Under 3.6 (GPA) and Applying Top 20 Parents Thread

Parents Forum
701

<p>Dad II, </p>

<p>I think that GPA & Rank are the first, second, third and fourth thing that matter. Everything else on the list has to be consistent with GPA. I have a nagging feeling that when you’re talking about the T20, who have so many applicants for each spot, that the process quickly turns to looking for reasons to reject as opposed to finding out explanations for discrepancies. </p>

<p>Anything that’s an anomaly has to be explained by the applicant and accepted by the adcom. It presents a risk and a leap of faith, in short, it’s work. It is an admissions committee’s job to look at the apps, but if you’re looking at 15,000, eventually you’ll take the path of least resistance.</p>

702

<p>Went to a Yale session today. GPA reigns supreme there. So yes, “GPA & Rank are the first, second, third and fourth thing that matter.”</p>

703

<p>

</p>

<p>This raises another question: is it advisable to ask LOR’s from teachers who gave you B’s? Does anyone have good experience on this?</p>

704

<p>One admissions officer from a DC school (I think it was GW) suggested that a letter from a class where you worked very hard to get a B, might carry more weight than one that just said you got an easy A. Personally I think this is risky, and the letter may make you look like a brown-noser or grade-grubber. I think you want to try to get a letter from a teacher who can say you made a positive contribution to the class, wrote great papers, figured out math problems in new novel ways etc. AND got an A.</p>

705

<p>

</p>

<p>Take a look at the form they must fill out. They will be ranking your student against others they’ve taught. How high can they rank a kid they gave a B to?</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Indeed this is the party line for many schools. But of course common data sets tell us otherwise. Scores are right up there. In my experience, letters and essays are not paid much attention if the stats are not there.</p>

706

<p>My impression:

  1. GPA/ranking/rigorous schedule
  2. Scores within the acceptable range (higher scores though won’t make much of a difference - no they don’t care at all that you got 2400 at a single sitting - sorry)
  3. recommendation letters
  4. e/c’s especially if they tell a story about the applicant’s interests - some ECs like sports may carry more weight, something quirky may catch someone’s interest, long lists aren’t what they are looking for
  5. essay (though occasionally an essay may make an application sink or swim it’s really rare)</p>
707

<p>I’m in agreement with mathmom and hmom5, based on S acceptance results and those of others. This is especially true for top 20 schools</p>

708

<p>

</p>

<p>This part I have to disagree with based on looking at scores for accepted students at many schools. There’s a big difference at all the top schools between admit rates for a 2250 vs. a 2400 at every increment. These schools need these unhooked kids to balance out the hooked.</p>

709

<p>I agree with hmom5. “At most institutions, standardized test scores count less than students think and more than colleges are willing to admit.” - David Erdman. </p>

<p>The Yale rep said Yale requires the applicants to send in all the test scores because “we’d like to know how many times you took the test.”</p>

710

<p>the running joke in my family whenever we eat out is that I will give $100 tip to the first waiter/waitress who answers the question of “is this dish (whatever) good?” by “it’s not good, order something else”. </p>

<p>Likewise, I would like to give $$$ prise money/reward to the first adcom who admits that SAT scores are important. They all downplay SAT. Yet, when you check the T10 school SAT range: </p>

<p>(a) they are VERY high
(b) their rank order of the middle 50% range tracks almost perfectly the rank order of the schools in the USNWR.</p>

<p>If they truly live up to their declaration, the SAT range ranking shouldn’t be so consistent with the general standing. Either that or their “other” more nebulous criteria have a perfect 100% predictive power for SAT scores, which I doubt. Even at Chicago, whose adcoms go ad nauseum discounting the importance of SAT, their middle 50% range is exactly where it should be: slightly lower than those of HYP, MIT, cal tech, on par with those of Penn, Columbia, Duke, and Stanford, and higher than those of NU, JHU, and GT. </p>

<p>As someone who minored in statistics as part of graduate education, I can tell you this: SAT above 2100 is such a restricted range on a normal distribution curve that unless there is a deliberate attempt to further group the sample (applicants) along this dimension specifically, there is no way the SAT scores just happened to line up among T10 schools the way they do. In a more plain language, it is a totally bogus claim that they simply selected students based on GPAs and other criteria when the SAT cores are falling within an acceptable range (no further selection based on SAT), and viola, those selected based on the rigor of the class and GPA just happen to have SAT scores that are perfectly correlated with the other measurements. The chance of this happening is exceedingly low.</p>

<p>Overall, I have this “The lady doth protest too much” sense. </p>

<p>I can understand the reason why they would NEVER admit that they take SAT darn seriously. There are countless assertions that SAT reflects socioeconomic status. Furthermore, there are a lot of SAT prep courses - some more expensive than others. Under the circumstance, it would be highly politically incorrect to admit that they take SAT seriously when it is known to reflect the status of the family and wealthy families can spend $$$ to prep their kids while poor families can’t. </p>

<p>All the top elite schools adhere to the “left of the center” politically correct posturing when it comes to their “admission policies”. the last thing they would like to admit is how important SAT is. </p>

<p>Until the top 10 SAT distribution does not look so suffocatingly in line with their general ranking and selectivity level, I won’t buy these collective ladies’ loud protests.</p>

711

<p>Yes, I heard the quote about test scores too. :)</p>

<p>So checking out a few schools
**Harvard: **
GPA>100 2 accepted, 2 waitlist, 1 rejects (who also had lowest score)
GPA 98-100 5 accepted, 3 waitlist, 7 rejects
GPA<98 2 accepted, 2 waitlist, 12 rejects
SAT>2300 2 accept, 1 waitlist, 1 reject
SAT 2200-2300 5 accept, 3 waitlist, 3 rejects
SAT<2200 2 accept, 2 waitlist, 16 rejects
Yale
GPA>100 2 accept, 2 waitlist, 4 rejects
GPA 98-100 2 accept, no waitlist, 6 rejects
GPA<98 all rejects
SAT>2300 1 accept, 1 waitlist
SAT 2200-2300 2 accept, 6 rejects
SAT<2200 1 accept, lots of rejects
Brown
GPA>100 3 accept, 1 waitlist, 2 reject
GPA 98-100 3 accept, 9 reject
GPA<98 1 accept, 2 waitlist, 16 reject
SAT>2300 3 accept, 4 reject
SAT 2200-2300 1 waitlist, 6 reject
SAT 2100-2200 2 accept, 2 waitlist, 2 reject
SAT <2100 3 accept, 9 reject (the accepted scores were all 2000+)</p>

<p>I really didn’t see a big difference in SAT acceptance rates for SAT over 2200 at Harvard and Yale, or over 2100 for Brown. Huge fall off in the GPA. That’s why S2 isn’t looking at HYP from our school, his 97 GPA (which is only that high because of two orchestra periods) is unlikely to cut it, not even with a legacy advantage. I really think if your SAT scores are 2200 or better the rest of your application is much more important than improving test scores. It’s just easier to improve test scores. That doesn’t mean the SATs aren’t important - it’s just not the be all and end all. You don’t have to sweat getting a 2390.</p>

712

<p>mathmom,</p>

<p>how do you come up with a conclusion that beyond 2200, SAT did not make much difference?</p>

<p>According to the data you provided:</p>

<p>Harvard: 2300+: 2 out of 4 accepted. 2200-2300: 5 out of 11 accepted (OK similar rate)
Yale: 2300+: 1 out of 2 accepted. 2200-2300: 2 out of 8 accepted (significant advantage for 2300+)
Brown: 2300+ 3 out of 7 accepted. 2200-2300: none of 7 accepted. (significant advantage for 2300+)</p>

<p>It seems being in the 2300+ range definitely has higher acceptance rate.</p>

<p>By the way, last fall, on their own web site, U Penn showed the acceptance rate of various SAT ranges with 50 point increments. It was DEFINITELY worth getting 2400 over 2300 and 2300 over 2200. The acceptance rate for 2350+ was something like 50%, which was still higher than that for 2300-2350 range. BTW, the overall acceptance rate was something like 17%. Given that their average was something like 2100 anyway, and the acceptance rate jump from 17% to 50% is a very significant jump, this jump wouldn’t be possible if the effect of high SAT was more or less capped at the SAT 2200 level. The advantage of SAT in the acceptance rate reached ALL THE WAY TO THE HIGHEST score bracket, not just capped at the 2200 range.</p>

713

<p>Mathmom, does you school denote the hooked?</p>

714

<p>overall, my conclusion is:</p>

<p>Don’t buy what the admission officers tell you lock, stock, and barrel. They tell you what THEY WANT to tell you, NOT what YOU NEED to hear to come up with the best strategy to game the system. By analyzing all the data available, we come up with a more unvarnished view of what’s really going on, which often seems to be at odds with their “public declaration” such as, “holistic evaluation”, “scores don’t matter that much, etc” when such a statement, while technically true, is applicable to such a negligible portion of the total applicant pool that for all practical purposes is a misleading statement.</p>

<p>I am not saying they are sinister monsters out to get you and fool you. Yet, their goal is to contribute to the effort of recruiting the best and most applicants possible and come up with the best student body that will contribute to the school’s long term goal in a most efficient manner possible. They also need to help their bosses look good by helping them maintain a good ranking that the alumni is clamoring for. </p>

<p>In short, they are just like any other businesses. Non profit or not, their role is to do right by the organization that pays them.</p>

<p>Their role is not to help Johnny to get into their school in spite of his handicap. Their role is not to understand and decipher him and hold his hand while he is going through this whole process. their quota for “good deeds” is amply met by admitting URMs and other such cases. They don’t need to validate their sense of being a good citizen by going out of their way to help the middle class, non-URM Mary who will do well in life anyway by going to a slightly less prestigious school. </p>

<p>I sense some of us here somehow think the admission officers are like counselors who want to help our kids and will make the effort to “get to know” the person behind the application package. I don’t think so. If they have such a desire, how do you explain “tufts syndrome” of rejecting phenomenal candidates because they believe the students will not come anyway and become part of the statistics that will spoil their pristine yield statistics. They don’t seem to lose sleep over the possibility that some students who REALLY wanted to go to their school will be erroneously categorized and rejected because of this yield management tactic and get devastated. </p>

<p>All of us are playing this game. They have their game plans - no blame here: they are just doing what is legally and ethically acceptable to further the goals of their organizations. The parents and students must understand this, and come up with an intelligence game plan also.</p>

715

<p>I always get flamed when I say this is a high stakes game. But in my mind it’s a total game. But hey, I didn’t get that until my third went through the process–the part where it was my job to game back.</p>

716

<p>^^ No flames here. I am really looking for some pointers but I’m still not sure how one games the system.</p>

<ol>
<li><p>Grades and scores are what they are - you can’t make them look better.</p></li>
<li><p>We don’t get to see the GC and teacher recommendations, so the best you can hope for is they see potential in your child and communicate that in a positive way. There is a reason the school won’t let you see the recommendations. They want the freedom to be as honest as possible, which means they are not writing rosy recommendations for every kid.</p></li>
<li><p>That leaves the EC’s and awards/recognition - I suppose you could spin those to some degree but I would still say it’s pretty limited. The schools have seen it all, so unless you have something truly unique (and some people here do), the ECs aren’t going to be the tipping point in the application process.</p></li>
</ol>

<p>So that leaves the essay as the one ‘variable’ the student has complete creative control over. I could see where a great essay would help, especially a student on the edge of the minimum qualifications. Our school recognizes that and part of the 11th and 12th grade English curriculum is spent on writing practice essays to help the students bone up on those skills.</p>

<p>I do also think it helps to have a strategy going into the application process. Eg, apply early, apply ED to #1 school, apply to a lot of schools, etc. But beyond that, I don’t see how one ‘plays the game.’</p>

<p>IMHO, it is naive to think the adcoms are somehow going to see past the 3.6 GPA and decide that little Johnny just wasn’t challenged enough to get better grades and will, therefore, be a good fit for our Top20 school. My child fits that profile to a T but the bottom line is he chose not to work harder and get better grades. Doesn’t matter whether the class was interesting enough or not, the hallmark of a disciplined person is they work hard whether or not they find the work ‘stimulating’. These schools are looking for students who are smart and hardworking.</p>

<p>My goal of being on CC is to understand the application process and maybe learn some useful tips along the way. This has been a great place for helping me understand the process but I have also learned is it is highly unlikely that my child will get in to a Top20 school. True, there are little things one can do to slightly increase the odds but considering those odds are very low to begin with - it’s probably not going to be the ‘tipping point’.</p>

<p>So…is there really any way to ‘game the system’ beyond trying to present the best picture of the applicant as possible?</p>

717

<p>My head is spinning a bit. I’m a two-year member of cc and a longtime lurker before that. This thread seems to indicate that much of what I’ve read on here isn’t true. Is the prevailing theory now that holistic admissions aren’t really that holistic? That it’s just a numbers game? If that’s so, then why aren’t all those sterotypical high-scoring Asians we hear so much about getting in wherever they want? They think they’re at a disadvantage. For years, I’ve read that the colleges want well-rounded kids, but, really, were all those years of varsity sports, Scouts, etc., for ds1 a mistake because of his lower GPA? I guess we’ll find out this spring. Thank goodness all those activiites were of his initiative, and he enjoyed them. But I really want to know because I’ve also got a HS freshman, and maybe I should be telling him to spend less time on soccer and student govt and his other interests so he can concentrate on that AlgII grade.</p>

<p>I love games and am willing to play; I just need to know the rules.</p>

718

<p>My head is about to explode trying to make sense of all the great SAT and GPA data posted and I’m especially intrigued by hyeonjlee’s statistical take on all this. What has not been mentioned, I think, is that test score and GPA data usually have a strong correlation. This has come up when those of us with kids whose GPA/test data does not correlate find it hard to find similar profiles on Naviance.</p>

<p>One noteworthy point to make is that 2200+ scores are achieved by only 1% of students, whereas 4.0 GPAs are achieved by a much higher percentage, my guesstimate would be around 10-20%.</p>

<p>About the advantage for scores above 2200, these numbers by Rice University show that applicants scoring 1500-1549 experienced a 50% admit rate while those with 1550+ have a 67% rate. It drops to 33% for the next group of 1450-1499, compared to 24% overall average admit rate. There does seem to be an advantage to scores above 2200 (1470ish on the 1600 scale), at least for this school. However, when I’ve looked at these numbers before, I’ve always assumed that SAT score and GPA correlate closely so it would be hard to draw any hard conclusions about the relative importance of test scores compared to GPA.</p>

<p>**SAT 1600 – Percent Admitted ***
1550+ ----- 67%
1,500-1,549 50%
1,450-1,499 33%
1,400-1,449 24%
1,350-1,399 18%
1,300-1,349 14%
1,250-1,299 12%
1,200-1,249 14%
1,150-1,199 13%
1,100-1,149 12%
1,050-1,099 15%
1,000-1,049 18%
<1,000 9%
No score <1%</p>

<p>*These are males, shown on page 31 of this report: <a href=“http://professor.rice.edu/images/professor/report.pdf[/url]”>http://professor.rice.edu/images/professor/report.pdf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

719

<p>I cross-posted with YDS, and it appears this thread is causing parents’ heads to spin and explode. :)</p>

720

<p>Is there an exploding head smilie somewhere? ;)</p>