid, but overall. If that is the case, then shouldn’t there be room for subsets? eg. nerdy math types who can’t write; brilliant writers who can’t add; leaders; followers (you can’t have all Admirals); artsy types; etc. </p>
<p>If the goal is to balance a class, then there should certainly be room for some of the outliers that I have mentioned.</p>
<p>I’m confused, what makes you think that colleges are not accepting the people you mention above?</p>
<p>There are plenty of examples on many of these threads. One such example was on the UVA thread where an in-state student with a 2340 SAT and a 4.0+ was waitlisted; some theorized that it was a lack of a good essay, or a lack of ECs, and how they agreed with the decision because in a holistic review you need to be “well-rounded”. I’ve seen National Merit finalists turned down lately from schools where they were significantly above the top decile with regards to SATs for example.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Because you know of some students like this who were not admitted does not mean that there weren’t plenty like the above who were.</p>
<p>A well rounded class includes both well-rounded kids and pointy ones. Ironically my math kid looked better to Harvard than MIT or Caltech. (On paper however he probably looked more well rounded than he really was 800 verbal, 5 on the History AP as well as a math and science heavy schedule.)</p>
<p>The UVA kid who didn’t get in with great scores and grades obviously didn’t have anything that made the admissions office accept him, but it may not have been that he needed to be more well rounded. Grades and scores open the door, but everything else (teacher recommendations, essays, activities, the general feel of who you are from your application is what gets you in.)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s basically my point. For extremely high achievers like that they could let all of them in and still have 95% of the class allotment available for others. There are only about 100 kids that have an SAT score like that in VA. Even if all of them have 4.0s, then UVA could give all of them spots and still have 8000 spots left out of the 8100 offers they make.</p>
<p>UVA has its own peculiarities, owing to the immense competition and so many super high schools in the northern part, plus the need to include kids from lesser areas. It’s a genuine crapshoot.</p>
<p>But at what SAT level does one want to uniformly accept? Or with a certain paired GPA? Yes, 2340 is way up there, but so is 2290. When one starts drawing a line, the question becomes where.</p>
<p>Most holistic processes still look at the information in the application and give it some grade per seciton. I remember the book where a Duke admissions employee gave out its methodology. I 've heard that a number of schools do that sort of “grading” of components of an application. If Grades get a 1-5 rating, top 4.o perfect unweighted will be in the same 5 group as where the next category starts, say a 3.85. Then one has to grade the curriculum and those that are in schools that just don’t have the difficulty in courses, how can you give those kids a 5, when some kids in such school will take supplemental courses showing how they perform head to head with those in tougher schools? There are then the ratings for essay, recs and ECs. Looking at it that way, a top kid at a mediocre school with high SAts could still miss the cut off. Then if you need to star the app with a special hook or category, that also comes into the picture.</p>
<p>One tippy top school we visited said basically the following: they had score and gpa minimums (not revealed to us) which in effect got the applicant through round 1 (or not). Once you entered the door, so to speak, the numbers were ignored and the other factors were what separated those who were accepted from those who weren’t, as in the admissions department’s estimation, they are all academically qualified. In that kind of scenario, the 2250 kid and the 2400 kid, both with UW 3.85 and 4.0 GPAs respectively are basically on even ground after round 1. So an applicant who is nothing more than an SAT and GPA may very well not make the final cut at that school during that application period.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s a valid point, but other places manage to do it. It doesn’t matter if it’s NMF numbers or whatever, they just do it. Maybe it could be a percentage thing- top 1% or something. And if someone was only top 1.1% then they wouldn’t be any worse off than they are now. They would still get a “holistic” review.</p>
<p>Agree with Nrdsb4. It’s only ime, but after round 1, each new app is treated the same. It’s the kid’s to win or lose. I tell kids all the time, your app package is all you have to represent you. In that, you put more than your courses and stats. Your app will be read by seasoned adults, strangers, who are in charge of building the freshman class, not kids who respond to your chance-me thread.</p>
<p>UVA is a state school, so its mandate is different. Even so, cds says 43% of its freshmen scored 700-800 on the SAT M.</p>
<p>That’s a valid point, but other places manage to do it. It doesn’t matter if it’s NMF numbers or whatever, they just do it. Maybe it could be a percentage thing- top 1% or something. And if someone was only top 1.1% then they wouldn’t be any worse off than they are now. They would still get a “holistic” review.</p>
<p>Which schools are you referencing? Because for selective schools I just see this backfiring. It would create a ridiculously inflated importance for the SAT. Kids would just keep retaking the test an unreasonable amount of times to get above the cutoff, and then it would have to be continually raised to allow room for others. And what happens when it gets to 2400? I’d bet that if it were known that a 2400 was an automatic admit to Harvard, soon they’d be getting thousands of them. The kids lose because they waste their time mastering a test that’s useless outside of college admissions, and the colleges lose because they have to admit all these kids that they don’t necessarily want.</p>
<p>Edit: My guess is that colleges realize that the difference between a 2100 and a 2300 can be as little as a couple practice tests and some luck, so many of them just use the academic thresholds that Nrdsb4 mentioned (post #90) in their holistic admissions.</p>
<p>That’s so true. Its like all the people hollering to get rid of the electoral college. Sure, maybe its a good idea, but you can’t suddenly change the rules in the middle of the contest. People who campaign completely diffferently if they knew they were going for popular vote.</p>
<p>
I don’t know all the schools that have automatic admissions for SAT or ACT scores. Alabama is the first one that comes to mind. I just know I have read that others do as well. </p>
<p>I think you raise a good point, but if I remember the stats correctly it is invalid. Why? I am almost positive that the statistics are that once you take the SAT 3 times you don’t get any improvement in your score (on average), and most of the kids I hear about already take it at least 2 times, if not 3 anyway. I also think, but am less sure, that there usually is very little increase from the 2nd to the 3rd time taking it.</p>
<p>Edit-avg increase from 1st to 2nd time is 30 pts I just found out.</p>
<p>Those averages are very true. For someone who takes the test cold one time, or even three times in a row, there won’t be much (if any) increase in score. But, if the system shifted to emphasize SAT scores more, more students would prep for it. When kids start getting 10+ SATs under their belt the scores do rise. I have no statistical evidence of this, but if you take a look at the SAT section of the forum you’ll see the same. At a certain point one starts to get a feel for the test, and understand how the collegeboard is writing their questions. If a certain score was posted as a cutoff for HYPSM ect, I believe that it would become much more prevalent to see kids taking 10s or 100s of practice tests coupled with private tutors. Those kids scores would skyrocket, and it would create an even more biased system. The students from wealthy families who did not have to work to support the family would reap the benefits of a SAT centric admissions system, and universities would lose a huge amount of the diversity that they pride themselves on.</p>
<p>I fully support the idea of objective admissions, just point me to an unbiased scale they can be based on.</p>
<p>they could just admit the highest scores, but they don’t. There’s an admission guy over on the UVA board, go and ask him why. You can get an actual answer to that question right from the school.</p>
<p>Schools want strong programs, not just strong test scores, or highest scoring admitted matriculating classes, though who would really argue that the 3% of students Harvard is going to admit in the next few days are going to have low scores? Nobody.</p>
<p>They want a strong theater department and a strong art department and a strong music department. The don’t only want a strong class of engineers, though they do also want strong engineering students. They want a few sports people want to watch, and they would like to have some empathetic people to be RA’s, and others to do research, but they’d also like a few strong creative writers and a dance department.</p>
<p>The SAT does not test for these aptitudes. No college will be considered top rated, except for MIT and GT, and CalTech, who have cornered the market on this, if all they have is strong testers, and even those schools want people to come and study economics, as well.</p>
<p>There ARE countries who do what you are talking about, just take the top test takers. They also tend to take them when they are very young. It’s not the system we have here, though the average SAT range for the top 25 schools in the US, is high enough. </p>
<p>Why do you believe that a higher SAT makes a “better” student? Has this been your experience? I Have a very, very high stat kid, but it’s NOT what makes her interesting, as a person, OR as a student.</p>
<p>So, what is it about high SAT’s that you think make for a better all around student and campus contributor?</p>
<p>Jerekson said
</p>
<p>I wasn’t talking about HYPSM etc. I was thinking of state schools that are turning away people that many would argue were more qualified. </p>
<p>poet said
</p>
<p>He is actually a she. I think the name Dean throws people off, but she is Dean, not a Dean Dean ;)</p>
<p>and
</p>
<p>So, you still haven’t answered why it is ok to allow a small subset like those you mentioned, but not a small subset that I suggest. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>First of all you keep misinterpreting my comments. I keep saying SATs and a high GPA. The entire thread has been about a high SAT and GPA.</p>
<p>And, finally, I don’t think high SAT kids make better all around students or campus contributors. I just think in a state school that strives to get a balanced population of artists, athletes, writers, leaders, etc, there should be a place for super high achieving kids who also have super high GPAs.</p>
<p>And, finally, I don’t think high SAT kids make better all around students or campus contributors. I just think in a state school that strives to get a balanced population of artists, athletes, writers, leaders, etc, there should be a place for super high achieving kids who also have super high GPAs.</p>
<p>Isn’t that the honors programs…? Sorry I’m not sure I understand what you’re asking.</p>
<p>Some public universities may have SAT and GPA cutoffs which result in automatic admissions. I don’t think it’s a good idea for selective schools. I also really don’t think there’s any difference in predictable intellect between a kid with a 2200 and a 2400.</p>
<p>But it really doesn’t matter, because the fact is that they accept plenty of kids with 2400 scores and top GPAs. It’s just that they’ve done more than just get good scores.</p>