<p>What is the value of extraordinary extracurriculars, like getting poems published or doing well in the Intel science talent search or getting 1st place in Academics at the National Junior Classical League? Can these compensate for good but not great grades and class rank (like UW 3.9/4.0, Top 25%)?</p>
<p>In short, yes. There are many people with great grades applying; there are not many with extraordinary ECs. Obviously the more "extraordinary" the better (i.e. a higher placement at Intel search would be better than lower and it depends on where you're "published"). Besides, a 3.9 GPA is hardly something deplorable in the first place!!!</p>
<p>It depends how "extraordinary" the ECs are and how far an applicant falls beneath the general academic threshold.</p>
<p>At the most selective colleges, the most important elements of an application are grades, rigor of curriculum, and standardized test scores. For the vast majority of applicants, it's essential to get past the threshold with those three big elements. If you don't, your great ECs/great essays/great recs/great fine arts supp won’t matter, because the admissions committee probably won’t even evaluate them. Great ECs won't make up for a mediocre academic record. There are exceptions for kids with recognized hooks, like recruited athletes. I also imagine that someone with the already-established talent of, say, Yo-Yo Ma, could bypass the academic threshold. But most ECs, no. </p>
<p>During an interview at an Ivy last year (not Yale), my son learned that some fine arts supplements -- even supps that might be absolutely extraordinary -- are not even sent to the appropriate faculty for review because the rest of the application didn’t meet the academic threshold. So yes, for selective colleges, highlight your great ECs, but be aware that for the vast majority of students they will not compensate for mediocre test scores, grades, etc. (BTW, a 3.9 does NOT sound mediocre!)</p>
<p>I wouldn't necessarily call grades and SAT scores the most important elements in that having a perfect GPA and SAT score would certainly not get you in to these schools. I think essays and ECs are more important, frankly, in that they are usually the deciding factor. The GPA/SAT scores mostly just qualify you to be considered seriously. In other words, I'd say a 2200 and 2350 would be considered basically the same.</p>
<p>^Not true. Check out Princeton's admissions statistics. Or Stanford's. 2200=/=2350.</p>
<p>Let's look at Stanford's. Percent of applicants with an 800 Writing section who were admitted? 21%. 700-799? 13%. Totally the same. CR and Math sections also have prominent differences, but aren't as radical.</p>
<p>Grades and SATs are by far the most important factor in college admissions. They don't just qualify you. They are way more important than that. ECs and essays are below both of those for most very selective universities.</p>
<p>I don't buy it. Correlation =/= causation. There are far less 800s than 700-799. A substantially smaller sample means a substantially larger error margin. I'd say the difference (which is even smaller for the other two sections) is not significant. </p>
<p>Even if it is statistically significant, it's probably not unreasonable to assume many 800 SATers are more motivated than the 700-799 range (which is far easier to achieve just by sheer intellect). Unsurprisingly more motivated students probably do well in other activities, which the top schools consider very important. Anyways, this is pure conjecture, but I'm just saying... data are very deceiving and often don't mean as much as people like them to. Again, Baelor, correlation =/= causation: there has been a steady decrease in the number of pirates since the 1800s, along with a steady rise in global temperatures... is that to mean that the decrease in pirates is the cause of global warming? Unlikely.</p>
<p>Anyways, I was just dispensing advice based on my perception; and, given my admissions experience (as well as my siblings and cousins attending Harvard and Yale), SAT scores don't mean much after a certain threshold.</p>
<p>MagiTF, the average acceptance rate at Princeton for students who scored 2300-2400 is 26%. From 2100-2299, the rate is 10.6%. Look it up, it's on their website on a really pretty chart. SAT scores are the factor with the highest correlation with acceptance, far above GPA. </p>
<p>"Anyways, I was just dispensing advice based on my perception; and, given my admissions experience (as well as my siblings and cousins attending Harvard and Yale), SAT scores don't mean much after a certain threshold."</p>
<p>Not true in mine. But I also have data on my side. Let's not use anecdotal evidence here, because the 15+ people who got into HYP from my school had scores above 2300. Yours may be different, so we can't really do anything with our stories.</p>
<p>Obviously, high scorers on the SAT are likely to be motivated elsewhere. However, there is no support for the idea that the large majority of the students who have high SAT scores also have "high" everything else. I do not understand how you can say that pure motivation accounts for the HUGE difference in Princeton's acceptance rates for different SAT scores.</p>
<p>Correlation =/= causation, but unless I see hard facts that support the idea that high SAT scorers are all highly capable in other areas, I don't see why the idea that SAT scores matter (which is told to us explicitly by admissions rates) in the way I'm suggesting is at all invalid.</p>
<p>No adcom I have talked to has said that a 2250 and a 2350 are the same. They said don't bother to retake if you got above 2250. There's a difference.</p>
<p>MagiTF, is 800 really harder to achieve through "pure intellect" than a 7x0? Math people, especially, should breeze through the math section. Others with the wherewithal for 800s in reading/writing should be able to accomplish that with a few practice tests from the official SAT practice book or whatever. I don't think tutoring or extra motivation (any more than any responsible student should put in) is going to create those 2300-2400 scores.</p>
<p>I do think that, at the top schools, the SAT is extremely valuable. Otherwise they wouldn't use it. Would they require subject tests as additional measures just as initial evaluation? Wouldn't SAT I give them enough for that? It doesn't make sense that Harvard, for example, would expand their requirements to 3 SAT II's, if they were simply used as first-round elimination.</p>
<p>As CC goes, I think there's a perception to overvalue slightly EC's and totally undervalue SAT's. I guess we'll see in April.</p>
<p>I agree with the "correlation does not equal causation" point. Not many people doubt that SATs measure something real, even if not very precisely. There's going to be some meaningful difference between a candidate with 2100 SATs and one with 2400 SATs, and that difference is likely to show up in myriad ways -- essays, achievements, recommendations, GPA. So it's not surprising that there's a correlation between admission and high SATs. But 3/4ths of the applicants with SATs >2300 are still being rejected (and something like half the applicants with SATs = 2400). </p>
<p>Meanwhile, I would be willing to bet that, if you had access to the admissions office's essay scoring, at least 90% of the top 100 essays would be admitted, and probably 70-80% of the top 400 essays. Lots of those people will have high SATs. The ones who don't get admitted may well have low SATs. The ones with low SATs who are admitted may well have top essays.</p>
<p>Then, if you are talking about ECs: The correlation between being the top recruited quarterback and admission is certainly close to 100%, assuming that a candidate wouldn't be recruited without passing whatever the minimum academic standard is. The correlation between having an existing career as a professional violin soloist with major orchestras and admission is also probably close to 100%. And an awful lot of those Intel finalists always seem to be going to Harvard.</p>
<p>So what's more important, SATs or essays or extraordinary ECs? Not SATs.</p>
<p>I disagree with one point of yours, JHS. I can understand how the difference between the application of somebody with, say, 1800 SATs and 2400 SATs would be obvious, but 2100 is such a ridiculously high score anyway (not in CC terms of course, but to the rest of the world) that you cannot predict who has better essays, achievements, or recommendations by SAT scores. That 300 point differences points to a mastery of test-taking skills, but will usually have nothing to do with who has better ECs, etc.</p>
<p>Southeast: There are roughly 5,500 students a year who have a single-test SAT I score of 2300 or higher. There are over 51,000 students a year who have a single-test SAT I score of 2100 or higher. More students have a score of exactly 2100 than have scores 2340 or higher. The standard deviation on each separate component of the test is less than 100 points.</p>
<p>So, whatever it is the SAT I is measuring, there's a meaningful difference between 2100 and 2300. Is it a more meaningful difference than other meaningful differences? Probably not. That's why an applicant with extraordinary qualities and 2100 SATs will have a much better chance of admission than an applicant with 2300 SATs and no extraordinary qualities. On the other hand, I believe it's likely, one way or another, that an applicant with extraordinary academic qualities -- as shown by verifiable achievements and teacher assessments -- is more likely to have SATs over 2300 than under 2200. Unless he or she is very unbalanced -- high math, lower (but not low) verbal, or vice versa. And I suspect that lots of the students accepted at a place like Yale with "low" SATs have SATs that look like that rather than 700s across the board.</p>
<p>JHS, I agree with most of what you're saying. However, many of your claims (top essays get in, etc.) are not really founded. They may be plausible, but we can't just assume things about the process because we're only marginally involved, i.e. applicants.</p>
<p>Most adcoms stress the importance of essays. They are incredibly important to solidifying your place in the class. However, they will not get you in at all. If an applicant is incredibly mediocre but writes a good essay (say the adcoms), they will probably not be accepted at HYPS. But again, this is simply an opinion that isn't founded on facts.</p>
<p>"But 3/4ths of the applicants with SATs >2300 are still being rejected (and something like half the applicants with SATs = 2400)."</p>
<p>We are dealing with a much smaller sample, you are correct. But these acceptance rates are so vastly different from the normal one that I have a hard time believing that "other strengths" in these candidates account for the differences. They are just too big. And I have lots of anecdotal evidence, but that's not really valid.</p>
<p>However, I would bring up the fact that some schools now are known to be numbers-based Not HYPS, obviously, but even some of the lower Ivies and Duke, etc.</p>
<p>Basically, say the adcom has two candidates:</p>
<p>Great academics, a few mediocre ECs, perfect scores, great essays</p>
<p>Okay academics, great ECs, okay scores, good essays</p>
<p>I have honestly never heard ANYTHING from an adcom that would suggest candidate two would be accepted over candidate one. The ECs are the part of the application that seem to be given the least weight by ultra-selective schools.</p>
<p>Baelor, you are missing something really obvious. In the last couple of nights I have seen Olympic medal winners from Notre Dame, Yale, Duke, and Brown. Do you really think they all had better than OK academics, OK scores, and good essays? I don't. Were there kids with great academics and perfect scores (but not necessarily great essays) who got turned down by those schools? You better believe it.</p>
<p>W/re Brown, I know another recruited athlete in the same class as Alicia Sacramonte. "OK academics, OK scores" would be very generous in her case, and she's not in Beijing, either.</p>
<p>Sports are one area where "great ECs" can go a long way. But the same can be true for music, art, writing, and a variety of other things. I saw a 23-year-old violinist perform with the Boston Symphony Orchestra recently. He had a ten-year track record of soloist appearances with top-rank orchestras and conductors. He also just graduated from Harvard. Now, maybe he had 2400 SATs, but I doubt it, and even if he did, I doubt anyone cared. Ditto for Natalie Portman or Julia Stiles. </p>
<p>Really great ECs -- I'm talking Olympics-great, Oscar-great, world-class -- plus barely acceptable everything else probably equals near-certain acceptance.</p>
<p>JHS, that is correct. I'm not missing that at all. I cannot believe that you would talk about small sample sizes relating to SAT scores, and then bother to mention recruited athletes, world-class artists, etc. It's not even worth discussing. Of course they'll get accepted. But recruited athletes follow a completely different process, and Intel finalists, concert musicians, etc. are in a league of their own EC-wise.</p>
<p>first off, this is a really really interesting thread everyone.</p>
<p>secondly, i think unfortunately for us all, elite college admissions is largely a crapshoot. its usually a case-by-case thing: just being a 5th degree black belt may not help your admissions chances, especially if you're not going to use those specific talents to help the school (like, say, a quarterback would).</p>
<p>finally i think that to an extent, SAT differences near the top are inconsequential. they understand that from a 2300 and up, there really is not much difference. every factor is a part of the application- theres no magic formula. i honestly dont believe that a kid with stellar grades and essays and awesome and interesting ec's would be rejected just for having a 'mere' 2150. there may be other factors at work, like being from an overrepresented area , like i am- suburban new jersey.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Really great ECs -- I'm talking Olympics-great, Oscar-great, world-class -- plus barely acceptable everything else probably equals near-certain acceptance.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>This is true, but the number of applicants at this caliber are few. ECs are not the ticket into HYPS for the vast majority of applicants. </p>
<p>Even above-average profiles will help you stand out, which is very important at top schools. But the kids at my hs accepted to top places didn't necessarily have the CC EC credentials that leave everyone else amazed/hopeless/in tears. CC likely attracts the more outgoing, do-everything sect of the college application world, so our perception of the importance of ECs might be a little skewed. I just don't think that there are 2,000 applicants at each top school that have the 4.0/val/2380/10 APs/jaw-dropping-ECs profile that we see in the "admitted students" thread in the chances forum for example. You don't need to have everything.</p>
<p>That was kind of a ramble; hope it made sense. To summarize, ECs are more important for some than others.</p>
<p>
[quote]
finally i think that to an extent, SAT differences near the top are inconsequential. they understand that from a 2300 and up, there really is not much difference.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Do you have an explanation or evidence for this? I think SAT differences near the top are relatively consequential, in comparison to the 50th percentile of the test, where nobody has any idea what a 1750 v. 1800 means.</p>
<p>^^Concur that ECS are not the ticket to acceptance for most HYP applicants. ECs will overcome a non-Ivy caliber or extremely lopsided academic record only in a very few instances -- like the cellist who has won significant International competitions and has a professional career underway, the US International Chem Olympiad delegation member, and the Olympic-caliber athlete (or any highly sought-after athlete). The vast, vast majority --even kids with really fabulous EC resumes -- MUST have the grades, curriculum, and scores to make it though the first door. It is just wrong to think that at schools like Yale, cool ECs -- even really cool ECs -- will make up for a subpar academic record. The door will be barred before those ECs get a foot in. The threshold can be very high: In our community (affluent big-city suburb) an unhooked kid needs to be top of the class, have taken the most rigorous curriculum, and be ABOVE Yale's 75th percentile in scores to have a realistic chance at admission.</p>
<p>I'm convinced that a goodly no. of apps are really what the committee "feels" will be a beneficial admit to the student body. I don't doubt that in any season, there's a stack of "no-brainer" applicants -- ones who are extremely stellar on a variety of parts. Also, I'm sure there are tons (thousands) who have little to no chance based on initial reads. But the middle -- there's where the subjectives come into play.</p>
<p>In my own situation, here's what my application said:
1) Academics: excellent (but not perfect) GPA in the MOST rigorous curriculum. Ranked about tenth or so in a very competitive HS
2) Scores: OK but not stellar (turned out to be about the 30th percentile after all was said and done).<br>
3) "Standard" Hook: none. I'm a non-legacy, non-development, non-athlete Chinese.
4) ECs: outside work, band (9th-11th), JROTC (strongest commitment)-- that's it.
5) "What I feel got me in": Academically strong, but I was a student leader in a predominantly African American HS and wrote a compelling essay (IMHO) about how I had betrayed a gay friend's secret. In hindsight, I can see I was an atypical academically strong Asian applicant.</p>
<p>This grabbed someone's attention. Y along w/another Ivy and 3 other top engineering schools offered me admissions. I chose New Haven because I loved its social environment.</p>
<p>JHS, im interested, where did u get those SAT stats?</p>
<p>The ones about numbers of test takers > certain levels came from the report that College Board publishes every year about that year's graduating seniors. It's a little hard to find on their website, but if you know it's there you can find it. Every now and then someone posts a link on CC. Anyway, it tells you how many men/women/various ethnic groups scored what on each component of the test, on all three combined, and on M/CR combined. I think that report also has the standard deviation for each test (or somewhere else on the website has it).</p>