<br>
<br>
<p>I know one kid who has a perfect 2400 (one sitting) and is studying at a state school; couple of near 2400 also at another state school.</p>
<p>The only kid I know with perfect scores went to Bates in Maine, off the waitlist. He would have gone to a SUNY if they hadn’t taken him.</p>
<p>
A recent Stanford alumni newsletter mentions that Stanford has rejected 69% of applicants with a 2400 over the past 5 years. Brown mentions a 76% reject rate for 36 ACT applicants at <a href=“Undergraduate Admission | Brown University”>Undergraduate Admission | Brown University; .The decision threads, Parchment results, scattergrams, and other sources suggest a similar high reject rate for perfect scoring applicants at quite a few other highly selective, holistic colleges. For example, the news story at <a href=“https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yuxy-p17jBs”>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yuxy-p17jBs</a> talks about a high achieving student who scored both a 2400 on her SAT and a 36 on her ACT. She also was salutorian of her HS and had an impressive list of ECs and awards, as described at <a href=“http://www.pisd.edu/news/archive/2012-13/grad.plano.sal.shtml”>http://www.pisd.edu/news/archive/2012-13/grad.plano.sal.shtml</a> . She posts her college decisions at <a href=“ACCEPTANCE.”>http://university-bound.■■■■■■■■■■/tagged/personal/page/9</a> (quite a few rejections, but some nice acceptances as well).</p>
<p>As I’ve said throughout the thread, different colleges have different admission criteria and favor different types of applicants. Many selective colleges do seem to have a strong emphasis on holistic criteria and have a high rejection rate for top stat applicants, such as HYPSM. However, there are also plenty of highly selective colleges that seem to focus more on stats. At some, the sources mentioned above suggest they accept nearly all applicants with near perfect stats, often with significant merit money. I mentioned Vanderbilt as an example, but there are many others.</p>
<p>Many schools would also waitlist (or even outright reject) applicants with perfect scores because they feel the applicant is using them as a safety.</p>
<p>That’s why I really would like to see the test scores/GPA chart for schools with ED. </p>
<p>@Data10:
I wonder what the cost differential between Columbia and Rice (with the named scholarship) was for her. I do rate Columbia slightly higher, but if the cost differential was half-tuition or more, I would have taken Rice.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Some schools have stated automatic admission or automatic scholarship for stats criteria; applicants who meet those criteria may find them 100% sure thing safeties, assuming affordability. Applicants who do not have such schools, but have some almost-safeties based on how they compare to the admitted students should have more than one (and be careful of schools that heavily use subjective criteria, and show interest to schools using “level of applicant’s interest”). But also, safeties should be schools that the applicant is interested in, not “let down” schools.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>Ahh… But in real life, this is very difficult for many people (especially those on CC). “Prestigiosity” (to use Hunt’s term) weighs heavily on many parents’ and kids’ minds. Didn’t some body report, comes autumn, about bunch of unhappy parents and kids at Duke’s orientation - I hope this is mere exaggeration.</p>
<p>“I know three kids with near perfect SATs. Two are at Harvard and one is at Yale. And a perfect ACT I know is also at Harvard. There’s apparently only 500 perfect scores per year, so I doubt any US citizen with a perfect SAT score ever gets rejected from anywhere.”</p>
<p>That’s not true. Perfect scorers get rejected, as do valedictorians.</p>
<p>There was an article that Duke put out, noting that only about half their applicants had schools who ranked, but of those who did, if they just took valedictorians and no one else, they would fill their class several times over. I know it’s been linked here on CC, just can’t find it right now. </p>
<p>"^That’s why I have no patience with trying to figure out exact odds or worrying about the definition of match vs reach."</p>
<p>Exactly. Which is why it’s stupid to try to parse your own chances of admission to an elite school much beyond whatever the published acceptance rate is. Like it makes one iota of difference than you think your chances of being accepted to Harvard are 20% vs the published 5%. </p>
<p>I believe the Duke item you are looking for is the letter Christoph Guttentag sent out to applicants this spring in the hours before regular decisions were released. </p>
<p><a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/parents-forum/1632160-christoph-guttentag-s-letter-demystifying-admission-process-at-duke-p1.html”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/parents-forum/1632160-christoph-guttentag-s-letter-demystifying-admission-process-at-duke-p1.html</a></p>
<p>Yes, that’s it - thanks. I have no reason to believe the gist of that letter would be any different if issued by any other top school. </p>
<p>I think there are people who can evaluate things holistically, and people who can’t, and it’s the people who can’t who are so “perplexed” by it all, or want to try to find some formula, or who think that Demographic Characteristic X tipped the person one way or another. </p>
<p>I think some people are rejected from some schools because the admissions committee is “just not that into you.” This is hard for some people to accept, especially those who are used to systems where everything is based on testing. This is also, in my opinion, why it’s not a good idea for a reach-seeking kid to apply only to a couple of reaches. You just don’t know what the committee will or will not be into.</p>
<p>@purpletitan So you are making my point. Since scores are only a portion of the criteria used to determine admissions, it does not hold that a higher score will do anything to improve your chances (within some vague limits). Clearly someone with a 800 has a better chance than someone with a 650, but for every school there comes a point where the test score ceases to be a factor and they move onto what they feel are more important factors. You mentioned some about yield. Often it has to do with class makeup, ECs, etc. The dirty little secret is that many of them also want kids who can pay. They say need blind, but as part of yield, they understand that if they take a kid from a middle class (full to nearly full pay) family the odds of them attending are much less than if they take a kid from a rich or poor family. </p>
<p>@Torveaux:</p>
<p>Yield matters, so even at schools that want to take every perfect score applicant that they can, a kid with a perfect score applying RD can not be guaranteed acceptance. However, at those schools, a kid applying ED can.</p>