<p>The thread seems to be reversing to be about Ivies rather than top schools.
2. Ivy caliber or Olympic caliber does not mean that one has to be admitted or win a medal to be of “caliber” status. It means that it is entirely conceivable that one could be admitted or win an Olympic medal. Lots of athletes who were favored to win gold end up with none. One just has to watch Olympic skiers take a spill racing downhill or missing a gate in the slalom, or just missing by 1/100th of a second.
3. Naviance can help only to an extent. The top schools practice holistic admission. We are not privy to what GCs or teachers write about our kids, let alone other applicants (at least, I was not). We do not know what the essays reveal about applicants or how they are received by harried adcoms. There is an element of chance in this: the weather is getting you down; you’ve had a fight with your spouse; this is the umpteenth file you’ve been reading; you need some coffee. Not being admitted to a top school does not necessarily mean that a student is not of “caliber” status. Especially if said student has decided to apply to his or her flagship university rather than one of the so-called top schools and is receiving a wonderful scholarship.</p>
<p>As for hooks, we do not know whether a student was admitted solely because of a hook (or multiple hooks) or whether that student would have been admitted without any hook whatsoever. This is why I use my S as an example. He had multiple hooks at Harvard and none at Stanford. He was admitted to both. Does that mean that he was admitted to Harvard only because of his hooks or am I allowed to brag that he is “Ivy caliber?” All the other examples I provided of URMS and legacies who got into top schools were also academically excellent. I do not believe for one minute that they were not Ivy caliber.I would not dream of suggesting that it was the hooks that got them admitted to Yale or Harvard.</p>
<p>If we want to be helpful to prospective students, we need to stop focusing on Ivies and keep in mind that there are many top schools beyond the 8 in the Ivy League or the HYPSMC constellation; that there are far more great students than can be accommodated in these top schools; and that each school has a slightly different flavor and looks for slightly different things from each applicant. And that we cannot know how individual applicants come across because we do not get to read their whole files.</p>
<p>I thought all/some of the applications make it to committee, where basically, all of the regional reps sit around a table, presumably with the head of admissions, and argue their case for particular applicants? Doesn’t this take out the “I got sick on Buffalo wings last night, so no one from Buffalo is getting in today” element? How are these discussions conducted? Can the discussion quickly go north or south regarding a particular candidate? Doesn’t it matter greatly how hard a regional rep advocates for a candidate they like?</p>
<p>I think each school has its own way of handling files. The Gatekeepers has very revealing inside information on the process at Wesleyan, but I get the feeling that it may differ at Harvard or MIT or any other school.
The “I need coffee” issue is more likely to arise at the preliminary level. At the committee level, when the pile of applications has been whittled down, some reps may be more equal than others by virtue of longevity or even tenacity.</p>
Of course, all of this disagreement is really just for entertainment anyway, but …</p>
<p>This is why it would be so much simpler if people would merely characterize their impressions or speculation as such, and not try to put it across as fact. It drives me nuts when somebody throws out half a data set and says “There, that should speak for itself.” Because I always get a headache trying to figure out why it should speak for itself, when in fact it doesn’t say anything really. It’s already a leap of faith beleiving the data is not made up.</p>
<p>Not to restart this prep school debate, but yes, it does look odd that there is this difference in those Stanford admission numbers. But beyond that I can say absolutely nothing about the reason for the difference. Somebody may have inside information, but then again, I would be forced to take the word of some anonymous alias on the internet.</p>
<p>That’s the thing, PCP. After reading this thread, and reading this message board for a few months, I am fairly certain that we will not reach anywhere.</p>
<p>I’m pretty sure you are aware which of your children are “Ivy Caliber,” just as I am fairly certain my kid is not (an understatement - and no insult to my kid, I like him a lot). </p>
<p>You knew your S1 was at this level, and it turned out to be true since he got accepted to a top 10 school. Beyond that, I don’t think anyone on here would bet the house predicting where any particular kid will get in. I take the case of CountingDown’s son. I was baffled that kid got rejected from some of the places he did with his CV. After the fact people may say it makes sense, but I really doubt anyone would have said that beforehand.</p>
<p>I think that’s why you don’t see a lot of “Chances” threads here on the Parent’s side.</p>
<p>menloparkmom’s observation in #330 that “Stanford has always had a strong, unspoken preference for admitting scholar-athletes” is consistent with the much smaller number of observations I have made. It appears to me also that this preference includes athletes who are not of Stanford-varsity level. </p>
<p>A few other observations on Stanford (based on very limited data!): Other things being equal, they seem to like students who have moved around, and had to adjust to new environments. Perhaps this does not apply to Californians, though. A while ago, Stanford admissions had brief excerpts from a few essays of admitted students, up on their website. I think that you can glean some insight into the general attitudes they are looking for, from reading those. At the Stanford admissions session we attended at the end of a tour, the admissions representative used the word “irreverent” repeatedly. However, I don’t think they want students to be irreverent about them!</p>
<p>I agree with pbr that yield does seem to be a consideration, even though it no longer affects ranking. It’s important for the success of the admissions office that they not see too large fluctuations from year to year in the size of the class that matriculates. The efforts to increase the predictability of the yield may lead to increased predictability of admissions chances for California students, and somewhat decreased predictability elsewhere–this is just a hypothesis!</p>
<p>Finally, just wanted to say that I agree: an applicant with hooks may be as strong as or stronger than an unhooked applicant, academically. Even the offspring of donors who can give buildings may be quite smart! I don’t agree that an applicant needs multiple Ivy-level admits to be considered Ivy-caliber. Some school-specific hooks (e.g. legacies) might actually work against an applicant at other schools. Non-specific hooks would often get an applicant into many schools.</p>
<p>I actually wasn’t sure before the EA decisions came out. I only “knew” after the fact, and because of a key weakness in his stats, I’m still not sure if he is capable of multiple acceptances at this level, but I’ll find out in six weeks.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is one of the reasons I started this thread. Why such a huge gap between expectation and result? And I’m not talking about the expectation of uninitiated folks who are in the camp of “Oh, that 2400 will definitely get you in Harvard for sure.”</p>
<p>QM, thanks for steering us back again. Can we put down these as specifics for Stanford then:</p>
<ol>
<li>Demonstrated excellence in something non-traditional</li>
<li>Demonstrated athleticism, not necessarily at D1 level</li>
<li>Bonus if you are Californian??</li>
</ol>
<p>Quite frankly, this thread has fallen victim to the unpredictable nature of elite college admissions. Everyone has their theories and suspicions but no one really knows (except for me of course). I will now share with the world the secretive inner-workings of the HPYSM admissions committees. Harvard uses a crystal ball, Princeton uses tea leafs, Yale asks Harry Potter, Stanford uses a weegie board, and MIT uses Wolfram Alpha. Trust me guys, I am in the know.</p>
<p>And PCP, I agree with what you have down for Stanford, the weegie board likes those things.</p>
<p>I don’t think so. A while back, I tried to explain how much fun we had with seances and ouija boards, and my kids looked at me like I was crazy. They have more high tech fun now, I guess.</p>
<p>"Why such a huge gap between expectation and result? And I’m not talking about the expectation of uninitiated folks who are in the camp of “Oh, that 2400 will definitely get you in Harvard for sure.” --PCP</p>
<p>I think that because this is a complex and unpredictable process, we often latch onto pet theories about the importance of certain qualities and then apply them to a particular student. But then that kid doesn’t get accepted and we’re confused. My S was a very high-stat URM taking the most rigorous curriculum. In fact, he had the most difficult schedule his veteran GC had ever seen. Even though he was not involved in student govt., he was still on the ballot for the “Most Likely to Become President” category of the yearbook. Basically what I’m saying is that he stood out as exceptional and that combined with the URM status meant his GC, teachers, and peers all thought he’d get in practically everywhere. The theory in operation was that URM + high GPA + high SAT’s + good EC’s = acceptance anywhere. Except when it doesn’t. He didn’t get in Yale, Princeton, Columbia, Penn, or Georgetown Walsh. People were pretty shocked, esp. about Penn and Georgetown because non-URM students with lesser credentials had gotten in in the past. I have my theories as to why he wasn’t accepted, but the point is that people who should be pretty good at predicting these things, such as veteran teachers and GC’s, are still often wrong. That is the reason for this thread and the others like it on CC. Granted, S was accepted to Dartmouth and Cornell so I guess they were correct that he was Ivy-caliber. But why those schools and not any of the others is an interesting question, especially since his first and second choices were in that group.</p>
<p>He was Ivy caliber. His profile–even without the URM status–makes him Ivy caliber in my book. The fact that he got into two is useful for confirmation, not prediction. Which does not mean he would be accepted at all or any Ivy.</p>
<p>I’ve been on CC for a while, but still don’t know what people refer to when they use terms like that. Does “high-stat” mean 4.0 GPA 2400 SAT or 3.8 GPA 2100 SAT? Does “most rigorous curriculum” mean 6 APs junior year or 3-4 APs total? Does “GC had ever seen” imply that he/she has sent lots of kids to Ivies or not? Everyone has his/her own reference I presume.</p>