<p>I would hope by doing well in high school is more than just getting into good colleges. The main goal, I would think would be getting excellent education in high school. There is nothing wrong for our kids to be stressed sometimes and also learn it is not possible to get everything one wants in life.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It is, but I think it’s that narrow focus that high school students and sometimes parents get summer between junior and senior year of high school. It’s hard to get perspective at that point of what it all “means.” That malcontent can strike again after they graduate and are out looking for jobs. </p>
<br>
<br>
<hr>
<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>We are reverting to the basic element of realistic expectations. Take the entire package of your D but add 300 points to the SAT. Then ask this forum about the chances at the most competitive schools in the country. And the answer, if honest, will still be in single digits. Obviously, the lower you go in rankings, prestige, or whatever tool people use to establish tiers of selectivity, the better the odds will be. </p>
<p>Holistic admissions do indeed place a great value on GPA and rankings. However, if there are 30,000 Val’s in the country, how many are there with top 5 percent rankings and a great HS resume? And, fwiw, with very high standardized scores. </p>
<p>There are plenty of great schools that will be happy to accept your daughter, and offer a good fit. If you lived in Texas, the HS record would have given you automatic admission to one of the great state public universities. </p>
<p>
Many colleges do indeed have crap shoot odds for applicants with well above 75th percentile stats, which suggests that those colleges emphasize other criteria besides stats, and lower stat applicants with those criteria can get accepted over top stat applicants. Having lower test scores does reduce chance of admission at such colleges, but in many cases, I think it reduces odds less than many on this site assume. </p>
<p>I know Parchment stats are self-reported (excluding some HSs that use it as a low cost alternative to Naviance) and biased, making specific acceptance rates not particularly useful, but it can be a useful source tool to look at general admission trends, such as how admission rates changes with specific criteria in specific groups. In this example, I’ll compare Parchment admit rates over the last 4 years for ~3.9 UW GPA applicants with a SAT within +/- 50 points of the OP’s daughter (called “low SAT”) to applicants with a SAT of ~2300-2350 (called “high SAT”). I also included a filter for number of AP classes when sample size was sufficient. </p>
<p>Ivies
Cornell – 40% (low SAT) and 45% (high SAT)
Brown – 20% (low SAT) and 30% (high SAT)
Penn – 15% (low SAT) and 20% (high SAT)
Columbia – 15% (low SAT) and 25% (high SAT)</p>
<p>More Stat Focused Colleges
Notre Dame – 30% (low SAT) and >95% (high SAT)
USC – 30% (low SAT) and 85% (high SAT)
Vanderbilt – 10% (low SAT) and 95% (high SAT)
Rice – 10% (low SAT) and 80% (high SAT)</p>
<p>While the lower SAT score group did have a lower admit rate at all listed colleges, it was only tremendously lower at the more stat focus colleges. I’d expect lower income kids to be overrepresented in the high GPA / low SAT group, so many probably have a different profile from the OP’s daughter. I’m sure there are also hooks, mismatched scores, applying to less selective departments, and other explanations for the acceptances. Nevertheless, a notable portion of the high GPA / middling SAT kids seem to be getting accepted at the selective holistic colleges, and I don’t see anything to suggest the scores in the listed range will prevent the OP’s D from being considered, like the OP said. Sure her odds of acceptance would be better if she had a higher SAT score, but at especially holistic colleges, probably not tremendously better. There is nothing wrong with applying to reaches, so long as you realize they are reaches and also include colleges with more likely chances of admission. If we are going to forbid submitting applications based on chance of acceptance, then we should consider the whole application, and we should also forbid at certain colleges based on non-stat criteria, such as things like when out of classroom activities are not notable beyond a HS level.</p>
<p>Data10, Parchment is pure GIGO. It is just as valuable as the occasional self-reported statistics on CC … and that is between zero and zilch. I am sure you have looked at the statistics presented by Dean Shaw and reported in the Senate minutes. Comparing the enrollment stats of Cal vs Stanford shows how unreliable self-reported numbers are. Surely nothing that could be called data. </p>
<p>However, even if the numbers were 100 percent accurate, would it change anything to our interpretations of enrollment data? We KNOW that students are accepted with 1 to 25 percentile scores. But again, how much is due to extremely lopsided scores? You reported a low CR score, but what else did you show to balance the verbal score? There is no need to provide personal details as we can safely assume there were plenty of reasons for Stanford to extend an invitation. Andrew Luck was val at a solid HS in Texas. How low could his SAT CR go before Harbaugh and Shaw might have to decline? You know the answer! Someone could decree that he was accepted for his high class ranking … looking at brute stats. </p>
<p>In the end, I continue to think that way too much is read in looking at the 25th percentile scores, and that way too many unrealistic expectations are created, contributing to what you called a crapshoot. I, for one, continue to believe that the process is MUCH less a crapshoot than often reported or assumed. I believe that because schools seem to compose classes on a repetitive and consistent basis. If, we, the common mortals are left to speculate about odds, the adcoms DO know whom they want. Their hope is that the student accept the offer! </p>
<p>Fwiw, we could debate this issue for years and be none the wiser. People will continue to think that Vals are shoo-ins at HYPS, regardless of the high school. People will continue to think that a 4.0 is magical despite the (BS) reported GPA on the SAT showing an incredible above B average in the nation. </p>
<p>Again, the low admission rates at the CC group of favorite schools remain a rather sobering reminder how unrealistic expectations yield great disappointments and frustration in April and May. </p>
<p>@xiggi
I believe the crap shoot metaphor only applies to those on the outside looking in. Perhaps a better technical term would be black box. Surely the adcoms have a process and apply that process fairly consistently. So to those inside the decision process it is fairly orderly and procedural (though perhaps slightly subjective). </p>
<p>OTOH, those of us on the outside do not have sufficient access to the parameters of each process, complicated by the fact that each black box (ie school) has their own different parameters. Therefore from our point of view, the process appears to be random. And since we have no way of getting a better picture, there is very little value in trying to present it as anything other than random.</p>
<p>There is order in chaos, we just don’t know enough to know what it is.</p>
<p>
Most low-stat hooks tend to have both lower GPA and lower SAT, so they wouldn’t fall into this high GPA / low SAT group. For example, the Stanford football team has a reported mean HS GPA of ~3.6 . Sure there are probably a few near 4.0 UW GPA Andrew Luck-like students in on the team, but they are balanced out by 3.4/3.5 GPA team members to maintain the average. I’d expect very few to fall into this 3.9+ UW with mediocre SAT group. </p>
<p>I agree that a portion of the mismatched GPA/SAT applicants are hooks, and the low test score acceptances probably had something really impressive on their application, but I’d say the same thing about the high test score acceptances to colleges like Stanford. When I analyzed the CC Stanford RD thread last year (I realize that CC decision threads are an extremely poor sample group with huge biases), the most notable correlation with acceptance decisions was not test scores or any kind of stat. Instead the acceptances showed the strongest correlation with impressive achievements outside of the classroom, including passions as reflected by impressive accomplishments in ECs and awards, or overcoming unique experiences. CC posters who were valedictorians with top SATs were being rejected without notable out of classroom experiences/achievements, as were the lower stat CC posters (none of the thread posters had less than a ~2000 SAT and ~3.7 GPA, accepted or rejected). And the lower stat applicants were being accepted with notable out of classroom experiences and achievements, as were the valedictorian with top SAT applicants with those criteria. By “notable”, I mean impressive on far more than a HS level. </p>
<p>The lowest test score Stanford acceptance I’ve ever heard of was not an incredible athlete, child of someone famous/wealthy/faculty, national award winner, or other of the most extreme hooks. She also was not a specialist with stellar scores in one area. Her top section score across all sittings was 600 and <1500 on first sitting (Stanford does not Superscore and requires submitting all sittings) She describes her scores at <a href=“http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k8fHUSgpMBg”>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k8fHUSgpMBg</a> . Yes, she is a URM, but she fits into the category described above with an amazing background and powerful application that I’d expect to convince an admissions committee that she would succeed at Stanford, regardless of scores. Among unhooked high GPA/low SAT applicants, there is a parent in the Stanford forum whose daughter was val of a small school with a SAT of under 1900. I’d expect the extra factor for her acceptance was the state+ level FFA awards and related experiences. Yes, these are special cases, that have something unique on their application that few others will have, but you aren’t going to find many acceptances that do not have something unique that helps stand out, regardless of score. And it also suggests, Stanford is not going to immediately not consider an applicant because they did not reach a high score threshold.</p>
<p>
I agree with this. I also believe that if we don’t know the black box criteria used for acceptance decisions, we should not assume that applicants with stats like the OP’s D have no chance because of a middling SAT at colleges that emphasize non-score criteria, assuming that is the only weak area of their application.</p>
<p>Quoting</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>You are partly echoing something I wrote about students presenting extremely compelling applications. Fwiw, I am afraid you have the wrong info regarding super scoring at Stanford. Unless they changed since December 2013, Stanford does superscore the SAT. See <a href=“http://www.stanford.edu/dept/uga/application/freshman/testing.html”>http://www.stanford.edu/dept/uga/application/freshman/testing.html</a></p>
<p>
It’s</a> a semantics issue. I meant Stanford requires submitting SAT and ACT scores from all sittings excluding unique circumstances, so the listed score would be submitted as part of the application (even though they do focus on the highest subscore across all sittings, placing less emphasis on others). I suppose the correct term for this is not score choice, rather than not super score. </p>
<p>Sorry, no semantics here. Stanford DOES superscore as their practice is EXACTLY what superscore means. Disallowing score choice is a different animal. </p>
It’s been more than a year since this thread has ben active, and I thought, in the interest of future parents with children in this situation, I would give an update.
A recap: My daughter graduated in 2015 in the top 5% of one of the most competitive public high schools in the country, in a NYC suburb. By graduation, she had taken 8 AP classes, with a 4 or 5 on every AP exam. 4.3 GPA. Two sports, president of a club, certified open-water lifeguard.
However, her standardized test scores were not commensurate with her academic achievement. Highest SAT was 2040 (CR: 670 / M: 680 / W: 690). One try on the ACT resulted in a 29. (Her practice tests for SAT and ACT were way higher, so the bottom line was that she just couldn’t get over her nervousness on test days.) She had no hooks. She was not interested in any of the test-optional schools.
These were her application results:
REACHES
Cornell ILR (ED) – deferred, then guaranteed transfer
Northwestern – rejected
Vanderbilt – rejected
WUSTL – rejected
LOWER REACHES (based on scores; these were matches based on GPA)
University of Michigan (EA) – deferred at the stated EA notification date, then accepted 4 weeks later
Emory – WL
Colgate – WL
MATCHES / SAFETIES (depending on whether you judge by GPA or scores)
Tulane (EA) – accepted with large merit scholarship
University of Maryland (EA) – accepted to College Park Scholars, 2nd-highest honors program, with tiny merit $
University of Wisconsin – accepted
University of Miami – accepted with large merit scholarship
So there you have it.
If any parents of HS class of 2016 have children in similar situations, I’d be glad to share additional learnings.
Where is she matriculating? She got some nice acceptances!!
Ah – forgot to say! University of Michigan.
Congrats to your D!
Thank you!
Terrific!
To use an arbitrary cut off for so called “low SAT” or “high SAT” does not make any sense. You may pick 2350 at cut off so >90% would be “low SAT”. The mid 50 tell you much more about the distribution of scores.
Note that you are replying to a comment in a discussion from more than a year ago. Nevertheless, I will explain the comment. The sentence before the one that you quoted explained that “low SAT” was defined as an SAT in the range of the OP, along with a similar GPA to the OP with rigorous courses and other filters. “High SAT” was defined as the same GPA, # of AP classes, and other filters; but with a higher SAT score. The point was to show that at certain “more stat focused colleges” increasing the SAT score well above the OP’s range appeared to have a huge impact on acceptance rate. While at other more holistic colleges, a higher SAT score than the OP appeared to have much less impact on acceptance rate among this high GPA group + rigorous course load group. The OP mentioned she was guaranteed transfer to the more holistic Cornell, while rejected from the more stat focused Vanderbilt; so the results are reasonably consistent. The point was not to look at the “mid 50” distribution of scores.
To add to Data’s comment- the last Naviance data I looked at from our local HS suggested that sky high scores were “enough” for Vanderbilt. Excellent grades, lousy grades, good EC’s, no EC’s, none of it seemed to matter. Vanderbilt is increasingly popular in my area, and counselors suggest it for the kids with the fantastic SAT’s but the wobbly “everything else” for this reason.
Will that change in the next few years? Who knows. But I think there is a big group of colleges where the very high scores and a rigorous course load are enough.
Exactly. This was one of my learnings from the experience with D. Students whose GPAs put them closer to the middle of the class got into colleges that some in the top 10% did not. These included Northwestern, WashU, Vanderbilt, and even UChicago.
My D was waitlisted at Colgate and Emory. I’m thinking that she could have been admitted if she had written one of them an ILY letter and told them that she would attend if admitted… Students with GPAs way lower and course loads way less rigorous got into those schools ED. By the time she got the WL notifications, she already knew she wanted to commit to UMich. She did not really want to go to an LAC or a small university. She applied to Colgate and Emory just to mix it up a bit because she wasn’t sure how her application would be looked upon, with the discordance between GPA and SAT.