Ha, ha. Those are not academic superstars. High school is pretty easy, as most people will admit (average cumulative GPA of college bound seniors has been reported to be in the A- range, B+ at the worst) and of course by definition the high school student body is “average”. One of the great disservices that has been done to high school kids through the grade inflation and watering down of standardized tests is that many students believe themselves to be much more talented than they are, leading to absurdly inflated numbers of applications. Information asymmetry - as the data show most applicants are instant rejects on academics alone - leads kids to focus on impressing adcoms rather than learning in high school. Self selection on more transparent admissions criteria or at least more numbers would go a long way towards tamping down the craziness of college admissions.
@lookingforward you are just theorizing since 1) there are not that many perfect scores/grades applicants and 2) the apps are not ranked or scored. How do we know that there are not that many perfect 240 applicants? Well to start–
SAT 1600 - 361 applicants (~1.0% of applicants)
ACT 36C - 625 applicants (~1.7% of applicants)
986 out of 40,000
Not theorizing, I’m saying based on experience.
I said grades and “top scores,” not perfect scores. Big difference. For some reason, this thread is hyperfocused on perfect scores. That old need to be hierarchical, I suppose. And then back it up with counts or analyses.
But that’s not what gets one into a tippy top. A different sort of savvy is. A fuller savvy.
Satchel, this isn’t theoretical. Adcoms deal with what they get. If a kid has straight A grades, he’s got straight A grades. Then you look at rigor and the rest. You’d like a more transparent formula, but frankly, I think that just leads to recipe thinking. Do this and that and raise your chances. That’s not the level of thinking and activation these schools expect. Every time someone says, win a national award, found a club, or run a fundraiser, I wince. I advocate all the time for kids (or parents, I don’t care who does it) to dig into what top colleges “look for” and get blowback. Lol, if they can’t find what IS there, how much easier do you want it?
If this is off track, ignore it and carry on.
sorry it is theorizing about apps: we all have experiences. Ns of our own plus some data.
I think we’ll have to agree to disagree about whether the higher admit rate for perfect AI kids is primarily due to stats themselves or perfect stat kids tending to do well on the rest of the application. I’d expect that the perfect class rank valedictorians of the selective HSs where the perfect scores are concentrated tend to get have impressive LORs, counselor LOR, interview ratings (during this period it was common for Harvard interviewers to request stats), more likely to have have outstanding ECs, generally more likely have the full non-stat criteria Harvard looks for, etc.
The discussed perfect stat applicants’ AI score was among the 99.7th percentile of applicants during the sample years, and most of this group likely also did well in various other application criteria besides stats, yet most of this perfect stat group was still rejected. Compared to the sample years that started in 2003, today admit rates are lower, perfect stats are not as rare, AI uses GPA where 4.0s are more common instead of rank, and there is likely a greater degree of non-stat emphasis. So I think it is safe to assume that admit rates for perfect stat applicants would be significantly lower today.
In contrast, legacies who were among the upper ~half academic rating had a higher admit rate than 99.7th percentile AI applicants, with most of this legacy group being admitted. If perfect stats is a boost beyond the rest of the application criteria, then it seems like less of a boost than occurs with the standard hooks. Consistent with this, regression coefficients for AI also show dramatic decreases when controlling for the rest of the application (AO ratings in LORs, interview, ECs, etc), putting the apparent AI advantage at far below the level of standard hooks/boosts after controls, with the possible exception of a low end filter (AI^2 when AI less than average). It’s true that a group composed of only 0.3% of applicants is not going to have much impact on regression coefficients. However, the admit rate appears to be a smooth trend line, rather than one with a sharp change between perfect and one off from perfect, as would occur if Harvard was big on the distinction between perfect AI or SAT score vs non-perfect score.
We actually don’t disagree at all, @Data10. The perfect stat admits see the huge boost over just 40 SAT points lower because they are significantly smarter, on average. 99.7% happens to be just under +3sd. Where do you think the very few candidates +3sd or higher are going to be lurking? Not in the middle of the academic index pack, but right up there compressed at the tail.
See my initial post on this thread, where I wrote:
[quote]
Scores in themselves of course are not that important; the high admit rates for perfect scorers reflect the group’s much higher average intelligence, which will be positively correlated with all the other factors that are important to schools; so, it’s not that the scores get the kids in, it’s more that the scores evidence their underlying excellence on many other important dimensions as well, again on average for the group./quote
Last post on this topic from me. On to trying to dissect how weak the legacy and development groups are.
@data10 gets it but no one else . Correlation and causation are NOT the same thing. Let me give an example. Being a human being is 100 per cent correlated with getting into Harvard. Or being between 16 and 22 is about 99 per cent correlated with getting into Harvard. That doesn’t mean either one is a causal factor. The seminal work on causal inference is by Donald Rubin who has been at Harvard for about 40 years. I think it would make good reading for most of the posters
I have actually talked to Harvard AOs a number of years ago who have indicated that after about 1500 on current scale it simply does not matter what you get on the SAT. So anyone trying to get a perfect score on the SAT is completely and totally wasting their time.
I couldn’t agree more with @compmom
When the pool is culled down to the supposed 3x that reach finals, it makes sense some proportion of those admitted will be at the top of that last group, stats-wise. Just as it makes sense some will be classics majors or meet geo diversity.
“There are plenty of academic superstars applying to Ivies. Day after day of them, top scores, no B grades. Or maybe just one, in some non-core.”
Your definition of academic superstars is very different than one being discussed, its like top >5% applicants, we are talking about top <1%(on every academic criteria) with single attempt high SAT, all 5s on plethora of AP, high SAT II, all straight As type of superstars. Statistically, there is a very limited number out there of gifted individuals at that level.
NO academic superstars are not single attempt high SAT or all 5s on AP subject tests. They are the kids who get $2000 a performance for their classical musical performance. They are kids who can write about homological characterization of local rings while in high school. They are kids who develop a new test for certain types of cancer that is ready to be used
Well, no, I’ve never seen a kid with those first two accomplishments, collegedad. Or anywhere near it. And my resource isn’t chance me threads. And reality is that most kids doing cancer research are tagging on to the work of others.
Is there a myth about ‘academic superstars?’ There are those few hundred unique kids H intentionally takes. But again, this is slipping toward the hierarchical notions of better or best.
Those are actual kids who have gone to Harvard.
But those sorts are rare. UNiquely driven. And except for the Harvard few hundred who get in based on might alone, most “academic superstars” are still held to holistic standards, at tippy tops.
^ I agree
Hey guys! This probably isn’t too relevant to the original thread (hopefully I’m not hijacking) but I would like to thank the OP & contributors to this thread. I’m sorry to say that I believed the persistent rumors that Harvard could fill its freshman classes 3x with perfect students with perfect stats (but they choose not to) and, as a result, the odds of admission for normal students are almost <1 percent. I am happy to learn that the statistics indicate otherwise. It seems as if there IS a non-negligible chance of admission for unhooked, high-stats students.
Until now, despite being a 3.9 UW / 1590 SAT Student, I was too disheartened by the perceived odds to consider applying to top unis. I am pleased to say that my perspective on admissions and the odds have changed quite dramatically and, as a result, I have chosen to APPLY to Harvard and other selective schools, at least partially as a result of information I learned on threads such as these. Thanks, again, everybody. Please keep contributing.
@collegedad13 Every star with high potential doesn’t have access to classical music training, being published and having dedicated research mentors. This is specially difficult for middle class as parents can’t fund it or have connections for and free programs usually are limited to low income or URMs only. Some middle class geniuses are lucky to find opportunities but most aren’t. For many, best shot is to give 100% to their studies and extracurriculars at school.
Does this include international applicants who did SAT/ACT?
Hello - does anyone know if the following reports were ever released? Cited on page 3 of the Card Rebuttal (3/15/18)??
Arcidiacono Rebuttal
Kahlenberg Rebuttal
Card Report (first one)
I’m trying to read through the Card Rebuttal, but its difficult to understand without seeing the original reports. Seems like a lot of disagreement between Arcidiacono and Card. If the court has released any of the docs above, could someone post a link, or send me PM? I’d like to have a look and read through it.
Sure, here are some links:
First Card report: https://projects.iq.harvard.edu/files/diverse-education/files/expert_report_as_filed_d._mass._14-cv-14176_dckt_000419_033_filed_2018-06-15.pdf
Kahlenberg and Arcidiacono initial and rebuttal reports linked here: https://studentsforfairadmissions.org/sffa-files-motion-for-summary-judgment-against-harvard/
In that second cite are also links to Harvard’s own internal OIR analyses (3 of them, right near the bottom of the page), which are very interesting.
Last, the Trump DOJ just today filed a brief in opposition to Harvard’s motion for summary judgment. The excerpts from the depositions of Fitzsimmons and other adcoms are particularly interesting and I don’t think we have seen those before today. My opinion is that this will go to trial (Harvard will fail in its motion to dismiss) and that Fitzsimmons will lose his job after 45 years at Harvard.
DOJ brief here: http://cdn.cnn.com/cnn/2018/images/08/30/harvard_statement_of_interest_filed_0.pdf
@satchelSF, thank you so much. I’ll take a look.