<p>
</p>
<p>We are still interested, just not aiming exclusively at them. The beast does rear its head, but wait – it’s just a chicken who can’t even find its corn! I’m less worried now…</p>
<p>This isn’t YouTube, so I hope it’s OK to post. Turn up sound. Everybody dance!</p>
<p>[Chicken</a> song dance for kids](<a href=“http://www.kiddyhouse.com/Farm/Chicken/Chickensong.html]Chicken”>Chicken song dance for kids)</p>
<p>40% huh? Too bad H and I didn’t go to Princeton. Well, the only hope for D at our alma mater is legacy and an exceptional essay. Heck, H still thinks to this day that he got in on the strength of his essay alone.</p>
<p>Well, here’s hoping for my chickie anyway!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>My son’s best shot at a T20 school would probably be as a legacy, and he doesn’t want to apply there. Anyone else in that situation?</p>
<p>Sorry about the poster “mixup” my the “rules” post.</p>
<p>Yes, I was looking for some humor in this process–nothing personal toward anybody. </p>
<p>The word “rules” immediately me of the “rules in a knife fight” quote from Butch Cassidy. Some of the others hit home, too. The Fight Club quote seemed appropriate, since it seems like the first rule of (SAT scores, legacies, URMs, etc.) is don’t talk about (SAT scores, legacies, URMs, etc.).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I agree with hyeonjlee.</p>
<p>I’d like to talk about another aspect of our challenges. I think most of us have agreed that our kids need high, very high test scores to have better than infinitesimal chances. I sort of get the talk of pigeonholing kids with low GPA’s and high SAT’s as “slackers”, but I don’t think this generalization applies to kids outside the 3-sigma range (speaking with poetic license, so don’t shoot me if I’m off a little). As hyeonjlee pointed out, the sample space is just too small to have any meaningful correlation.</p>
<p>According to the 2008 college board SAT data, only 5683 students scored 2300 or higher, and only 1881 students scored 2350 or higher in the entire country (or world, if you want to factor in internationals). These numbers correspond to just 0.37% and 0.12% of all SAT takers, respectively. This is why we can’t find corresponding dots on the Naviance. </p>
<p>There are approximately a total of 32,000 freshman seats at the T20’s, not counting the LAC’s. I just want to yell at the top of my lungs to the adcoms – you REALLY don’t have seats for our 3-sigma kids? I mean, our kids are the cream of the crop in some aspect, right? </p>
<p>Look how cute and pretty our blind chickens are, and they work hard to find their corns despite their obvious handicap.</p>
<p>It feels good to get that off my chest.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, my kids are double legacy at a T20 school too. But I don’t think it’s the right school for D in many ways – she prefers smaller. It could possibly be for S, but it’s a very double-edged sword and I’m not really pushing it. But, I do kind of feel that if either or both are so inclined to apply there, they should go whole hog and do it ED (fin aid not an issue) - either use the legacy in ED or don’t bother.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And 5,682 of them are on CC, apparently!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s an interesting way of putting it - ok, 32,000 freshman seats at the T20’s (and let’s just stick at the unis for right now).</p>
<p>So … how many of those do you think fall under the category of recruited athletes, legacies, etc. … ? Then stuff in all your perfect or near perfect scorers … how many spots are really left?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Wow. Now I know why statisticians make so much money!</p>
<p>I can totally see the schools using the SAT/ACT score as the first round of weeding out and then looking at GPA. Every student in the US takes the same test. It’s a level playing field that you don’t get with GPAs and AP courses, etc.</p>
<p>For example, Johnny has a 1500 on the SAT and a 3.7GPA, Suzie has a 1250 and a 3.9 GPA and Tommy has a 1450 and a 3.9 GPA. The school is looking for a minimum 1350 SAT, so Suzie, despite her stellar grades is automatically off the list, Tommy is in and Johnny is a ‘maybe’ if no more Tommys show up. Of course, the stats are much higher as you go up the selectivity list of schools.</p>
<p>I agree that it’s not possible that the middle 50% SAT end up at such a high range unless the schools aren’t deliberately selecting students with those scores at some point during the application process. Seems to me that the test scores would be the easiest and most effective way of quickly weeding out a lot of applications. </p>
<p>Our GC encourages every senior to take the SAT/ACT repeatedly to get that grade as high as possible, so it must mean something in the application process.</p>
<p>Stanford class of 2013</p>
<p>Applicants<br>
Applicants-----Admit Rate-----Matriculants
30,428-------7.9%-----------1,703 </p>
<p>High School GPA Ranges<br>
GPA-----------Percent of Applicants-------Admit Rate-------Percent of Admitted Class </p>
<p>4.0 and above --53%---------------------- 10% ------------67%
3.70 - 3.99---- 30% ----------------------7% -------------27%
below 3.70 ------16%----------------------- 3% ------------7% </p>
<p>High School Rank
in Class Rank—Percent of Applicants -----Admit Rate —Percent of Admitted Class
Top 10% -----80% ----------------------8% -----------93%
11% - 20% ----12%---------------------- 3%----------- 5%
21% and below- 8% ----------------------2% ------------2%</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>None of my three were interested in the 2 T20 schools they were legacies at. As I said above, if we had been more in tune with what it took to get in now, we would have strongly encouraged applications to the one where legacy is a big boost for the older ones.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>These “perfect or near perfect scorers” are among the 3-sigma’s. If I have to guess, may be less than 10% of the 3-sigma kids have our blind chicken syndrome. This would mean our number is only in the 180-500 range, depending on where you’d like to draw the line. Tiny fraction of the total pool. </p>
<p>Let’s face it, we are the few, the proud, the legion of blind chickens! How do I get rid of this image in my mind?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>About 40% of the seats are taken but the traditional hooked. BUT, then there’s all the other missions of the school: low income, middle class, first gen, siblings, geographical diversity…even with all the overlap, it would seem that under 50% of the seats go to those without a hook or a tip.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>32,000? Well, not exactly. As has already been discussed there’s the Hook Problem. Hmom5 estimates that hooks account for 40% of admits at the Top20. While that seems a bit high, she’s worked in Admissions so I won’t dispute that number. Therefore, 32,000x.6= 19,200 seats. Seats that then have to be filled with adequately high SAT/GPA numbers in order to keep selectivity rankings up.</p>
<p>
. </p>
<p>Is that in a single sitting or super-scored? My guess is that colleges will report super-scores, since it’s to their prestige benefit. A quick pass through the “Chances” threads shows a lot of applicants who take the SAT multiple times and super themselves into the 2300 area.</p>
<p>Then there is the issue of sheer numbers. I haven’t done the actual math but assuming a 20% admit rate on 32,000 seats that works out to 160,000 apps. Assuming that 2% of that pool are “outliers”, well you’re left with a flock of 3,200 hungry blind chicks. Even if the T20 alloted 2% of their remaining non-hooked seats for outliers, that’s only 384 seats. 384/3200 and you’re back to a 12% “chance”.</p>
<p>Finally, you’re forgetting human nature. Outliers are the exceptions to the rule, they are discrepancies that have to be explained and defended. You may do that for a few apps but not for all of them. At my first job (many, many years ago), there was an unwritten but clearly understood rule: Microsoft may be great, but nobody gets fired for recommending IBM. Blind, hungry 3-sigma chicks may turn into Microsoft, but no adcom is going to be questioned over a 3.9 IBM.</p>
<p>This article suggests 60% of spots are gone before the unhooked get a look:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/17/books/review/Wolff2.t.html[/url]”>http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/17/books/review/Wolff2.t.html</a></p>
<p>And I agree with Vinceh, how else could HYP have 75th percentile scores of 790 in each section?</p>
<p>It’s like a private sale, by the time it’s open to public everything is gone.</p>
<p>“It’s like a private sale, by the time it’s open to public everything is gone.”
Yup, and let’s not forget 2 other factors- take those 19,000 spots, deduct thousands for International students AND then take the final number and divide that in half based on the sex of you child. Then you have an idea of how few spots are really open to your S or D.</p>
<p>My sympathies and commiserations on all the reality checking that’s been going on in this thread since I last visited. My S1 was a 2008 hs grad, and I still have the scars from when my head hit the ceiling that year as he and his many fellow grads faced such long odds at the most selective schools. </p>
<p>I’ve seen the extraordinarily rare happy chicken strike pay-corn by accentuating a truly unique gift and properly presenting themselves in their application. This stratagem requires the talent/interest to be quantifiably proven with significant awards, honors, and so on. Winning an essay contest that gets the kid on Oprah (true story) did not help one boy we know get into any Ivy, but he did get several T20 acceptances. For those with artistic talent, there can be a little leeway on grades (3.8ish) and SATs (2150ish) we’ve seen.</p>
<p>And I’ll add that most legacy admits at hyper-selective schools (which I’d like to suggest really should be stated as T30) have equally high stats as non-legacy admits. With a pool of too many highly qualified kids, the legacy aspect may offer, at best, a tip factor. It’s not a hook. Considering so many highly intelligent alumni of top colleges produce equally gifted progeny, the applicant pool of legacies is often ferociously competitive too.</p>
<p>Sigh. Nothing easy here.</p>
<p>'It’s not a hook. Considering so many highly intelligent alumni of top colleges produce equally gifted progeny, the applicant pool of legacies is often ferociously competitive too."
I totally agree. It is, I believe one of the reasons that so many legacies ARE accepted at the most selective U’s these days -thousands are JUST as qualified as non-legacies. Add the DA status of many, and legacies do take up a lot of the spots available each year.</p>