I’d be really surprised if Stanford has indicated anything about a threshold of 700. They’ve given a variety of contradictory information about scores, both formally and informally. For example, today I interview for Stanford. During interview training, test score standards were discussed in relation to admission, and they gave quite different information. If the admission policy really has completely changed since I attended with adding a high(er) score threshold or focusing more on test scores in relation to admission decisions, then it follows that there would be a notable change in test scores. Instead there was only a ~10 point change in CR since when I attended, hardly any difference.
You think someone who gets a below 700 CR can’t switch to become an English major? If Stanford athletes are full of relatively low scoring students, then it follows that you’d expect few Engineering and English majors compared to the overall population. Instead engineering was the 3rd most popular major for both athletes and non-athletes, and English was relatively unpopular among both athletes and non-athletes.
You can look at the admissions stats, which show how hard it is to get an admit with a lower score. An admit rate of 2% for an ACT composite 23-29. Or 4% for SAT CR 600-699. Those kids may show up in higher percents in the enrolled class- but that’s after admit decisions are made and when higher performers may be choosing among other tippy tops. (This applies to folks you met there, too. First, you have to get in.)
Yes. Very different than longer ago. Cherry picking.
“When you look at the scoreboard of college performance, they appear to know what types or raw material they need to be successful in their industry.”
I’m assuming these scoreboards are the world rankings you cited. Well I looked at one, the Times Higher Ed and 30% of the score is research, 30% citations - both reflect directly, strength of the graduate programs, if the professors are putting out research and they’re getting cited, they’re not teaching a whole lot of undergrads. Teaching is 30%, but 8% is doctorate to bachelor ratio (dependent on graduate school) and doctorates awarded to staff ratio, again measuring graduate schools.
I would say 90% of that ranking is based on graduate schools and 10% undergrad. What the elite US schools are saying is that we can use undergrad to accomplish some goal or other - economic mobility say, but when it comes to grad schools admissions is more serious if you will. If you’re going to apply for a Phd for Physics at Harvard, you better know your stuff.
A 4% admit rate is approximately the same as the overall rate for the college. Ignoring that, were they primarily SAT CR 600-699 applicants who excelled in the many other criteria that Stanford considers in their holistic admission decision? Or were they primarily SAT 600-699 applicants ones who had a rest of the application consistent with their scores – compared to the higher scoring applicants on average lower GPA with less course rigor, on average worse LORs, a lower rate of ECs/awards/out of classroom activities that are impressive among the Stanford applicant pool, etc. I expect you’ll draw a very different conclusion, if you compare the admit rate for SAT 600-699 applicants who were otherwise excellent candidates for admission including excellent grades in challenging courses, impressive ECs and other out of classroom activities compared to the overall applicant pool, etc. This relates to why studies looking at the benefit of test scores in admission process often get very different results once they start adding in controls for other portions of the application, particularly a measure of grades and course rigor. Cherry picking.
“Flawlessness, too, has a cost. Why should colleges pay the enormous premium it would take to produce perfect decisions, when imperfect decisions look like they are plenty good enough, and the “penalty” on “victims” of imperfect decisions is actually negligible.”
Good point, flawless is of course not possible since we’re dealing with humans. Studies have show that out of ten decisions, successful people make 6 or 7 right ones. Assuming that adcoms at selective universities get 7 out of 10 right, and 10 out of 10 is impossible for a human, you’re right in that it would be unreasonable to expect perfect decisions.
I’d be really surprised if Stanford has indicated anything about a threshold of 700. They’ve given a variety of contradictory information about scores, both formally and informally.
Agree on Stanford’s inconsistency and it could change next year, who knows?
“You think someone who gets a below 700 CR can’t switch to become an English major?”
Sorry to not mention the broader context - it was also on high school rigor and subject tests. There is one thing that colleges are truthful on, the number of APs needed (assuming your HS offers them), meaning 5-6 is fine, anything more is not going to add to your application. However in this case they want the right APs and for selective colleges that means regardless of major, AP Calc, APUSH/Euro, then you can specialize on APLAC, AP in a language, or AP in a science. Subject tests - many submit three to show balance, Math 2 is a given regardless of major, then science for stem, USH, literature, and maybe a language for non-stem. It’s the combination of 700 in CR, 750 in literature and USH, doing well in APUSH, APLAC, AP in a language classes that are used by adcoms, not just one score.
“Instead engineering was the 3rd most popular major for both athletes and non-athletes, and English was relatively unpopular among both athletes and non-athletes.”
Not surprising, English is not really a major these days for jobs and it’s pretty hard, a lot of reading, analysis and writing, things that athletes and non-athletes don’t like to do. Note that I’m an engineering major so not trying to say English is harder because I was an English major.
You want transparency? Head to your local strip mall and drop in at the local army recruiting office. That’s transparent- here are the criteria- medical, physical, criminal record (or the lack thereof), HS diploma or equivalent- sign some papers and boom- you’re in.
That’s it folks. Even getting a job as a greeter at your local Walmart isn’t transparent. There is a hiring manager who will use the objective criteria (on your application) and then temper it with subjective criteria (his or her assessment of your “customer service” skills, ability to take direction, evidence that you wash and bathe regularly, etc.) And guess what- nobody is boycotting Walmart over the “lack of transparency” in their hiring decisions. And Walmart is a hell of a lot more involved in the day-to-day lives of most Americans than Harvard is. You might get hired at a Walmart in Florida but not Ohio. Or vice-versa. Why? It’s subjective and NOT transparent.
Data, not to offend anyone, but, Or were they athletes or other hooks?
The admit rate for an 800 CR (and yes, M would need to be stroong, too,) is 12%. Stanford and other tippy tops have plenty of kids applying with top scores all around. And all the activities and accomplishments needed, plus a well done app/supp. A tsunami of them. The school will cherry pick for all around “best” fits.
It’s nice to give hope, but the competition today is ridiculous. It’s kind of dreaming to say a low score isn’t such a problem. We’re talking a reality of day after day of applicants with 4.0, top scores, experiences, awards. Kids doing stem and other internships, working in the med field, writing apps, on top of hs activities and community work. It is exceedingly rare to flub and get by. They will see a low score, a random B, an issue with an LoR or an essay that goes off base, and turn to the next candidate. They simply don’t have to make concessions.
Except, of course, if that special institutional someone is pulling you out of the usual stream.
600-699 was 4%, and 700-799% was 7% – not exactly a huge enough difference to suggest the 700 threshold that has been discussed. Again you are looking at one variable in isolation without considering how that variable is correlated with the many other important and relevant sections of the application. Yes, an 800 CR kid is more likely to have the criteria looks for in their holistic admission process than a 690 CR kid, but this is primarily because kids who have that criteria are more likely to score an 800, not because of some arbitrary score threshold. Among MIT applicants, ones with a 750-800 math have a ~3x higher admit rate than ones with a 700-740 admit rate… essentially the same phenomenon you are referencing. In the quote below, a MIT admissions rep explains more eloquently than I can why that 3x difference in admit rate for different test score ranges is primarily due to correlation with other parts of the app, not the score itself.
By “contradictory”, I meant contradicting with having a threshold of 700. I’ve never heard any Stanford source formally or informally mention a 700 threshold, including during interview training related discussion about scores for admission. What I’ve seen/heard about scores been largely consistent.
This seems like a list based on your personal feelings about both requirements and score thresholds, rather than an evidence based conclusion. Stanford suggests sending subject tests to “highlight your areas of strength”, rather than show balance. Among admits I’ve interviewed, the number of specific AP course selections is often notably correlated with which HS they attended, both in which APs are available and related HS counseling.
When my son was going through the recruiting process in the NESCAC he was also told that he would need 700s in each of the three sections of the SATs to be competitive. The coaches do not have as much pull as you who have not gone through the process believe. By the time these students apply ED they have gone through an extensive self selective process. They have been observed, timed, video taped and interviewed. Their transcripts and board scores preread before they are allowed on a recruiting trip. Their high percentage rate of acceptance is due to the intense screening process by the coaches and the admissions office prior to the student/athlete pressing submit. It is not because they are getting a pass or have easier standards.
It’s all relative. NESCAC coaches have more pull than coaches at schools who don’t care at all about athletic success (Caltech & MIT outside of crew) but less pull than Ivy coaches, who have less pull than Stanford/NU coaches who have less pull than almost all other DivI coaches.
@theloniusmonk Yep, you are right that this ranking system does consider Graduate Education, and maybe even more than undergrad. It still doesn’t invalidate my argument.
My argument is that society scores the institution of higher education and in societies feeble attempt to quantify their performance, the United States University system is dominating the competition. In other factors as well. How about % of international students at the US institution vs. percentage of US students at a foreign institution (factoring out study abroad programs in both cases). I don’t know that number but am confident where that would land. The amount of money that society drops into the US institutions in the form of grants, donations, government support, and finally tuition. The fact that 30,000 students apply for 1,200 spots on an incoming class. These all point to a institution that is very successful vs. its peers and in the eyes of its customer (society).
My conclusion is: “Why change it?” So it causes less stress on high school seniors (some of it self imposed and some of it is imposed by their helicopter parents) is not a very good reason. Wait until they get a real job where they have to make the right decision or they will have to lay off 25% of their department. That’s stress. Because it has created an industry of college application consultants isn’t a good reason. Because if favors high income students. That is a good reason to look to improve. But this whole thread is based on removing athletics as a hook in admissions. If there is one area that can be an equalizer in the space of righting that societal wrong, it is this process. Sure there aren’t many low income URM in crew, but there are in all of the large team sports.
Actually in the NESCAC coaches get 2 factor slots for each sport (~14 for football).
Any athletic recruit that year does need the 700s or whatever the standard is if not in the 2 slots. Those are used for extraordinary athletes whose stats are below the normal threshold.
For the 2 per team plus 14 for football each year, they do in fact have easier standards.
Actually, one of the dirty secrets of athletic recruiting is that it also favors relatively affluent kids, including among URMs. It’s expensive these days to raise a competent athlete. High school coaching isn’t enough; they have to start long before that, and join high-level travel teams throughout. A LeBron James (someone who grew up not affluent) will always rise to the top, regardless, but college athletics programs, and even professional sports leagues, are increasingly full of kids whose parents have relatively high incomes,
At elite schools (let’s say Ivy and NESCAC), black, Hispanic and Asian students are underrepresented in all sports. This may be due to the fact that there are a lot of teams that are traditionally high income “white” sports teams, but it’s also due to the fact that to excel in most sports takes a lot of money for club/travel teams, coaches, trainers, etc.
Football is somewhat an exception in terms of club/travel teams but even there the NESCAC is 68.3% white - more than the % of white students overall. Even in basketball there are more white players than their % of the student body - 61 and 81% (mens v womens teams).
Ivies do a little better but still white athletes are more prevalent than white students overall.
@Ohiomomof2 So at the highly selective it isn’t, how about across all divisions? I suspect, again you appear to have data and I’m going by what I see on tv, across D1 it does shift to a condition that is more of an equalizer. At least in football and basketball. Of course in those situations, athletic ability is often a bigger hook than at the selective institutions.
At some not-very-selective schools, there may not be an admissions bump at all, if the regular admission standards for non-athletes approximate the NCAA minimum. There may even be minimally selective schools where the NCAA minimum would be a higher standard than the schools’ regular admission standards for non-athletes.
