@TooOld4School and @kmrcollege so you are saying that for your white affluent girl from NJ, she has an equal chance of getting into HYPS with a 30 and a 3.7 as she does with a 36 and a 4.0? And if she gets rejected it was because she was not interesting enough in terms of her leadership, sports or other non academics?
a20171—do not think for a second the school and dean are not super proud of the low admission rate. it is a badge of honor for them. he just trying to play mr. humble.
@SeekingPam - No, I am saying the opposite. My 10 year Naviance analysis indicates that more students are applying to top schools without any chance of acceptance. The data shows that the average GPA and SAT APPLYING to top schools is less than 93 and 1400 respectively and those numbers are drifting downward.
This statement might make a bit more sense if you replace the word “merit” with “academic stats.” I think what a lot of people fail to grasp is that the most selective schools do not consider the ability to obtain high test scores and grades to be the only significant form of merit.
" I think what a lot of people fail to grasp is that the most selective schools do not consider the ability to obtain high test scores and grades to be the only significant form of merit. " perhaps because after they thin out the pool in the first round of application reviews they still have that still 100% covered.
it is not that do not find it a significant form of merit…they just need not focus on it.
like a really rich person who says they do not really concern themselves with money that much.
@kmrcollege I think one of the points Dean Shaw makes in the interview is consistent with your analysis - in his words, a “fairly sizeable proportion are just taking shots in the dark” with very little chance of being admitted.
At a certain point it no longer matters any more. The Naviance stats indicated that above a certain point, grades and test scores are not of primary consideration. They are looking for a certain class profile. The tech schools are too, it is just a lot more transparent. IMO this puts the high performing STEM kids at at somewhat of a disadvantage though long term they may have more of an impact in their careers. It also matches the Ivy type profile which is (with a few exceptions) not strong in engineering.
There is a book by Rachel Toor who had served on Duke admissions for 3 years.
She points out an interesting fact: below a SAT score of 1480 (out of 1600), only ones to get admitted were minority, legacy, or recruited athletes. The floor of the middle 50% range was much lower than 1480. The problem is that Universities are not making this data available to candidates, and probably cannot or at least will not.
TooOld4School, you raise an interesting point that I have wondered about (and don’t know the answer to . . . it’s just a question). In the case of Stanford, my perception is that a good number of its most successful alums from a generation ago . . . say 1980s and 1990s grads . . . are somewhat on the nerdy end of the spectrum, at least those in the the technology industry. I have wondered how many of those folks would make it through today’s admissions process.
@osuprof ^^Yes to post #47! That’s exactly the information I would love to see from schools. It’s completely transparent and would allow students to set their expectations realistically.
osuprof—all applicants are equal just some more equal than others. therefore they will not let you see that data.
@osuprof a 1480 is just under the 2250 that was often used as the point where people here were told they had a shot and it correlates with a 33 or 34 depending on whose scale you use. For some reason a 1500 sounds so much higher to me than a 2250 even though it could be the same score.
When my daughter was applying to colleges (she just graduated) there was a whole group of students who applied to Harvard just to collect the rejection letters and post them on the cafeteria wall.
Made me wonder how prevalent the practice was…
Waste of $75. As my friend’s brother told her when she considered applying, give me the money and I will send you the same letter!
I think ED or EA is important. I would love to see data on early admissions for these schools. I think the admit rate is double for these(10% for Stanford). I was accepted with a 3.7 and 34ACT. I don’t know if I would have make it regular decision pool. I should have applied RD HYP to compare but I got lazy after acceptance. I had already applied to the UC schools(Berkeley,UCLA,UCD) was accepted along with lots of classmates. It seems to be random on who gets in or gets rejected when students have a certain GPA or score.
I’m not sure, but some argue that non-binding EA programs like Stanford’s may not improve odds of admission that much, once you account for all the athletic recruits and other priority applicants in the early round. It does make sense to me that binding ED programs should make a real difference, as the student is committing to attend if admitted.
It certainly would cut down on number of applications if all the top schools all had binding ED, as I believe Stanford did in the past.
I found the history of ED vs. EA at Stanford, and also Yale - both announced a move from ED to single choice EA on the same day in November 2002. Princeton still had ED at that time and Harvard had non-restrictive EA. Obviously all have since converged to single choice EA.
https://alumni.stanford.edu/get/page/magazine/article/?article_id=37334
@bluewater2015 I thought the same way before K1 applied. ED made sense, EA did not and you should be a superior candidate to occupy a potential seat for 6 months without committing. So it should be harder. Then I went back and reviewed the Yale SCEA thread from last year. There was no question that while there were many people who were amazing, many were average (in that Top 20 way, not real average). So while the odds are not good in general, they are still better SCEA unless there is something in your profile you need the extra time to improve. I really regretted not having K1 apply SCEA.
I couldn’t agree more with notveryzen. I am a certified independent college counselor who also volunteers in two high schools with low-income students. Over the last few years I have counseled students who I would never advise to apply to Stanford (strong, but not outstanding, even given their demographics). These students are being encouraged by their AVID teachers to apply to Stanford. I believe this sets unreasonable expectations for the student and their low-income families and wastes time and money. Both were denied.
@Hunt: Good point. I also think another thing people fail to grasp is that not even academic merit is limited to SAT/ACT and GPA (especially when they are already in the upper echelon-if you use only that, you start to split hairs. Also, more academically challenging programs at elite schools do not have tons of instructors giving assignments and exams resembling standardized tests. They are far more intensive than an SAT style exam). For example, a student at HYPSM may have the same 1450-1600 (or something above 1300) that a student at say Rice, WUSTL, Vanderbilt (other schools named by someone saying there was a higher correlation between stats and admissions), but unlike the 1450-1600 at those schools, the HYPSM(or any ultra-elite- I am inclined to include Chicago) may be more likely to come in with very high SATII’s, competition medals (perhaps at the international or national level) in some academic subject, Seimens finalists, etc. There is more to it than just the numbers that they report on their admissions website (SAT/ACT and GPA range) that are typically not revealed in detail. This likely partially explains why schools (such as HYPSM) with similar or lower score ranges to the more SAT/ACT sensitive schools can and typically do often offer a much tougher curriculum in things such as STEM than counterparts with seemingly identical profiles (for example, if I compared MIT with WUSTL…they do have similar published admission stats right? Then why are courses not typically the same level). The experience of the students can be vastly different outside of the SAT/ACT. If I admit a more “nerdy” student body that had much more often had extensive academic experiences or hobbies before coming, then I can slightly relax the score range as it is those experiences that will get them through challenging courses offered at those places.
Like if I was Harvard and had to decide between 2 self-proclaimed prospective chemistry majors: One with a 1450, but has AP credit in chem competed in the international olympiad, did some work, internship/research experience in the field, and a 1500 but merely has AP credit for chemistry and has no other experience with it (assume both are standard elite applicants with great non-academic EC records). I am going to choose the 1450 which is a great enough merit in and of itself, but when coupled with the other things obviously makes them standout much more (International Olympiad exams make AP and IB look like a complete and utter joke and sometimes even makes college exams in the fields look jokeish). However, another school that rather have the high SAT score (maybe trying to raise rank quickly under guise of “meritocracy”), may easily take the other person. These are differences we don’t see when we look at their published admissions statistics that must be taken into account.
Those who praise schools like Caltech for their score range and how they are a meritocracy because of it must look a little deeper and think a little more. The academic credentials of a Caltech, MIT, etc often stand out even more than the score range can reveal and most are not the same students as those at other high score range schools (many if not most have a completely different attitude toward learning and much different experiences before attending. Not just any high scoring person is going to choose such places. In fact, MIT and Caltech still have a relatively self-selected pool of applicants in comparison to elsewhere.)