“some of that might be explained by people intentionally taking low paid jobs(TFA, Peace Corps, non-profits, government), it might reflect the 2.5 GPA student not getting a lot of good job offers either.”
Sure, it might.
There are a lot of ways you might define quality in a college course, but a big factor for me, and an area where Harvard was excellent, is good use of time. I didn’t have to be patient while other students fooled around in class or slowed things down because they didn’t understand the reading. Some classes were way more demanding than others, but I was asked to do very little busywork. My major, psychology, can sometimes be a default major that weak or passive students fall into. At Harvard, the other psychology folks thought psych was serious business and worthy of intellectual creativity. I learned from them, not just from the instructors. Despite straight A’s in my field, I was not eligible for departmental honors because I did not do a thesis.
I would have said at the time that for $25,000 a year, I expected a lot. Ha! What a bargain that price sounds like today.
You really think it’s “they need X score to keep the school admission stats high?” They get thousands of apps with 4.0 or darned close, good activities, etc, and high scores, and have the luxury of focusing on the top numbers.
High isn’t a guarantee, but the standardized tests are a hoop to jump through. Unfortunately. A poor measure of quality, but a hoop, nonetheless. One of several.
Sorry this happened, but best wishes.
Ps. Your daughter rejected 11 of those 12? A high school’s matriculation numbers for admits can also affect the next applicants.
I understand your frustrations because I also have 2 kids who were high performers in high school, one who tested well and the other who didn’t. But the path was different – kid #1, the high test/NMF kid, applied to 9 colleges, got into 8 - but most of his colleges were solid matches, not reaches. Kid #2, the one with the mediocre test scores, applied to 12 colleges, was accepted at 9 – including all but one of her reaches. My daughter’s test scores were in the bottom 25% for the reach colleges which accepted her. She chose to attend the reach which offered the best need-based aid package, and graduated near the top of her college class. The high-scoring kid #1 didn’t complete college at the LAC he originally chose, ended up with degree from a regional public. The test-challenged kid #2 is the one with the ivy-equivalent degree.
So I don’t think it’s all about tests- but it is important to have realistic expectations. If admission is competitive and test scores are not, then the student needs to stand out other ways, and aspire to colleges which are likely to value the student’s particular strengths. I also think post #34 by @notveryzen really nails it – you can postulate whatever reason you want as to why a student got rejected … but in the world of competitive admissions, the real question is why is anyone accepted. Despite test scores, I’m fairly confident that I know what it was that stood out for my 2nd kid, for the specific colleges that accepted her. Certainly that played a part in targeting schools.
Again, I understand the frustration, but life doesn’t end with the college choice. It’s just a beginning, and each college presents its own set of opportunities.
I think in your case part of the problem was that your kid #2 applied to many of the same colleges that kid #1 applied to. – so that creates the sense that your kids were in competition with one another, even though they applied in different admission seasons, different applicant pools. In my case, with the exception of in-state publics, there was no overlap – kid #1 had his heart set on a LAC; kid #2 wanted a larger, urban school - so even for the schools that waitlisted or rejected her, I can’t assume that the better-scoring older brother would have gotten in. GPA’s were comparable, but kid #2 had much stronger EC’s, so a lot more to potentially appeal to a college with more holistic admission standards.
OP. How far apart are your kids age-wise? My kids were 4 years apart in the application/admissions process. Every year everyone claimed this was the toughest, most competitive year yet. With hopes it would peak and calm down. But it hasn’t. Competition is ridiculously fierce for top schools, there are increasing numbers of very qualified applicants for limited spaces. Quite possible our kids stats that got them admitted in their year might not if they were applying this year. And then add to that the fact that these schools craft a class. What they look for to build a class may differ depending on thenother applicants each year.
Last thought- many admission rates are dropping in many schools. A school that was a safety 10 years ago now has an admission rate in the 20s. Times change.
I have never heard of a test optional school requiring scores for financial aid. Would love an example. I have heard of test optional schools requiring scores for merit aid, however.
I am not sure why the original poster has not addressed the topic of test-optional schools. It would seem that kid #2 may not have applied to the right schools, and/or any test-optional ones.
Once applicants meet a benchmark (and not sure how that works with a score of 30), admissions at selective schools is often not about scores and grades anyway. They are assembling a class and focus on what each student might bring to the mix.
Therefore, rather than spend too much time on test prep, it might be better to do something of service, something creative, wherever talent and interest lead.
Depends on what you mean by “small.” Sure, the difference between a 710 and 750 is (almost) statistical noise. But the diff between a 32 and a 29 is huge.
Bingo. There are ~6 key items in an app. Test scores are just one of them, but an important one.
But yes, certain colleges do value test scores (rankings) more than others. If you don’t have an above median test score, just don’t apply to those colleges. But if you do apply, expect to be rejected and don’t vent when you are.
(And in the OP’s case, kid #2 applied to several schools that are well known as being test-focused.)
If a student can get a better test score get a better test score because it’s the easiest thing to do on the following list. However holistic the admission process is some factors weigh more than others. The rank seems to me like this: course load and GPA, test scores, recommendations and essays, and ECs. A student has to present her/his very best on all fronts as an organic unit to college AOs. Who knows what AOs think with a student’s file in hand.
Getting back to the OP’s original post, I wonder if some of the rejections for the second kid were due to the school having accepted the older sibling and then shied away from the next one because oldest turned them down.
A professor can tell the difference between a classroom filled with kids with verbal scores in the mid 500’s and those in the mid 700’s. Are the two populations just as “smart”? I’m not a cognitive scientist so I won’t even try to answer that question-- there are multiple intelligences and wide varieties in what a range of standardized tests try to capture and measure.
But ask a professor and they will tell you the difference. And it’s even MORE pronounced in a math or science class if you look at the math SAT breakdown. An individual student with a 520 math SAT may be just as smart and capable in math as the student next to him/her with a 750. But a bunch of kids sitting together in the same classroom/lab/lecture hall? Don’t bet on it. Even taking econ or psych or one of the other social sciences (i.e. “math lite”) is going to be different when your classmates can’t follow an analysis or figure out what’s going on from a statistical basis if their math skills are markedly below the bar.
I was likely in the bottom quartile of my MBA program from a math perspective. I worked twice as hard as almost everyone in any class involving math- finance, micro, macro, operations research, even the mandatory programming class AND a mandatory two semester statistics sequence. Did I “keep up”? Yes. Could a professor tell that I wasn’t as mathematically inclined (and my standardized tests proved it) as the majority of my classmates? Yes. Am I grateful that the adcom’s took a risk with me? Yes. But to admit an entire class of folks like me??? That seems like a quick way to take a top ten program and dilute it appreciably.
Zinhead, I do think that can be a factor, though I don’t know what colleges these are. When you hit a certain point where you’re a “could be,” small things can get in the way. It can be another applicant in your local area that pulled things together just a little better, or wants some other major, plays the tuba, wrote an essay that shows just the right attributes, whatever. Or another local hs they want to pay some attention to, this year, or the fact they didn’t get much recent buy-in from your hs and want to put their cards elsewhere. All beyond the one kid’s control.
It helps to be dispassionate. It helps to tell a kid he or she did the best they could and help them move on, retain some pride and momentum.
When they ‘take a chance’ on a kid, it’s not just because they succeeded in their own hs. That’s just the hs-centric view. A bunch of “something elses” has to show the scores were either a fluke or are not representative of the path she’ll take in college, the rest of the energies that show. It’s not all about getting A grades in college.
I don’t understand why OP is frustrated. The kid got lower scores, so his chances were not as good as his older sibling. That is the whole point of requirng standard test scores by colleges.
I think it’s an excellent post from a parent who can truly compare two students with nearly equivalent experiences and qualifications and the difference those stupid 3 points make. Our son’s counselor told him that if he could just raise his ACT by 1 point from a 31 to a 32, he would be a much more appealing candidate. It’s ridiculous! And as many responses have pointed out, we’re not comparing kids with poor scores to kids with top scores. We’re talking about kids who all have strong qualifications and strong test performance with some getting a few more questions right. It can be infuriating, really. I completely understand the reasoning for the tests and the need to have an equal measure of comparison, but I really wish they didn’t carry the weight that they do at elite schools and programs or that they could come up with a better system. Both of my kids said they got bored with the testing and it was hard to concentrate for 3 hours - I think most of us as adults would agree!
Testing is the only way that kids from disadvantage backgrounds and a terrible HS can get a leg up.
Nobody notices when a kid from Camden NJ has a 3.9 GPA from a failing HS which has been taken over the by state, or when a kid from Bridgeport CT has a 4.0 from a school which had more gun and drug arrests last year than it had athletic champions. But when those same kids get high scores- despite the lack of test prep, and despite the lack of a college counselor telling them to prep for the PSAT’s so they can become NMS-- people notice.
Remove standardized testing and you might as well go back to the days when the headmaster of Groton and the headmaster of Exeter sat down with the Adcom’s and decided who was going to Harvard and who was going to Princeton.
It is like sport, a tenth of a second often makes all the difference. Doesn’t matter if it came from innate ability, hard work, luck, or expensive coaching.
Well, we do remove testing from the Fair Test schools and those build fine classes, by digging into what matters in the rest.
And the Camden-like kid with top grades and rigor (it does exist in underperforming hs) may not have top scores, but may very well have an s-load more of the rest of what’s looked for (including amazing LoRs, certain energies, and school and community impact) than the kid who sat back and founded another pie club or held another fundraiser. We assume poor kids lead flat lives, but there are those aware and striving in ways others can’t fathom.
Testing doesn’t drive “top down” selection at a holistic. The “more” really needs to be there, for highly competitive schools. One problem is what the “more” is and getting people to stop thinking of it hierarchically: more club titles, more money raised, more overt wins, more service hours, etc.
To repeat the obvious, there are far more smart, but not genius, kids than there are slots at the top universities and LACs. Someone is always going to walk away unhappy.
Grades are also not immune to manipulation, especially for wealthy students whose parents pay for tutors, for enrichment classes, for their student to take the course in the summer before taking it at school, or other ways of improving grades beyond hard work and smarts. Is there really that great of a difference between a student ranked in the 9th percentile of the class vs 11th? Yet one will be in the coveted “top 10th percent” while the other will not.
Is there a difference between the kid that just tests into the gifted program or just misses? The kid that makes second chair instead of first in many cases? Or does not get the starting spot on the soccer team?
Being just below the line is difficult in many cases. Not so different with ACT or SAT scores. But the OP’s second child will likely gain admission to many fine schools and get a great education.
Since I have kids who aren’t athletes or club presidents, I am glad there are still schools out there that DO place significant weight on test scores. A 780 in SAT math seems like a better predictor of success in a math-oriented major than being captain of the HS baseball team. I wish it were easier to figure out which schools have LESS holistic admissions.
Less holistic- there are tons of schools where admissions are largely stats based. Depending on how academically capable your kid is, it isn’t too hard to use your HS’s naviance and develop a robust list of schools.
At my kids HS, the very high stats but maybe not the superstar “cured cancer and is a champion pole vaulter” type kid is a pretty comfortable admit at Tulane, Brandeis, Vanderbilt, BC, Rice, Vasser, Skidmore, ALL of the seven sisters except for Wellesley which can be unpredictable, Conn College, etc.
Your mileage may vary but if your guidance counselors keep good records this should not be a hard task, depending on your geography. My guess is that the closer to Texas you get, the less stats driven Rice admissions becomes and the more holistic it starts to look. Etc.
And even the much maligned “Tufts Syndrome”- a very high stat kid who shows some interest at Tufts is a pretty safe admission in some parts of the country I suspect. Belmont Massachusetts or Westport CT? Likely not.