<p>I'm starting to wonder if, when mzny of these students have SAT's in the 1500's or better and pages and pages of EC's to add to their application, the admittance process may not turn into a game of rock, paper, scissors for those making the ultimate decisions.</p>
<p>Who can knowledgeably rank the clout of the following for the Ivies:</p>
<p>Legacy
SAT's
Athletic Recruitment
EC's
Difficulty of class courses taken
GPA
Class Rank</p>
<p>Thanks,</p>
<p>Dizzymom</p>
<p>Of this list I'd put GPA at the top and legacy at the bottom, but the exact order in between could be summed up as "it depends". </p>
<p>Depends on the school and how much they value standardized tests. Depends on which sport you are talking about - being recruited as star quarterback may carry a bigger boost than being recruited for say volleyball. It depends on whether the high school ranks and how rigorous the courses were that the school offered. It depends on whether the EC is unusual or fills a slot that the college is looking to fill - does the orchestra need a bassoon player? Like I said, it depends.</p>
<p>None of the Above. If all things equal and legacy ignored--. MONEY. and the super trump card--Potential future influence (ie gifts, foundations, political connections).</p>
<p>Legacy is absolutely, positively NOT at the bottom. This is one topic I know a great deal about and have experience in, and several Ivies. The Yale president recently published an article on the importance of legacies at Yale and the fact that the ones they accept have HIGHER scores than other applicants....</p>
<p>The race and ethnic group preferences for URMs (blacks, latinos) used in admissions to the Ivies and elite colleges is the factor that "trumps". All other admissions factors pale in comparison.</p>
<p>Since we're talking about Ivies, I would think Legacy would be over sports recruitment. I agree that GPA is first, followed by academic rigor, then SAT. However, as has been stated, these factors are viewed in light of the high school. A 4.0 at one school might not be viewed as accomplished as a 3.0 at another. </p>
<p>BTW, I was surprised to read that some schools consider you a Legacy if a grandparent attended.</p>
<br>
<blockquote> <p>BTW, I was surprised to read that some schools consider you a Legacy if a grandparent attended. <<</p> </blockquote>
<br>
<p>The UPenn considers grandchildren and even great grandchildren of Penn alumni of any of its schools at the UPenn, as a "legacy". Our son's great-grandfather and grandaunt (his great-grandfather's daughter) both received their MDs from UPenn School of Medicine, and our son was told that he was considered a legacy on this basis. However, my son's mother also attended UPenn and she was considered a legacy of UPenn based on her grandfather's MD from UPenn.</p>
<p>Again, the race and ethnic group preferences for URMs (blacks, latinos) used in admissions to the Ivies and elite colleges is the factor that "trumps". All other admissions factors pale in comparison.</p>
<p>For the schools which have Common data Sets (Dartmouth, Princeton, Cornell) this is how they are ranked</p>
<p>Dartmouth</p>
<p>Academic- Transcrips, rank, recs, test scores, essays
Non academic- EC, character/ Personal Qualities, volunteer work, talent/ abilities, interview, alumni, geographic, minority status, work experience</p>
<p>Princeton
Academic- transcript, rank, recs, scores, essay
Non-academic- ECs, talent/ability, character, alumni, geographic, volunteer, work, interview</p>
<p>Cornell</p>
<p>Academic- transcript, recs, scores, essays, rank</p>
<p>Complete data sets can be found at the following:</p>
<p>Princeton common data set</p>
<p>Dartmouth common data set</p>
<p>Cornell common data set</p>
<p><a href="http://dpb.cornell.edu/irp/cds.htm%5B/url%5D">http://dpb.cornell.edu/irp/cds.htm</a></p>
<p>The other Ivies did not have common data sets, but they do provide their fact books. maybe this will help you</p>
<p><a href="http://www.yale.edu/oir/otherlinks.html%5B/url%5D">http://www.yale.edu/oir/otherlinks.html</a></p>
<p>Money. Lots of it. Given freely. Admit rates for B students with 1200 SATs and trips to Europe as ECs, with dads or granddads who give $20 mil is close to 100%, I'd bet. (and I've were an adcom, that's the way I'd do it, too.)</p>
<p>All the rest are much lower down the list.</p>
<br>
<p>These two are really the same thing, athletic recruitment being a specialized subset of a whole range of things an applicant can "bring to the party".</p>
<br> [QUOTE=""]
<blockquote> <p>Difficulty of class courses taken GPA Class Rank</p> </blockquote>
<br>
<p>These are all the same thing, as well. Just three tools for evaluating how a student did in high school. The exact blend depends on the individual high school and how best to evaluate its students. Generally, GPA by itself is a meaningless number, but if the adcom knows the school or has a complete GPA distribution curve, it could be useful.</p>
<p>You didn't even list the biggest "trump" card -- race and ethnicity. There are many factors that go into college acceptance, but if you had to pick just one, the color of your skin has the biggest impact.</p>
<p>interesteddad:</p>
<br>
<blockquote> <p>You didn't even list the biggest "trump" card -- race and ethnicity. There are many factors that go into college acceptance, but if you had to pick just one, the color of your skin has the biggest impact. <<</p> </blockquote>
<br>
<p>I agree.</p>
<p>Again, the race and ethnic group preferences for URMs (blacks, latinos) used in admissions to the Ivies and elite colleges is the factor that "trumps" the most. All other admissions factors pale in comparison.</p>
<p>Could we not conclude that the primordial element is a combination of comparative merits within a subgroup and identifiable future contributions to the school. For instance, I do not disagree that race and ethnicity are extremely important, but do we REALLY know if it displaces non-minority students? Does a qualified -by comparison within his peer group- under-represented student take the admission spot of a member of an over-represented group or does he simply take a space that the university wants to see filled to ensure a diversified campus? </p>
<p>I believe that analyses of admissions by laymen tend to put too much emphasis on absolute merit measurements (GPA, rank, SAT) and overlook the short-term and long-term contributions of students. When measuring the benefits derived from matriculating athletes, artists, and especially legacies, it becomes clear that they are entirely worthy of their preferred status. Despite falling short, the universities' attempt to strive for diversity and correct the divergences between overall population distribution and student body is laudable. On the other hand, you cannot blame the schools for reassessing their admission policies after considering the lacking contributions of over-represented subgroups. The blame falls entirely on the members of those groups. </p>
<p>At the end of the day, the main question for adcoms at schools remains: "What does student X brings to the school and how well did he express his desire to have a positive impact on our institution". </p>
<p>The quicker one realizes that an application is a lot more than a grade scorecard, the better he will be.</p>
<p>Thank you for all the great information! I totally forgot about ethnicity -- I keep thinking I live in a world where it's our abilities and accomplishments, not the color of our skin or cultural heritage that determine our suitability for selection.</p>
<p>It will be curious to see what happens in the case of my S. He is being recruited and has the higher (slightly) SAT scores. A second student is equally qualified academically but with slightly lower SAT's, but is a legacy. A third student is also being recruited with slightly lower academic qualifications. All three are pasty-white males, sigh. Will only one get in? Two? All three? None? Only time will tell...but in the athletic recruitment game, if you apply ED to one school, you tell the coaches of the other schools no, so it is a sticky issue...</p>
<p>Dizzymom</p>
<p>In my limited experience, adcoms don't sit around looking at the various clout of different parts of the application (with the exception of money - "developmental admits" - that trumps absolutely everything). They are not in the business of accepting individuals - they ARE in the business of building a class in keeping with the school's institutional mission. For one candidate, the fact that she plays English horn may trump SATs, grades, recs. etc., if the school is desperate for an English horn player. For another candidate, being the son of an active alum who heads the Los Angeles alumni club might trump everything else. For still another, the perfect math and physics SAT scores and the rec from a member of the school's own faculty might trump. </p>
<p>Since SATs, and to a lesser extent difficulty of curriculum and ECs are a function of family income or (in the case of SATs) income of those in geographic proximity to the school, strong attention to these can help ensure the financial aid bill is not too high (especially for so-called "need-blind" (doesn't exist) schools). And it can work in the opposite way when looking for low-income candidates. (I would be quite willing to bet - but they will never publish the data -- that admissions odds for high income candidates (top 5%) at, say, Yale are 1 in 3 or 1 in 4, for low-income candidates (bottom 35%) about 1 in 7, and for middle-income candidates (35%-95%) no more than 1 in 20.)</p>
<p>A lot of bitterness erupts when people do not understand that a college is selecting a community, and when those people place too much emphasis on stats. That only works for giant factory schools who admit being numbers driven, not select private schools, etc.</p>
<p>That's when you get all kinds of nonsense about - "My kid had higher stats but so-and-so got in, therefore so-and-so took my kid's spot." This could not be be wrong-headed and misguided. </p>
<p>And then you get all the backbiting, "So-and-so only got in because he or she was a legacy/URM/athlete/whatever...."</p>
<p>If I could teach people only ONE thing about the admissions process, it would be that stats are not everything, do not guarantee anything,and should NOT be used as a litmus test to somehow prove that someone got in who should not have.</p>
<p>I also thank Mini for reminding people that "need blind" doesn't exist, at least in the way people think it does. One student on the kids' board actually argued that since the financial aid office and admissions office are several blocks apart at one Ivy, the admissions people had NO IDEA who was applying for aid - LOL! YES, all schools know whether you are applying for aid - and often how much money your parents are worth!</p>
<p>"Need blind" merely means that THEORETICALLY they are supposed to put that knowledge aside (kinda like when a jury is instructed to base a decision on JUST what was heard in the courtroom).</p>
<p>To me, "stats" are simply a useful tool in building an appropriate college list. Even then, they have to be viewed in the context of the entire application. For example, a black male and white female with the same "stats" should probably have a different range of colleges on their target list.</p>
<p>Once at that stage, you really have to consider each individual college as a separate equation.</p>
<p>""Need blind" merely means that THEORETICALLY they are supposed to put that knowledge aside (kinda like when a jury is instructed to base a decision on JUST what was heard in the courtroom)."</p>
<p>Actually, it means more than that. "Need-blind" is a way to favor higher income candidates over lower-income ones (if they so choose). There aren't too many low-income fencers, equestrians, English horn players, or speakers of fluent Italian (as a result of a second home on the Italian Riviera). There are fewer low-income applicants who can afford expensive test prep for SATs, or who simply can afford to take the SATs multiple times. (Colleges could correct for that very easily - take the LOWEST scores from all SAT sittings - but note that they won't.) Schools in less affluent areas are less likely to have "more challenging" curricula. GCs from lower-income schools are less likely to have regular contact with adcoms, going back years or even decades. </p>
<p>If you truly want lower-income candidates, you have to be "need-aware". You have to actively recruit applicants from lower-income schools (and do so for multiple years), free up some funds for more campus visits and the like), and find ways to account for the different ECs (like caring for a disabled mother) that lower-income candidates are likely to have, at the expense of other ones, and the differences in SAT sittings and test prep.</p>
<p>"Take the LOWEST scores from multiple SAT sittings"</p>
<p>Mini, you're a riot!</p>
<p>Xiggi said,</p>
<br>
<blockquote> <p>On the other hand, you cannot blame the schools for reassessing their admission policies after considering the lacking contributions of over-represented subgroups. The blame falls entirely on the members of those groups. <<</p> </blockquote>
<br>
<p>I find this statement erroneous. I think these schools are "reassessing their admission policies" with de facto quotas against Asian Americans for reasons other than their lack of contributions. I also find this statement filled with racist stereotyping, inferring that the "over-represented subgroups" or Asian Americans are "lacking contributions". There should be no blame towards Asian Americans. Asian Americans are subjected to de facto limiting quotas because of political correctness of flaming white liberals and the fear of "Yelloe Peril". An analogous situation existed with the Jews, pre WW II with the anti-Jewish quotas in the Ivies and elite colleges.</p>
<p>The only two "overrepresented" subgroups in the Ivies and many of the elite colleges that come to mind are the Jews at 25% of the Ivies, and 30% of of Harvard and the Asian Americans at 15% of the Ivies and 18% of Harvard. Jews are 2.5% and Asian Americans are 4% of the American population.</p>
<p>Where is the evidence that either of these ""over-represented sub-groups" are "lacking in contributions"? There is no basis in fact for this statement.</p>
<p>American Jews are well known for their contributions to higher education. Asian Americans have also contributed more than their share, both in the advancement of academic excellence and in BIG MONEY. There is no need to mention the Asian American professors or the number of Asian American Nobel Prize winners, who benefit all of mankind. This is priceless.</p>
<p>The biggest monetary contribution to date of $100 million from a single contributor to Princeton University is from Sir Gordon Wu, a Chinese alum and billionaire master builder of the world. He has made other contributions besides this one and has a building named after him on the Princeton campus. His brother, Dr. Cyde Wu, an alum of Columbia College of Physicians and Surgeons, and a Trustee of Columbia, has contributed millions to Columbia for scholarships and the endowment of a chaired Professorship at the medical school. Dr. Clyde Wu is one of two Chinese American Trustees of Columbia University. The other one is Savio Tung, a partner and principle of Invest Corp., the IB firm which buys out and sells companies, including Saks Fifth Ave and Tiffany's. He has made major contributions to Columbia. There was also a Japanese American Trustee of Columbia, giving a total of 3 Asian American Trustees at Columbia, out of a possible 25. The engineering school at Columbia is named the Fu Foundation School of Engineering and Applied Science through the generosity of a Chinese person, Mr. Fu, who didn't even graduate from or attend Columbia. He made major contibutions in excess of $35 million to the school and the school wisely changed its name. He is line to make more contributions in the millions to Columbia. Mr. Fu fell in love with the school when he first visited, taking beginning English courses. His brother-in-law is also the Chairman of the Dept. of Applied Physics at Columbia.</p>
<p>The Chairman of the Board of Trustees at Phillips Academy, Andover, is a Chinese American immigrant alum, named Oscar Tang, who is Andover's biggest contributor in its history. The Tang Theatre at Andover is named after his late wife, also an alumna. Mr. Tang is also an alum of Yale College and the Harvard Business School, as well as a patron to the arts. He contibutes to all these institutions. There are Asians on the Boards of Trustees of many of the N.E. elite boarding schools, including Exeter, Groton, Milton and St. Paul's School. All of them have made MAJOR contributions to their schools, both monetarirly and otherwise.</p>
<p>Maya Lin was elected to the Yale Corporation (Trustees) which oversees Yales's business and policies. She is a Chinese American architect, famous for her design of the Vietnam Memorial in Washington, DC and the Martin Luther King Memorial in Alanta, Georgia.</p>
<p>I could go on and on. </p>
<p>In terms of contributions to their alma maters, Asian Americans have more than their share. You dealing in racist stereotypes, if you think otherwise.</p>
<p>Why's it a riot? If they truly want to measure what the CollegeBoard says they can measure, namely, first-year college performance, why do they want multiple sittings or test prep mucking around in it? (Actually, now THERE would be interesting study - which one correlates better with first-year college performance, the lowest scores or the highest ones? I have my suspicions....)</p>