I don’t think you can assume that all of the lower SAT applicants had some kind of hook or otherwise knew they had something else that gave them a big edge. Many students apply to “reaches”, even when they don’t have a special hook or edge. Many students also do not have the same perspective on what kind of stats you need as is typical on this forum, particularly in less competitive HSs. For example, I attended what I consider to be a typical public HS in upstate NY. Being in upstate NY, far more students apply to Cornell than to any other selective college. Naviance for this HS shows ~half of the Cornell applicants from recent years had below a 2000 SAT, too many to all be hooks. They also were not all “valedictorian with a 1950” types. None of the top few percent class rank applicants had a SAT in this range. The vast majority of the sub-2000 applicants had a GPA that was reasonably consistent with their test score, well below Cornell’s average GPA. However, if I look at the minority that had a mismatched GPA and test score, with a GPA above Cornell’s average acceptance GPA for my HS combined with a sub 2000 SAT, the majority of this very high GPA / middling SAT group were accepted. Sure it’s possible all of these very high GPA acceptances were some kind of hook, but this seems unlikely. I think the hook applicants are more likely to be ones with inconsistent results from the vast majority of others with a similar profile.</p>
<p>The comments listed on Cornell’s website fit with the numbers I’ve listed in this post and others saying:
</p>
<p>I am not saying all selective colleges have admissions practices like Cornell. Many are quite different. I’ve mentioned Vanderbilt in some of my previous posts. They have approximately the same overall admit rate as Cornell and also practice holistic admissions, considering many factors besides stats like Cornell, yet every analysis I’ve done/seen suggests test scores are quite important for admissions at Vanderbilt, far more so than for Cornell. For example, Parchment applicants to Vanderbilt with a high GPA and high test scores have an ~100% reported acceptance rate, and applicants with a high GPA and “middling” test scores have an extremely low reported acceptance rate. As one would expect with such policies, Vanderbilt’s reported 25th and 75th percentile have increased rapidly, as their acceptance rate has gone down in recent years, to the point where Vanderbilt’s current 25th percentile test scores are similar to their 75th percentile scores a decade ago. The scores are far above Cornell and are even above Stanford. If Vanderbillt’s trend of SAT score increases continues, they’ll have the highest reported SAT scores of any non-tech focused college, starting with either the current class or the following one.</p>
<p>All depends on the definition of hook and big edge! What you can safely assume is that one or two subscores were balanced by … something very positive. For instance, how does a 800M - 600R - 800W look for an international student? An athlete? A student who also show several high AP scores in Literature with perfect STEM Subject tests? </p>
<p>Someone above made the comment that it is a mistake to look at the overall SAT scores, but it is also a mistake to focus on one subject 25th percentile as there are plenty of angular students with lopsided scores. </p>
<p>But again, does it make much sense to debate the semantics over and over? After all, it is not very hard to look at stacks of CDS and analyze the reported scores. Nor is it hard to play with the admissions statistics and come up with almost any conclusion to support an agenda. Add the simple fact that all released statistics are describing the enrolled pool and that this pool might represent less than 5 percent of the entire applicants’ class, and you have plenty of grey area. </p>
<p>In the end, we are all entitled to our own opinions and perhaps idle speculation. We really do NOT know why some students are accepted nor … rejected. Only the adcoms at the highest levels know! </p>
<p>And when it comes to opinions, mine has not changed much over the years. I will always think that the SAT is an opportunity to overcome some elements in the application. I will always think that a higher score is better (duh) and that a higher score is attainable to a dedicated and proactive effort. And, I will always think that in order to emerge as one of those below the 25th percentile, one NEEDS one heck of a strong balancing element, be it academic, SES, racial, or athletic. And I will always believe that the days of the BWRK are gone. Just as the chances of the Lake Wobegon kids. </p>
<p>Others might disagree, but I always could cynically point that with single digit admission rates now becoming common at the “CC Schools”, chances are that my opinion seems to be backed by brute numbers. </p>
<p>Xiggi- I agree with you. I would also add that although I am sure that every single Adcom in this country knows that some very smart and capable people don’t test well, and they’d be the first to tell you that SAT’s are an extremely imperfect predictor of performance, and that the ACT, while different, has many of the same problems… and yet- using it is one of the only ways to normalize academic potential and performance across the tens of thousands of high schools in America. </p>
<p>It is not fool proof. Every single college admits some duds every year- the kid whose HS physics teacher said he was god’s gift to science and ends up majoring in beer pong with a minor in sexual assault. Those are the outliers who can’t be predicted based on what’s in the application. Every college has some of those. But there are the outliers who often can be predicted- the academic slacker- brilliant but lazy. Some colleges will take a chance, others won’t. The kid who doesn’t test well- grades off the charts, scores are lack-luster. Again, some colleges will and some won’t. Depends on what else the adcom’s see there. Just a hard worker? That’s risky- nobody can work 24/7 once the stakes get higher and the standards are higher than in HS. A hard worker but with some clear strengths in areas not covered by the SAT? A better bet. Middling SAT scores which are coupled with very high SAT 2 scores in a foreign language (not the heritage language) which a kid has clearly learned cold in HS- that’s a good combination. </p>
<p>And don’t confuse a hook with a tip. That middling scorer with very high grades who is performing in Europe next summer with a major symphony orchestra- that’s a hook. The middling scorer with very high grades who is a solid tennis player and volunteers at an animal shelter- that’s an unhooked candidate. Add in that the kid is from Montana- that’s only a tip factor, not a hook. </p>
<p>And the kid with lopsided scores who sells origami jewelry may get a second look just because he tickles someone’s funny bone in the admissions office. I don’t think it hurt my non-STEM kid that despite sub 700 math scores that he took AP Calc BC, AP Physics and was in Science Olympiad. He actually was the prototypica BWRK, but he happened to have one quirky hobby that he’d turned into a small business. I agree with xiggi and blossom that all else being equal it’s better to have the scores, but also with calmom that not everyone in the bottom 25% fits into the categories people say they do - athletes, legacies, URMs. Some are the lopsided scores and some just looked a little extra interesting. But if your scores are low for the institution you are applying, I think you have to look long and hard at your package and think about what you are offering that will convince someone to take you rather than someone else with better numbers.</p>
<p>Actually, I don’t think that, short of some obscure school, there are any schools that are SAT only. My recolection is that the last two biggies were Harvey Mudd and Wake Forest (and they made quite the 180 degree turn after deciding to accept the ACT.) In so many words, while there might be an implied preference, it appears that the acceptance for either test is pretty ubiquitous. </p>
<p>"But if your scores are low for the institution you are applying, I think you have to look long and hard at your package and think about what you are offering that will convince someone to take you rather than someone else with better numbers. "</p>
<p>This is good advice- but I would add that in an environment where the perfect scorer kids have crap shoot odds, a kid with the low scores for the institution can surely apply but make sure there are some realistic schools on the list as well. </p>
<p>@ xiggi - Correct me if they’ve changed their policy, but I’m pretty sure that Rutgers (and other public colleges in NJ) did not accept the ACT two years ago. I don’t know about other state flagships in the East.</p>
<p>@xiggi
So your bottom line is that my D, at top 5% of very competitive, well known public school in a suburb of NYC, with 7 APs (including AP Calc, AP Spanish Lang, AP SPanish Lit, Euro, APUSH, Macro, et al), who never got below an A- in any subject – but whose SAT superscore is 1970 – will end up at the same school as the student from her HS who graduates in top 30%, no APs, and the same SAT score. In other words, you are saying that her peers (for college admission) are those who scored, say 1900-2040, not those who are are high honors graduates along with her.</p>
<p>If that’s what you are saying, it’s very discouraging. She could have had a WAY less stressful four years of HS, getting a mix of As and Bs, not taking APs or honors classes, and ended up at the same college. Why work hard in high school?</p>
<p>Brantly- who said that or even implied that? The message is just to apply to a mix of schools- like any other kid, even the Val with the triple 800’s, and to hope for the best but expect the worst (just like every other kid). And that the mix for your D should include some score optional schools, some schools which will evaluate the application holistically with a strong bias towards her AP’s and GPA, AND a few lottery type schools (which are crap shoots for everyone) but where the Naviance data from your HS indicates that the Adcom’s know and love your HS, and will understand the rigor of her program, and will see things in the application beyond the test scores. And if it were my kid (and I recognize that it’s not) I’d be seeking out schools outside your community’s “usual suspects”, potentially where your D adds geographic diversity. And I’d favor the schools which “punch above their weight” in terms of an intellectual environment and student body when doing so. </p>
<p>You’ve been pushing back when some of us have tried to be helpful. Will your D get into Barnard? She’s a very good candidate. Will your D get into Penn? Depends on who else from your HS is applying. Will your D get into Yale? I cannot predict the future but I’ll guess not. Would your D get into Bryn Mawr and Wellesley and Lawrence and Beloit and Rice and Pomona and Mt. Holyoke (all schools with a strong critical mass of the kind of student your D is- serious about academics)? My guess is yes. Will your D get into Cornell? I’ll predict no on Arts and Sciences but a maybe on some of the other schools.</p>
<p>But I am irrelevant and you don’t know me. But your D sounds fantastic, and it is sad to me that she is potentially going to spend the summer feeling bad about going to college with the slackers from her HS, instead of getting excited about some of the brilliant and hard-working kids who go to Smith and would love to have her as a classmate.</p>
<p>“MaimDAP I meant credit from the adcom in evaluation of the application, not credit from the college for the course”
-Somebody “translated” what I meant and I am sorry to point out that the translation is incorrect.<br>
When I replied to:
“Obviously a kid that does well on APs is going to get credit for doing well on APs.” - Not obvious at all. For example, many in pre-med programs are strongly advised to take all science classes from the very beginning. If they do not follow this advice, they may be in trouble later."
-I actually meant that my D. as well as many around her were taking some science classes starting with the very first one because they were advised to do so, despite of FULL college credit for their 5’s on the AP tests. It strictly depends on the specific program at specific college and that is a reason to listen to the advisors (who are hired to advise, you are paying them for that, part of your tuition payment), and much more so specifically, listen to the pre-med advisors at specific UGs since sooo much is at stake while preparing to apply to Medical Schools. Also, considering the fact that pre-meds usually have whole load of AP’s being in the top percentile at the respective HS, you can hardly find non-valedictorian in the pre-med crowd. </p>
<p>@brantly the kid with no APs has no chance of getting into the most selective schools - course rigor (in the local context) is even more important than SAT scores. She will, however, be competing with kids who took the same courses, with a lower GPA but higher scores. I’d guess especially if the GPA is lopsided. (For example my younger son’s GPA was brought down mostly by his Latin grades and a low B in Chemistry freshman year.)</p>
<p>I did not come close to thinking or saying that. Your D’s performance in her high school should yield a more competitive list of admissions than her peer with the more pedestrian record. The SAT by itself does not make any difference. Your D is balancing it with a superb HS transcript. </p>
<p>This said, please remember that highly competitive school compare and evaluate students on a national level as opposed to a local HS level. </p>
<p>OP - I would wait and see how the ACT goes. And, she could look at test optional schools. </p>
<p>Also, one reason to work hard in high school is to be prepared to take challenging college classes, regardless of where you end up. If your daughter has a good idea of what she wants to study in college, I would look for large schools with competitive departments in those areas, that might be easier admits overall. These schools are likely to be destination schools for students with the stats to get into more selective universities, and she could find that the profiles of students in these departments matches those of students in her high school classes.</p>
To start with, students do not always choose the most selective college to which they can get accepted . For example, at many public HSs, it’s quite common for both high achieving and middle achieving students to attend the nearby state school. It’s always quite common for students to choose less than the most selective college they can get into for many other reasons, such as cost and merit scholarships. </p>
<p>Your comments suggest test scores are more important than GPA, course rigor, and all other criteria. Colleges almost always describe the importance of admission criteria quite differently. For example, each year, the NACAC does a survey asking a large number of colleges what factors are “considerable importance” to admissions decisions, and each year the top two factors in their survey are grades in college prep classes and strength of curriculum. It sounds like your daughter excels in these two areas. </p>
<p>It sounds as if Brantly and her daughter are both fixated on competitive rankings and status, which should set off some alarms. Would this student be comfortable and confident at a school where she is certain to be no better than average - where everyone had similar GPAs, and most had higher test scores, and - in many cases - more impressive outside accomplishments? She should certainly aim high with her applications. She will get into an excellent college. I attended Barnard back in the 1970s. It was much less selective then than it is now. I had a very inconsistent academic record, and it had been my reach school. I was always shocked by the contempt with which many of my fellow students (both at Barnard and Columbia) treated this first-rate college and university. They did so because so many of them had never gotten past the disappointment of rejections from Harvard and Yale. </p>
<p>@blossom
Sorry if it came off that way. I am extremely appreciative of all the very helpful comments here. Each and every one of them. I just got frustrated at the idea put forth that standardized test scores are the most important criterion. I do recognize that D will get into a very nice school that will be happy to have her. I think I am just channeling her frustration that her scores will not give her access to be considered at some schools – schools that she will have liked to have applied to were her scores commensurate with her GPA.</p>
Which schools are these? I think you’d be surprised at the historical acceptance rates for applicants with stats similar to your daughter at most highly selective colleges that have a holistic focus to their admissions.</p>
<p>Wait until you actually have those ACT scores in hand, and put those colleges you refer to in the reach category and then round out the list. I would much rather have a kid with a perfect high school transcript and top 20% standardized test scores than perfect ACT scores and B+s in high school. As many have said, and you can check the common data sets for the colleges that interest you, most colleges put GPA as the primary consideration. Help her get excited about her match and safety colleges. The laser eyeball that high school students put on individual colleges disappears during mid-terms college freshman year and is in the rearview mirror by Christmas.</p>
<p>Why should this be discouraging? She is a great student. She has developed great work habits. These skills, along with everything she has learned, will get her far in life. And yes, throughout her life she will find herself side by side with people who have taken a different path (i.e., slacked off in high school, got worse grades, etc.).</p>