<p>They are from the same school,Stuyvesant. Here is the complete data from two 2009 Stuy admits into Harvard:</p>
<p>Status/SAT-R/SAT-W/ SAT-M/
GPA/SAT- R/W/M/English/ForLang/History/Math/Science/TechArt/Music
Accepted:
96.3 630/650/780/94.5/ 95.8/ 95.8/ 97.6/ 96.8/ 98.0/ 98.5
Not Accepted
96.8 750/750/790/ 96.5/98.5/ 98.3/ 95.4/ 96.5/ 96.0/ 96.0</p>
<p>
Of course nobody can explain this single case. You would have to average all these GPAs and scores to see if there was an evident pattern. In fact that’s what our Naviance does with admissions statistics. And I’m certainly not interested enough to do this for this data.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>114 from Stuyevesand applied to Harvard? Out of the class of what - 800?</p>
<p>Re post #482:</p>
<p>Indeed. But there are more examples of this seeming anomaly. Reading these two sets of statistics, one would have predicted the reverse of what actually happened. I would have said that a score of 630 on the SAT-R would have been a killer. But obviously not.<br>
The point of this exercise and of this thread is how to build the profile of individual students deemed to be Ivy caliber. As I keep repeating, we do not know what <em>else</em> individual applicants have in their application files.</p>
<p>PCP said: “If indeed, the number one ranked students from top ranked high schools such as always get admitted to all the top 10 schools they apply to, we may have something here.”</p>
<p>Brown rejects 3/4 of valedictorians and 85% of saluditorians
[Brown</a> Admission: Facts & Figures](<a href=“Undergraduate Admission | Brown University”>Undergraduate Admission | Brown University)</p>
<p>So . . . the model predicts that one core element of increasing chances for an Ivy admit is . . . be valedictorian . . . </p>
<p>Kei</p>
<p>Kei:
</p>
<p>Model predicts that chances for a valedictorian at a public school like Styuvasent or TJHS.</p>
<p>Those 3/4 valedictorians are not even close to students at 10% level at a school like TJHS or Sty.</p>
<p>Don’t confuse people. We are not talking about valedictorians at any high school but top high schools.</p>
<p>Re: POIH’s model on post #71 & #457.</p>
<p>I like the approach of listing the measured categories, and for each category, list the possible ways of getting a check mark. When I listed the 12 criteria I had I was mixing categories and stats. I’d like to propose the creation and tuning of two “models” (if people don’t like the word model, we can change it) with the same list of categories. Model-A applies to applicants who have check marks in all categories and whose rejection by ANY tippy-top would come as a surprise to those who are familiar with elite college admissions. Model-B applies to applicants who have check marks in all categories and whose rejection by ALL tippy-tops would come as a surprise to those who are familiar with the elite college admissions.</p>
<p>First the measured categories :</p>
<ol>
<li> Strong Aptitude</li>
<li> Academic Strength</li>
<li> Communications Strength</li>
<li> Extracurricular Strength</li>
<li> Recommendation Strength</li>
<li> Demonstrated Creativity</li>
<li> Value-add Leadership</li>
<li> Strong Community Service</li>
</ol>
<p>I find it difficult to list “passion” as a category, and feel that passion can be demonstrated with check marks from other categories. Feel free to disagree and comment. </p>
<p>Here is my shot at a draft Model-A (I expanded on POIH’s model). I’d like to invite others to take a crack at Model-B. All constructive comments are welcome.</p>
<p>Strong Aptitude: (satisfying one of the following)</p>
<ol>
<li> 2300+ SAT with 750+ in each section</li>
<li> 35+ ACT</li>
<li> 2200+ SAT, USAMO qualifier</li>
</ol>
<p>Academic Strength: (satisfying one of the following)</p>
<ol>
<li> Val or sal from a top 20 ranked high school in the country</li>
<li> Val, 760+ SAT II’s, 5’s on 4 or more AP’s</li>
<li> Top 5% in a top 100 ranked high school in the country, 760+ SAT II’s, 5’s on 4 or more AP’s</li>
<li> Top 2% in high school of 200+, 760+ SAT II’s, 5’s on 4 or more AP’s.</li>
<li> Top 5% in high school, 700+ SAT II’s, two years above AP curriculum in an academic subject in a university with at least A- in all classes taken.</li>
<li> Top 10%, AP National Scholar by junior year</li>
</ol>
<p>Communications Strength: (satisfying one of the following)</p>
<ol>
<li> 760+/10+ on SAT Writing, excellent essays (publishable), excellent interview</li>
<li> 35+ on ACT Writing, excellent essays (publishable), excellent interview</li>
<li> Class President of a 500+ senior class, good interview</li>
<li> Published an article in national media, good interview</li>
<li> TOC in debate, good interview</li>
</ol>
<p>Extracurricular Strength: (satisfying one of the following)</p>
<ol>
<li> 3+ years commitment on activities resulting in a first place state awards</li>
<li> 2+ first place state awards</li>
<li> 1+ first place or second place national level award (excluding NMF’s and AP scholars)</li>
<li> Intel or Siemens Finalist</li>
<li> TOC in debate</li>
<li> Member of an US Academic Olympiad team</li>
<li> Performed on national stage or television at a professional level</li>
<li> Published novelist</li>
<li> 1+ years of research with paper published in 1+ professional journals</li>
<li>Recruited athlete (I’m leaving this in here for now)</li>
<li>20+ hr/wk job helping to support family</li>
</ol>
<p>Recommendation strength: (satisfying one of the following)</p>
<ol>
<li> Once-in-a-decade-greatness type of testimonial with solid integrity</li>
<li> Achieved professional or graduate level proficiency with solid integrity</li>
</ol>
<p>Demonstrated creativity: (satisfying one of the following)</p>
<ol>
<li> Creative application (hard to quantify, need help here)</li>
<li> Substantially improved a long standing situation/process</li>
<li> Patent pending inventor</li>
<li> Created an enduring and beneficial legacy in one’s own community or high school</li>
<li> Winner of state level poetry contest</li>
<li> Founder of profitable business</li>
</ol>
<p>Value-add leadership:</p>
<ol>
<li> Able to demonstrate what was being led became better </li>
</ol>
<p>Strong community service:</p>
<ol>
<li> Able to demonstrate at least one aspect of the community became better</li>
</ol>
<p>Recruited athlete does not need nearly the academic strength and other factors you otherwise list. Will be very hard to include in this model. Also are you really suggesting you need one from each of these? I would fold the community service in with other ECs for one thing. Similarly demonstrated creativity category is not in addition to ECs, should either be folded in with ECs or clarify that it is alternative. When you list SATII scores, how does this work? Is this supposed to be the average of the SATIIs taken or the highest? How many does this assume you have taken? What about other awards like National language exams? Summer interships or classes? I do think this is a fool’s errand but am enjoying playing along for now…</p>
<p>Do all criteria have to be met? Which ones are the more important?
For instance, in my two examples from Stuy (clearly one of the high schools that would past the POIH test), the accepted student fell short on the strong aptitude criterion, with a SAT score of 2060 and a GPA that was not quite as good as that of another student who was not accepted (but still quite high by any standard).</p>
<p>S2 got a lot of interest from a Cornell football coach once the guy found out S2’s grades, scores, etc.: 2290 SAT, 2270 on three SAT-IIs, 3.49 UW/4.24 W, 12 APs, full IB diploma, captain of debate team, MUN, set crew for drama, 500+ hours community service.</p>
<p>S1, with a 2380 SAT, 2330 on three SAT-IIs, 3.76 UW/4.56 W, 9 APs, 13 post-APs and multiple national awards was rejected at Cornell.</p>
<p>Both attended selective admit programs within the public school system. Their schools do not rank, but provided a table of GPA ranges and % of students in each band. Neither of my kids were top 10% by this metric, which included all students in the senior class, not just those in the program. Average SAT for students in S1’s program was in the low 2200s, and the mid-2100s at S2’s.</p>
<p>Kelowna, 35% of the class at S1’s program applies to MIT each year. 28% of S2’s class applied to Yale SCEA this year.</p>
<p>
Yeah, I don’t understand the model. Do you have to meet one for each category?</p>
<p>^Yes. All categories need to be checked (meeting at least one criterion in each category). Model-A is for applicants who should be admitted to all tippy-tops. Model-A is the ceiling. This does not mean students who don’t have check marks in all eight categories will not be admitted. In fact, most admitted studetns will not have all the check marks.</p>
<p>CD, good data points are what we need to refine the model/profile. If you check your S1 against the eight categories, did he pass all? If so, we need to tune the model.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s why I was’t sure about whether to leave the recruited athlete in because of it’s dominating weight. Should we take it out? What do you suggest?</p>
<p>One criteria which I don’t personally believe is all that impressive is AP Scholar by Junior Year. Yes, I know there aren’t that many of them, so no need for anybody to point that out to me. I don’t find it that impressive because I don’t believe all AP exams are created equal, and I think you could easily cherry pick the easier ones and get this award if you really wanted to.</p>
<p>Plus it’s one of those awards that is based on other criteria (like NMSF is redundant because they know your scores already). The adcom can already see all the AP/IB courses you took, which exams you took, and what scores you recieved. They can also see when you took them. It is baked in elsewhere in this model.</p>
<p>On a different issue, I’d bet there are a plethora of impressive and unique extracurriculars on here you aren’t listing. Of course, I know this list is not supposed to be comprehensive.</p>
<p>That’s just my opinion of course.</p>
<p>Yes, I think recruited athlete and other “hooks” like URM and legacy should be outside the model. Alternative is to subsitute the hook for one or more of other criteria but suspect none of us have the info how to do this.</p>
<ol>
<li>Strong Aptitude – yes</li>
<li>Academic Strength - by your criteria, no – closest he comes to is #5, but without the rank. He had 9 APs (all 5s), 13 post-AP courses in three subject areas, placed into the highest level of math at UChicago and directly into graduate courses in another area.<br></li>
<li>Communications Strength – yes</li>
<li>Extracurricular Strength – extreme. Has multiple hits on your list, in multiple categories.</li>
<li>Recommendation Strength – hits both of those</li>
<li>Demonstrated Creativity – yup, and tied to awards</li>
<li>Value-add Leadership – yup, and tied to awards</li>
<li>Strong Community Service – not so much</li>
</ol>
<p>Academic, if your son doesn’t rate as having academic strength in the model, it is the model that is wrong!</p>
<p>POIH said: “Don’t confuse people. We are not talking about valedictorians at any high school but top high schools.”</p>
<p>So . . . what are the Top High schools?</p>
<p>Why , they are the ones that have high acceptances into Ivies, right???</p>
<p>see “loop, endless”</p>
<p>Kei</p>
<p>P.S. I am not trying to confuse anyone; I am pointing out that the “predictive model” is nothing more than a list of attributes that - taken together -make someone a fine applicant for any Top school . . . not that there is anything wrong with that!</p>
<p>The reach for a magic Ivy formula exceeds your grasp of the differences between a “model” and a “list of attributes.”</p>
<p>I’ll play (keep in mind S had multi-hooks at one college and none at the other, and was accepted at both):
Strong aptitude: check.
Academic strength: ? (unranked). Closest he comes to is #5
Communications strength: Did not meet any of the criteria.
Extra-curriculars: ditto
Recommendations: I suppose. Did not get to read them.
creativity: did not meet criteria.
community service: too little to count.</p>
<p>My S, however, exhibited academic strengths that are not easily captured in this list.</p>
<p>What does it all mean? It means that top school-caliber students are far more diverse than any model can really capture and adcoms are far less rigid in evaluating applications than seekers of magic formulas.</p>
<p>And how about my S1, he is in a graduating class of 2 kids, in a quirky school of 60 kids which doesn’t give grades?</p>