<p>What would be the equivalent cut off for the ACT?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Harvard apparently thinks that the SAT writing section is more predictive of college success than the other parts of the SAT reasoning test.
<a href=“Guidance Office: Answers From Harvard's Dean, Part 2 - The New York Times”>Guidance Office: Answers From Harvard's Dean, Part 2 - The New York Times;
<p>“That said, our studies consistently demonstrate that standardized tests are helpful in predicting Harvard grades. Of course many other factors are important too, including high school grades, teacher and counselor recommendations, and intangible personal qualities that are reflected throughout the application.”</p>
<p>We already know H has been accused in the past of grade inflation, fwiw. And student gpa is usually not a measure of the standing of colleges. It’s a nice thing to track. Institutional Research depts track lots of things. Does anyone believe college gpa is more important than, say, freshman retention or grad rates? I don’t. The old standard for “college gpa,” btw, was sophomore grades. </p>
<p>Retention and graduation rates have an indirect relationship to GPA, in that students who struggle and get low GPAs tend to fall into academic probation, which can lead to academic dismissal.</p>
<p>
If you are going to set a score above a certain theshold as being irrelevant, I’d expect many colleges to set that level at least high enough to not negatively impact published test scores and their use in USNWR ranking, along with their perception among applying students and alumni. At ivy-type highly selective colleges, scores of 2250 generally will negatively impact some of the published 75th percentile scores . At HYPSM, this published score / USNWR ranking threshold is often above 2350. This fits with the Duke quote I listed earlier, where they mentioned that scores in the high 700s were required for the maximum rating in their test score evaluation category in 2010, which coincidentally fits with the range of Duke’s 75th percentile scores during that period.</p>
<p>That said, I’d expect highly selective holistic colleges consider the scores in the context of the full application, including ones that might summarize all test scores with a simple 1-10 numeric representation, rather than not considering anything besides a 1-10 numeric summary of all scores. For example, earlier in the thread I mentioned being admitted to selective colleges with a low test score sum. It’s not a coincidence that I was admitted as an engineering applicant with a far stronger math than verbal score. I’d expect that if had the same score sum, but reversed math and verbal (500 math / 800 verbal), I would have been rejected, as the colleges considered the scores in the context of my full application, including my prospective major, passions, achievements, etc. </p>
<p>
Identifying students who can handle the coursework well enough to graduate is no doubt a key consideration for some colleges, but the highly selective colleges that we have been discussing in this thread don’t exactly struggle to find applicants that are academically qualified enough to graduate. In another thread, a poster mentioned a Harvard admissions officer saying 85% of their applicants were academically qualified, which fits with Harvard’s ~98% 6-year graduation rate. Having an abundance of academically qualified applicants leads to different goals than trying to create a class composed of students with the best chance of a 4.0 in (freshman?) year prior to effects of a curve, by emphasizing the portions of the application that have the highest correlation with (freshman?) year GPA. Instead I’d expect they might admit a kid who sounds like he would make the campus a better place while attending and is likely to do amazing things after graduating, over others who they estimate are more likely to have a 4.0 in freshman year, but don’t really stand out. I certainly wouldn’t assume that the stats that are most correlated with (freshman?) GPA in internal studies are the most important factors in admissions decisions.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Having looked through the decision threads of many schools on CC, I don’t recall one other accepted student at HYPSM being admitted with similar stats to yours (500 verbal/800 math). So, although your case may not have been a coincidence, I think it is highly unusual.</p>
<p>Frankly, this needs to be said: anyone now graduated from college was likely admitted under a scenario that has evolved. Ten years ago, eg, Harvard’s number of apps was roughly half what it was this spring, for the same number of seats. 5 years ago, most colleges were still reading paper apps and waiting for scores to be manually attached. Yearly, you can see differences in what a college wants and needs the next fall and what the pool of applicants is actually offering. </p>
<p>Gibby’s method of looking at what the college actually says is much more effective than trying to find some statistical model for holistic and then working backwards. And then you vet. Why do we think H asks, eg, “Have you been stretching yourself?” </p>
<p>
You are unlikely to find the lowest stat admits in decision threads since CC decision threads are an extremely poor representation of the overall application pool. Some segments of the application pool are extremely overrepresented on CC, such as top stat kids who attend top high schools and are very focused on the college process, while other segments are almost not existent, such as those who apply with scores on a section that are not much above the US average – not those who are accepted, just those who apply. Nevertheless, we do occasionally hear about CC posters who are admitted to highly selective colleges with scores in the 500s on one section or equivalent. One example is the poster Mr Tubbs who was accepted to selective colleges like Stanford and Columbia, with an ACT equivalent of scores in the 500s on math and science and a 99+ percentile score on the reading section. I expect many long time posters will remember him because he went on to receive the highest award given to Stanford students (Dinkelspeil) and became the youngest ever elected official of his home town during his graduation year. </p>
<p>That said, I never claimed my scores were common. My verbal score was among the ~6 lowest in the entering class for my year at Stanford, putting me well into the bottom percentile of those who submitted SAT. My point was that my score distribution suggests the colleges did not assign a simple numerical representation of the score sum and consider nothing further, like the post I replied to suggested. Instead it suggests they looked beyond the simple score sum methodology and considered that a top math score is more critical for a math/CS/STEM specialist admit than a top verbal score, an aspect of the process that is unlikely to have changed in the years since my admission.</p>
<p>
The posts I’ve disputed have nothing to do with what colleges have said. In contrast, I believe I am the only person in the thread who has answered the original thread question of whether all scores above 2250 are all equivalent by quoting what a college has said on the matter. Sure stats aren’t perfect and only show pieces of the full picture, but when the stats point to the same conclusion as what a college says, it increases support of the position.</p>
<p>A college. Be cautious. Calling 2250+ equivalent on the back end misses that, on the front end, the bar is lower. Given relatively equal finalists in other ways, some colleges may choose a higher scorer (especially when laying out geo diversity and picking up kids from less academically competitive areas.) A lot of the numbers out there, including Brown’s, don’t go deep enough. Seeing it as 2250+ may miss other factors. </p>