That’s simply not true. Retention rates and graduation rates are among the major stats that are most focused upon (including for rankings). The reason those schools have great graduation rates is specifically because they admit students based on projected academic success.
If Harvard admitted a student with a 2.8 GPA and 1100 on the SATs, do you think that student would have the same chance of getting through 4 years as their typical 4.0/1500?
The recruited athletes get additional academic support while they are enrolled, and those elite schools don’t exactly just admit anyone if they can play sports.
But to suggest that that failing to graduate is “extremely rare?” I was just looking up BU – Definitely a highly selective institution, with an acceptance rate of about 14%. Their graduation rate within 4 years is only 84%, up to 88% after 6 years.
So even after 6 years, 12% of the students fail to graduate – Either dropping out, transferring elsewhere (in some cases a lateral/upgrade transfer for more often transferring to a less competitive school). That doesn’t sound “extremely rare” to me.
At BU, about 6% of freshman drop out, never even returning for their sophomore year. (which is significantly better than the national average).
So yes, predicting academic success at their institution is a major focus of AOs. I dare say it’s their #1 priority.
“The College’s graduation rate is normally 98 percent, among the highest at American colleges and universities. Everyone admitted to Harvard has the ability to complete all academic requirements successfully.”
Succeeding at MIT requires a significantly higher level of academic strength in math than succeeding at Harvard, based on the level of math required in the general education requirements at each school. Harvard’s math (quantitative reasoning) requirement does not appear to require a significantly higher level of academic strength in math than similar requirements at a very large number of colleges of varying admission selectivity.
I don’t have a universal position on all standardized tests, Generally, my concern is more about understanding how the process actually works and less about how the process should work. That said, with regard to how the admissions process works I think APs are different than the SAT/ACT in that AP tests are much more closely related to an applicant’s performance and abilities in a particular class with a set curriculum. This isn’t to say that these tests don’t have any potential shortcomings, but they bring information to the table that the more general tests do not.
As for the rest of this post, we disagree. AO’s seem to be extremely capable of identifying qualified students without relying on these standardized tests.
We have some data about whether the tests predict academic performance at extremely demanding schools. Cal Tech is test blind, and the following is from their announcement that they are extending their test blind policy:
The current decision to extend the testing moratorium to five years is supported by a rigorous internal analysis of the academic performance of the last seven undergraduate first-year cohorts, representing classes that matriculated before and after the moratorium went into effect. The study, conducted by members of the Caltech faculty supported by professional staff, indicates that standardized test scores have little to no power in predicting students’ performance in the first-term mathematics and physics classes that first-year students must take as part of Caltech’s core curriculum. Caltech Announces Updates to Admissions Practices | www.caltech.edu
“Test scores have little or no power at predicting students’ performance . . .”
Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg, Matt Damon, and Robert Frost were Harvard dropouts.
PSY, Olivia Culpo, and Rosie O’Donnell were Boston University dropouts.
I don’t think any of them were failing out of school.
That’s a good question. I would imagine they may require it for merit for a couple potential reasons:
1 – their rankings may be affected by the portion of students submitting test scores. So tying merit aid to test scores is another way to encourage high scorers to submit.
2-- For merit aid, more than for admission overall, they may be looking for more objective criteria. They may be looking to be more formulaic than they are for overall admission. So standardized tests gives them another "objective’ measure.
3-- Merit scholarships are meant to entice the most-sought-after students to accept admission. Someone who has a very high score can help them lift their score rankings. AND, to the extent score is tied in to wealth… throwing a rich family a $10,000 merit scholarship is cheaper than giving a family in need a $50,000 annual need package. So to some extent, giving merit to high scorers, who are largely wealthier than average, is giving a small coupon to full pay students.
I think you’re missing the chicken/egg. Yes – Harvard has a very high graduation rate – That doesn’t mean they don’t have to be selective. They have a high graduation rate BECAUSE they are so selective. They select only the kids they believe can succeed. They aren’t taking a flyer on a 2.7/1100 kid with a great story.
It’s because they do worry about whether the kid can tackle the rigor – It’s because of their extremely successful screening, that it’s not a problem for them.
Never said dropping out was synonymous with failing out, though it very very often is. And I don’t just mean literal F’s. There are students pulling A’s in their freshman year but it’s too stressful for them, so they transfer to a less intense school.
And yes, there are some massively successful people who drop out to go start a business or other reasons.
But once again, a primary focus of an Admissions Office is to select kids who can succeed there. If they didn’t care whether students were going to succeed, they wouldn’t even bother looking at GPA and high school rigor. They’d look just as extracurriculars, essays… I mean, who cares if they are any good at academics, right?
Colleges are never making these decisions in the vacuum of a CC discussion board. They have more information on the kid than just a gpa. How do the kid’s grades compare to the rest of the school? How is the rigor? How are the recs. How have similarly situated students done done in the past? What did they accomplish outside of class? What if anything did they overcome? Etc.
If Harvard admitted a kid in 2019 with a 4.2 and 1270, Harvard had reason to believe that kid could handle it, and they had a reason for doing so. If Harvard admitted a kid in 2022 with a 4.2 and no test score, the same applies.
The same kid was apparently rejected by Cal State Long Beach, UC Santa Barbara, UCLA, and UC San Diego. Apparently he is doing well and was actually asked to teach a Harvard class this spring.
I think you just proved the point I’m making – Harvard AO is VERY good at selecting students who can succeed at their institution. And using criteria quite different from the UC schools.
THIS, It’s why most schools say that “rigor” is the most important part of the evaluation. In other words, how have you done with challenging academics in the past? Did you maintain high grades while doing college-level work.
And yes, they look at far more. They do have the data for other kids from the same school, comparison to peers, etc.
The one constant I’ve heard from multiple admissions officers, “we are seeking kids who have the tools to succeed at our school”
I’m not sure I proved anything. I’m happy for the kid who is thriving there. Is his success due to the AO who know how to select great fits or is it because the environment is such that almost anyone with competent skills can succeed there?
Getting back to the topic… My daughter is texting me from a presentation at the BU Admissions as I type this… She was advised by the AO to submit SATs over 1430. (My son is right at 1430). Someone explicitly asked if they should submit a 1400 and were told no.
The most recent CDS for BU (2021 entering freshman), the 25-75 was 1390-1490. That was the first test optional year, due to Covid. (with constrained test taking in 2020) due to Covid). So, they are actively recommending against submitting unless you’re right around the median or better. Explicitly recommending against submission for a student who is slightly above the 25th percentile.
I hate that - i mean, is the 1430 really more qualified than a 1390…or any more likely to do better? But - while I find the message surprising, I guess if he applies, you should heed the words.
Sad - really.
I got into BU with a 1080 - but back in the day, it was a - we’ll take your family’s money - no problem. I didn’t end up there but how times have changed.