Top EA/ED Decisions Demystified: My Theories from reading CC

Applying to College
1

<p>This is what I have theorized based on careful analysis of Yale, Stanford, MIT, Ivy decision results on CC. Everyone cries crapshoot and random, and says no generalizations can be made. Here is my take, agree or disagree</p>

<p>[ b]Objective:[ /b][ list]
[ *] SAT I (breakdown): No effect on admission once 2200+; greater admission chance for 2400ers is not because of the score, but because 2400ers are more likely to top across the board.
[ *] ACT:Same
[ *] SAT II: Taking MathIIC seems to help. Taking 2-3 and getting 700+ is the norm, and doing so doesn't help you, but not doing so seems to hurt.
[ *] Unweighted GPA (out of 4.0): Completely worthless standing alone in predicting admission.
[ *] Rank (percentile if rank is unavailable): It definitely helps to be in top ten; there is no clear advantage of being #1 versus #3 or so; few low rankers were admitted and low rankers had extreme amounts of compensation, such as fabulous ECs.
[ *] AP (place score in parenthesis): Admits had a overall higher average AP score and number of APs taken.
[ *] IB (place score in parenthesis):
[ *] Senior Year Course Load: Important because in the competitive pool of EA applicants, who isn't going to be taking the toughest senior courseload possible?
[ *] Major Awards (USAMO, Intel etc.): Not a hook. Period - USAMO ppl got rejected. Truthfully, major awards seem like a boost; you already have to be on the verge of admission to be swung in by these awards. Most award winner-admits fitted the profile of an real strong candidate for admit.
[ /list][ b]Subjective:[ /b][ list]
[ *] Extracurriculars (place leadership in parenthesis): Here is where my theory really begins. It is not 10 titles or activities that get students in; we knew that. However, I have noticed single impetus applications with one strong passion NOT getting in; in the competitve applicant pool, we have all learned to demonstrate passion in one area, and it has thus become that ADMITS are excelling and passion-ing in TWO or MORE areas. Or truly, truly accomplishing something great in one area. You need a solid base of varied interests, then one really strong academic passion (hopefully with some recognition), AND one strong offbeat passion.
[ *] Job/Work Experience: Surely helps, but probably wont be the differentiating factor. Too many candidates are having decent work experience; admitted students tended to match deferred in this category, and used other categories to stand out.
[ *] Volunteer/Community service: Same as Work experience. A FEW candidates seemed to get in by community service; those candidates had strong across the board strength and seemed to match the profile of competitive students plus a strong commitment and strong essay about CS.
[ *] Summer Activities: Absolutely necessary; I have found few profiles of any admit/d/r that wastes their summer. Many summer study session at X type deals did not lead to acceptance at X place, but we knew that.
[ *] Essays: Very few admitted students had anything less than great to say about their own essays. No way to comment, because Im not seeing the essays. I did notice as a theme that it helps to have your essay relate to the main impetus of your application. My theory is that admitted students convey a sense of charisma and passion in their essays, along with writing skills. All of these skills that the essay must convey, i believe, are skills that an admissions officer could see applied to other areas. If a student is passionate about shoes, they are more likely to be passionate about what they do in college than a student who uses the space to assert their accomplishments. However, passion isn't enough; my theory is that admitted students are using the passionate quirky approach to frame their innovative, unique, intelligent accomplishments in a guise of human appeal and charm.
[ *] Teacher Recommendation: Again, what matters in the subjective stuff that we cant see. I believe that admitted students and non didnt differ in the checked boxes, but the words.
[ *] Counselor Rec: I cant really tell
[ *] Additional Rec: Some admitted did, some admitted didnt, some rejected did, some rejected didnt. I dont think its a huge part and I think these places recieve 90% meaningless additional recs anyways that dont convey anything new, although they are still great letters.
[ *] Interview: College data suggests that students who, when offered an interview, decline it, suffer a significant reduction in admit %. There seemed to be no trend in how confident an applicant was in his interview and acceptance.
[ /list][ b]Other[ /b][ list]
[ *] Applied for Financial Aid?: I am too cynical to believe schools are need blind; I think they unblindedly get a variety of income levels, and it just so works out to be the way it is. It doesnt appear to matter from what I can tell.
[ *] Intended Major: Completely did not have any affect on admission.
[ *] State (if domestic applicant): Not sure.
[ *] Country (if international applicant): Not sure.
[ *] School Type: From what I see on CC, it doesnt matter, as long as the student is in the top of their respective school, they are competitive. Overall, Private school kids do have it better, but not because colleges want them more, because they typically have better resources.
[ *] Ethnicity: I'm not getting into this, because my real opinions about this issue would cause this thread to devolve.
[ *] Gender: Seems that males are better off in terms of raw number of acceptances on CC, but thats because their may be more male applicants.
[ *] Income Bracket: I dont think it matters
[ *] Hooks (URM, first generation college, etc.): HERE is a bit of my theory. ALMOST all admitted students have HOOKS. Just not the traditional hooks like URM, they MAKE hooks - research publishings can be a hook. They hook themselves in by rising to the top in one field or being really good in a variety of fields. Anything can be used as a hook, I think admitted students tend to turn their violin playing or whatever into something that makes the college think 'we need that kid'. This isnt what people think hooks are, but as the college process evolves, or devolves, hooks change their meaning. If you look at admitted students, all have one aspect that sounds like they framed it as a hook. Take something unique and give off serious undertones of why a college would benefit from it.
[ /list][ b]Reflection[ /b][ list]
[ *] Strengths: Many - accepted students have overall across the board strength and then SUPERSTRENGTH in one or even two areas. Rejected students tend to have all across the board strength or superstrength, but at the price of the same across the board strength.
[ *] Weaknesses: Weakness in essays is suicide. Weakness in SAT GPA can be compensated for, but still hurt a little. Weakness in ECs, such as being too allrounded with no specialization/passion, or TOO specialized, is a subtle difference than across the board ECs, with one or two super passions, which is one of the most important factors here.
[ *] Why you think you were accepted/waitlisted/rejected:</p>

<p>In conclusion the model is this. To put yourself in a place where you arent crapshooted, but have at least a really solid, 50% chance at admission in the competitive EA/ED pools, you need...</p>

<p>3.8-4.0</p>

<p>2200-2400</p>

<p>Extremely strong essays incorporating randomness and quirkiness, but also clearly relating and humanizing your EC list.</p>

<p>ECs that show your proficiency in a diverse range, in addition to 2-3 ECs that you are really passionate for and have done something extraordinary in, OR 1 EC that you have truly gone far in.</p>

<p>Some sort of boost you cant control: legacy, URM, firstgen. I'm saying this is a minor boost, not major, but in order to be pushed up into high chance of admission, if you dont have some other sort of hook, you need this. </p>

<p>Top notch GC and teacher reccomendations, more to keep you from being rejected than to push you in, because everyone seems to think they have good stuff in this category.</p>

<p>Strengths in most areas - and then 1-2 extreme strengths. 1 small weakness seems fine. </p>

<p>Quirkiness and charm; why so serious? Too serious sounding applicants seem to get cut, just my theory. </p>

<p>Start ONE or two ORGANIZATIONS (not clubs). </p>

<p>Play musical instruments or do sports, preferably both - this is an area that will not get you in, but will put you in the right place for a something else to help you in. </p>

<p>Well, thats that. Just my opinion - I'm sure many people will think "i got Xed, but i fit/didnt fit this profile." Thats fine. I'm just saying what I strongly believe to be the profile that will give a 'chance' of admission EA to a top school that is above 50%.</p>

2

<p>
[quote]
my theory is that admitted students are using the passionate quirky approach to frame their innovative, unique, intelligent accomplishments in a guise of human appeal and charm.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>
[quote]
essays incorporating randomness and quirkiness

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I hope that's true, because my essays were definitely very quirky.</p>

<p>Your post was very interesting, and to me, came across as mainly true.</p>

<p>As for ethnicity/race... I'd just like to see ONE, just ONE, Native American get rejected. Seriously - I'm registering my kids in tribes if that's even possible, lol.</p>

3

<p>Some do. And you can get Las Vegas 5 minute tribe conversions I think. But thats neither here nor there. Competitive URMs are getting rejected, even URMs in my opinion, need to excel in the aforementioned areas.</p>

4

<p>I completely agree with the why so serious comment, colleges, especially ivies and top tens get SO MANY completely serious applications--- they know you're serious about EC's and academics. Show them the side of you that goes out with friends and loves movies like Wedding Crashers or Kill Bill.</p>

5

<p>This was really interesting; thanks for compiling all of that!</p>

6

<p>@ neethus1</p>

<p>
[Quote]
As for ethnicity/race... I'd just like to see ONE, just ONE, Native American get rejected. Seriously - I'm registering my kids in tribes if that's even possible, lol.

[/Quote]
</p>

<p>Would you move to a reservation and raise them there as well?</p>

7

<p>@Swedefish: lmao. Maybe... haha, I'm just kidding. I was half-joking in my original post.</p>

<p>And yes I do agree, applicants who are strong URMs are getting rejected. But I've never seen a Native American get rejected - I mean, some top schools have <1% in their schools, so they're truly dying for them. Check all CC threads...</p>

<p>Edit: @Nick, that's freaking awesome (the Las Vegas thing)... besides, even if being NA wasn't a leg up for college, it's just a pretty darn cool thing in general lol.</p>

8

<p>@ Nick: I agree with a lot of what you have listed, but I disagree slightly with the idea that essays are meant to display quirkiness. Originally you had stated that the intention was to show charisma and passion - I feel that this is more likely to be the case, not randomness or anything similar.</p>

<p>The essays (and the interview for that matter) are meant to give a peak into the "real you". They are about showing competence in the real world - giving an impression that you are one of the few who have a clear understanding of their role in the world and a grasp of being able to handle yourself outside of the structured environment of high school. </p>

<p>Statistics like the SAT, SAT IIs, GPA, and the like are a good measure of what someone can accomplish when they are told explicitly what to do and how to do it. It takes something more personal (essays and interviews) to really get a sense if a person has what it takes to make an impact when there are no guiding lights. </p>

<p>Essays and interviews are conversations - the only chances to prove that you are much more substantial than an application could ever express. They separate those who worry whether they have the "right" application from those who have success without ever specifically relating it to a college application until the day they sit down at their computer and load the application.</p>

<p>Basically, this is my long-winded way of saying that I think essays and interviews are extremely important, but not in showing that someone is "quirky" or a unique snowflake in the snowstorm of life. Haha odd analogy there.</p>

9

<p>Well, you can think that, but I stand with the charisma, passion, dedication, and 'outthere' standout quirky appeal. I guess you could say do 3 of those well and you have a great essay. Imagine the drone of reading 79697869 of the same essays - we're only human, essays all blur together. Once I posted to help a few people with their essays, and I kind of got bombarded, at some point I started completely halfassing my critique. </p>

<p>Now think back to 1999 when Eminem exploded. This is a weird analogy, but run with it. He was 1) a non-RM in the biz. 2) He shocked the hell out of people. 3) On top of that, he had a lot of skill and arguably some insight into America. Why did he explode to fame and become a multimillionare? His music was strong, but his alter ego was one that would stand out like crazy in the drone of boybands etc. Your application can be your alter ego, not an insane one, but a better, more unique version of yourself.</p>

<p>He had the basis - the 4.0 etc such as a good voice and a creative mind - he had the ECs to talk about passionately - and at the time, he was talking about things that were a breath of fresh air to the same old same old. And he had charisma. </p>

<p>... I guess what I'm saying is that. Most normal applicants get rejected; by taking a risk and appearing waaay out there, you get a double-review. Instead of just being binned because there is someone else like you, the quirkiness gets you read again by the comittee, which gives your application the chance it deserves to convey its passion and dedication and all that good stuff. Quirkiness, a bit of a hackneyed term, is, if used correctly, a way to save your application from being the one that has a lot of great stuff in it, but never got the chance to convey its great stuff. </p>

<p>I agree that it doesnt help if you just say 'let me randomly insert some stuff... okay some gay cowboys eating pudding'. But if you can make your essay start off as a huge, colorful mystery box, and unwrap it to what your trying to convey about your unique self and do that well - that's where this idea of being 'out there' can help you and add life to a great, amazing, but boring application.</p>

10

<p>Nick017, that's a great list that you've compiled... very interesting :D</p>

<p>just curious,
why aren't major awards considered hooks? let's say you are an international olympiad/isef winner, it would seem stupid for any school to reject you.</p>

<p>and what made you conclude that intended major didn't make any difference?</p>

<p>thanks!</p>

11

<p>
[quote]
Most normal applicants get rejected; by taking a risk and appearing waaay out there, you get a double-review. Instead of just being binned because there is someone else like you, the quirkiness gets you read again by the comittee, which gives your application the chance it deserves to convey its passion and dedication and all that good stuff. Quirkiness, a bit of a hackneyed term, is, if used correctly, a way to save your application from being the one that has a lot of great stuff in it, but never got the chance to convey its great stuff.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Very well put. </p>

<p>I was worrying so much yesterday about this one essay I wrote because it's just really different - I wrote about my pudgy hands and said I was actually proud of them, connected it to my outlook on life (optimistic) - and this is exactly what my friend told me to console me. I felt a little better, but after reading this rationalization, I feel much better. You're right - instead of looking like everyone else, why not take a bit of a risk and get a double review?</p>

12

<p>The big thing you ignore is that a tremendous percentage of the ED/EA admits are recruited athletes. Athletes make up 17% of every class and the vasy majority come in ED/EA. Next up are legacies, 10-14%, who mostly also come in early. Then there are faculty/staff and development kids.</p>

13

<p>Outstanding analysis, Nick017. You are spot on. My D* got into a top LAC with a highly personal, slightly quirky but well-written essay; four years of demonstrated passion in two academic topics that included lots of EC hours; 2100; 3.9 uw GPA, and -- drum roll -- almost zero community service. She had no interest in spending 1,000 hours at the homeless shelter and since that wasn't in her heart I was not about to force her to do it. It appears that lack of community service may not necessarily doom an applicant.</p>

14

<p>About the recruited athletes, your absolutely right, that slipped my mind. Especially at athletic powerhouse schools like Stanford. All that means for the average academically oriented applicant for EA/ED is you really have it tough. </p>

<p>Legacies dont have such a great help in EA/ED. Their % of the class composition comes from the fact that 1) the college thinks they will definitely matriculate 2) they tend to anyways be top notch applicants 3) there's tons of them applying. In SCEA/ED, the 1( factor doesnt give you a boost; since your applying early, legacy or no, they know you will probably matriculate. In RD, different story. That is why a lot of legacy students at SCEA Yale get deferred, because Yale knows it can give them a little abuse and they will still hang on. It has been a long, long time since I've seen a legacy profile that was accepted that I think wouldnt have been at least a very, very, very strong candidate for acceptance without. </p>

<p>About community service, there was an interesting thread about this a while ago. My opinion is that community service, when put on a resume and left dry, is worthless because colleges have become so, so cynical about resume padding and students doing things for college. But Community service put in context of your application's main 'umpf' and written about really well can be a major boost. For example, take someone who wants to do international studies and study spanish in college, so they, in addition to top grades and academic ECs, set up an organization with the initiative to tutor english and other subjects in a hispanic area. They stick with it and grow their volunteer thing, perhaps get a supplementary recommendation from the principle of that school who has observed their work. That is where community service can 'heal the sick' and get you in with a otherwise not so sharp application. </p>

<p>But if the same person put '1000 hours volunteer at underpriviledged school' or something as an activity, it just isnt the same. </p>

<p>I'm guessing your daughter demonstrated some of the things the community service kid A did, just through a different lens. If she lacked that type of dedication, insight, and passion that you COULD show through CS (but she showed through other things), then she may not have made it.</p>

15

<p>Oh about major awards, I just saw so many Siemens, USAMO people rejected. A hook, the way I see it, is something that makes you unable to be denied. 4.0 2300 USAMO people get rejected; my guess is that they lacked excellent essays, recs, and ECs. Which means that major awards are more of a garnish; they cant be the main dish of the application. </p>

<p>I just didnt see a trend in intended major having an effect, granted I didnt make graphs and break it down like a statistician, but I think as long as your intended major is something that makes sense in the context of what your writing about and what you've done, thats the best you can do. Ever looked at Stanford's brochure stuff? The student's profiles in there that they show off will be like... a yugoslavian male... doing asian studies and a chemistry dual major... with a minor in women's studies... and he's in a scatter band and a tribal drumming unit. Then there's a guy who's just doing premed. </p>

<p>I just think that pick whatever your unique, innovative things you have done in HS suggest you would pick. Colleges know that intended engineers become philosophers sometimes.</p>

16

<p>I think you underestimated the legacy pull at some of the schools. looking at the ED results for Penn, for example, it looks to me like legacy made a real difference in some of the applications.</p>

17

<p>Great post! However, I think you underestimated the URM status; it ranges a lot. I think having an African-American URM would give someone a slight advantage because there are so many strong African-American applicants out there. But URMs like Hispanics and Native American are REALLY underrepresented at top colleges. So, being Hispanic and Native American would help a LOT more than say, African-American. Just my two cents.</p>

18

<p>Also, don't forget geographic diversity. Colleges like to say they have kids from all 50 states. A good time to ensure you get them is during the ED/EA round. If you're a small LAC in California like Pomona, the kid from Tennessee or Maine is going to look a lot more attractive to you than they would look to Vandy or Bowdoin, respectively. Almost all of the Eders at Pomona that I've seen are from out of state.</p>

19

<p>^Modulation, your point about Native Americans is correct. but as for Hispanics (non-black Hispanics), they are actually more represented at top colleges and college in general than blacks. esp. in West Coast schools, like UCs, Stanford, etc.</p>

20

<p>Nick, you're wrong about the legacies. Many top schools tell legacy applicants they must apply ED if they want the legacy tip. They are a significant population at these schools. So when you add up the 17% athletes and the 10 plus percent legacies, it leaves little room for the unhooked candidates in the early round and only the real stars get in.</p>