<p>Relaxmom:
I refer to USNWR of national universities only because DD was never interested in LAC’s and so I don’t know much about those colleges and never collected data with respect to those colleges.</p>
<p>CountngDown:
</p>
<p>Actually my findings are bit different. Being AP National Scholar after Junior year help you both at schools that are recognized by colleges as strong as well as those about which colleges don’t have enough data.</p>
<p>The score of 4/5 on an AP actually can validate your grade on transcript or can help offset a bad grad on the transcript.</p>
<p>Most of the time a B+ with 5 on the AP go further than a stand alone A+ on an AP or Hons. course.</p>
<p>MPM:
</p>
<p>That is where we differ and that is what the purpose of this whole exercise is to show parent like you that it is not a fluke. Applicants are getting into college for well defined reason.
Also it has nothing to do with ASIANs as European admissions including UK as well as France is based on numbers/test scores only.
It is actually harmful for parent to let the applicants believe they can get in with a 1800 - 2000 SAT1 and then become heart broken when it doesn’t happen.
To be realistic an applicant chance to top schools with 1800-2000 SAT1 is next to negligible unless that applicant is a legacy, or has cured cancer, or is an olympic athlete etc.</p>
<p>While most applicants that have many of the above listed awards/honors rightfully accepted at these schools. </p>
<p>It is good to encourage applicants but it is smart to know what are real chances of the applicants at each college.</p>
<p>Essays and recommendation letter can be the reason to reject an applicant with the above characteristics but stand alone can’t be the reason to admit one.
Otherwise a high school drop out should get the acceptance on the basis of essays and recommendation.</p>
<p>"Essays and recommendation letter can be the reason to reject an applicant with the above characteristics but stand alone can’t be the reason to admit one.
Otherwise a high school drop out should get the acceptance on the basis of essays and recommendation.
POIH. Huh?, I never said or even implied that essays and recommendation letters ALONE will get a student admitted! I do believe that most posters on this thread are aware that top US colleges look at applications HOLISTICALLY, which is what I DID say… So please read my posts a lot more carefully, and try not to lecture or scold when you have misread what has been posted. Essays and recommendation letters IN ADDITION to the other parts in an application - GPA, SAT’s, AP’s. EC’s etc, etc. are what adcoms look at.</p>
<p>^^^: MPM, I do read the posts and reply appropriately.</p>
<p>I want to convey that our understanding of “what a Holistic process of admission is?” differ.</p>
<ol>
<li><p>To me it means for two or more equivalent applicants based on numerical measurements, college uses subjective reasoning to select one or more applicants.</p></li>
<li><p>But it doesn’t mean they look at all the applicants and accept based on subjective reasoning.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>MPM, What is your understanding of this holistic process 1 or 2?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>These parents need to broaden their view of what success is.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Again, the only students captured by the model are the ones who are the creme de la creme and that isn’t very many. It is the outstanding individuals who operate at a very high level and I don’t need any model to tell me that they will be accepted to the Ivys.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Thank God for that.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s just silly. That isn’t harmful to a kid at all. All kids need to learn how to not succeed at something. A person learns more from their failures than their successes.</p>
<p>Let’s say for a minute that you are right, let’s say that there is some kid out there who has those SAT scores and for some reason thinks that will get them into an Ivy League college and then when they aren’t accepted their heart is broken. Let’s assume all that is true.</p>
<p>He or she will still get to go to college somewhere else and they will notice that the world didn’t stop and they still got a college degree and there is nothing keeping them from their professional goals. Then the next time that this particular person is unsuccessful in achieving something that they really want their heart won’t break because they will have learned not getting something isn’t the end of the world.</p>
<p>
</p></li>
</ol>
<p>The answer is 2. The schools do not use numerical assessments first and then a subjective approach in the case of needing to break a tie.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>But this is mistaken. Colleges often use subjective factors to select a student with weaker numerical measurements over a student with stronger numerical measurements. </p>
<p>I believe that at most colleges the acceptance process is probably very strongly weighted toward those subjective factors, when selecting among students who meet a minimum threshold in terms of the numerical/statistical qualifications. That is, rather than using the subjective factors to decide whether to accept one students with an SAT of 2250 over another student with the same score — the college may be simply treating every applicant with an SAT of over 1900 as being on the same footing, and then looking at subjective factors. </p>
<p>I am using the SAT numbers as examples, not hard rules – and I do think it is far more complicated – I think the colleges look at SAT in combination with GPA in combination with the types of courses completed and their best estimation of the rigor of academics at a particular high school, and that they DO place great weight on their view of the academic qualifications of the student (as opposed to essays, EC’s and recs) – but that even those are not readily reduced to a number. But as a quick rule of thumb – if one student has a 3.8 unweighted GPA and 2300 SAT, and another student has a 3.9 GPA and 2200 SAT – its hard to say which one would be seen as having better “stats” by the college. Some college may have specific formulas they apply – others may still be viewing the calculation of an “academic index” more holistically, perhaps plugging class rank into the equation or looking at specific coursework, such as number of AP’s, etc.</p>
<p>So the confusion about “holistic” arises in part because are also taking a subjective look at the academics. </p>
<p>I do believe that once a minimum threshold is met, the SAT scores are probably the least important part of the equation. And that the minimum threshold is a lot lower than most parents and college applicants think. Good, even amazing test scores won’t make up for perceived weaknesses in academics.</p>
<p>I think people are speaking past each other. I know that adcomms look at vast majority of applicants subjectively (for better and worse) and very often reject one with clearly higher stats for one with lower stats due to other reasons. There are however a handful of academic superstars who will be admitted based on those factors alone, with nothing else. But there are very few.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I am in complete agreement with this, and with calmom’s corresponding observation that weaknesses (and strengths) in academics are determined at least as much subjectively as objectively, correlating a variety of formal and informal data, as well as drawing logical conclusions from that data.
:)</p>
<p>Once applications have gone through the first reading [during which obviously less qualified [ not meeting the minimum threshold ]candidates’ applications are put in the reject pile by the regional adcoms], and the obvious admit WOW’s[ walk on water kids] are picked, Recruited athletes are picked, and DA’s are picked, the remaining applications are then reread carefully, and end up being discussed by the admissions committees. They do not put the remaining applications in piles according to “numerical measurements”, and then compare a few statistically “equal” students at a time on the “subjective” factors. Instead, since ALL of the remaining applications have passed the “does this kid have what it takes to do well at this college?” test, decisions come down to what a student will bring to the college- what are his interests, abilities, talents, what have others said about this student, and to a lesser degree, how many students have already been accepted from his state, HS, background. The student who writes a memorable essay that stands out in an adcoms’s mind, may very well get the tip" over a student with higher stats, just because the adcom has been able to develop a better “feel” for that particular student. The slightly lower stat student who has made a huge impact on his community through thousands of hours of volunteer work, while managing to do very well academically at a HS with no AP classes, may get the tip over a statistically perfect "study all the time “grind”. That is what I meant by Holistic admissions. And as Harvard’s admission director has said many times, there are enough “qualified” applicants EACH YEAR to fill 7 Freshman classes at Harvard .</p>
<p>And for parents to stress or imply, in ANY way, how important THEY think an acceptance at one of the Ivy’s or other highly selective colleges is to their child’s future, when 80 to 90% of all applicants to those colleges ARE going to be rejected, is abusive behavior, imho. There are plenty of colleges in the US where very smart students can receive a great education.</p>
<p>"He or she will still get to go to college somewhere else and they will notice that the world didn’t stop and they still got a college degree and there is nothing keeping them from their professional goals. Then the next time that this particular person is unsuccessful in achieving something that they really want their heart won’t break because they will have learned not getting something isn’t the end of the world. "
Wise words indeed.</p>
<p>This is my understanding of the process.
- The applicants are sorted into buckets of well defined numerical measurements. The formula for these buckets varies from college to college but is done using computers.
How do I know? The computers need programs and …
lets say buckets are marked 1 to 9. - Almost all colleges including HMSPY have bucket 9 where any applicant is only scanned for rejection. That means these applicants are auto accepted except something props up on the subjective evaluation which can’t be inferred using computer program.
Most other colleges group 8,9 or 7,8,9 for the same purposes that is scan for rejection only. - Now each college have rules to go thru buckets
Either all buckets are reviewed separately or the buckets are grouped together for review purposes. - The applicants from buckets 9 thru 4 are put into now 3 separate piles.
a. Acceptance, b. Rejected c. Maybe - Similarly the buckets 1,2,3 are only scanned for acceptances based on subjective reasoning as the applicants otherwise don’t qualify for acceptances on numerical measurements. The applicants from these are only added to Maybe buckets</p>
<p>Now it is my understanding from the way computer programs are written, the applicants selected from buckets 1,2,3 are not compared to all the rest of the applicants but only to the maybe bucket applicants from bucket 9 to 4.</p>
<p>So it is the holistic process as depicted in 1 and not as listed in 2. </p>
<p>Majority of the applicants are accepted, rejected or put in maybe bucket only with in a bucket and not across the buckets.</p>
<p>Only maybe applicants from 1 buckets are compared to maybe applicant from other buckets.</p>
<p>Also the accepted applicants from each bucket reduces from 9 to 4 while rejected and maybe piles increases.</p>
<p>Be reasonable, in order to subjectively judge an application a very experienced reader needs at least 30 to 45 mins.</p>
<p>Can some translate that to man hours required for 30000 applications?
So, most of the work is done by computers, the only applications that need thorough readings to compare between applicants is the MAYBE bucket which are around 10% of application filling 5% of the spots.
Rest of the applicants are selected by 1 or 2 reader within the buckets and are not compared across the buckets.</p>
<p>^^
Where have you read that computers make the “first cut” at the selective colleges we are referring to?
“the formula for these buckets varies from college to college but is done using computers”
this may be correct for public U’s like the UC’s but it is not correct for private colleges.</p>
<p>^^^:Welcome to the reality MPM
Even Harvard let the computer decide the first cut.</p>
<p>You need to understand even with computer sorting applications to buckets the colleges can technically claim not rejecting anyone automatically as buckets 1,2,3 are scanned by reader for “cancer curing”, olympic medalists applicants.</p>
<p>I think POIH is referring to AI:</p>
<p>from CC:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>However, POIH this is not done by computer. You would be suprised at the number of schools that do not rank.</p>
<p>“POIH this is not done by computer.”
Exactly. And before you start arguing with sybbie, POIH, I suggest you take a look at how long she has been on CC and how many posts she has made. She really does know what she’s taking about, especially with regards to the Ivy league colleges.
And has proven it time and time again.
Honestly POIH, you consistently want to reduce to quantifiable numerical parameters ALL factors involved in the admissions decisions. Sorry, but the REALITY is that admissions decisions at private colleges are made by humans, not machines, from start to finish. Why else do we read that colleges which have experienced surges in applications have to hire extra readers? If it could be done by computer then there would be no need to hire additional people.
But as you seem to distrust what other humans say, particularly if they do not agree with you, I’ll leave you to your delusions.</p>
<p>ParentOfIvyHope – Let’s say you are right and the first cut for admissions is done with a computer. Your bucket model seems fine to me. In your model the super achievers would be filtered into bucket 9 by a computer. This computer would have some program to identify these outstanding individuals and its algorithm would follow along the lines of the model you have put forth in this thread. These applications would then be read by someone and except for something unexpected that comes to the attention of the reader these applicants would be accepted.</p>
<p>On the other extreme the applicants whose high school careers demonstrate that they would not be able to handle the work at an Ivy League college would be filtered by a similar program into bucket 1. These applications would also be looked at to retrieve any with extenuating circumstances that would indicate they should not be dismissed so readily.</p>
<p>Fine.</p>
<p>Most of the applications will fall into the middle buckets. That is where legacy status will be considered, under represented minorities will be given a nudge, and other hooks will give some candidates an edge. Also, the admissions committee wants geographical diversity so they will want to have acceptances from as many States as possible and not too many acceptances from any one school. This is where the class as a whole will become balanced.</p>
<p>And this is where the subjectivity comes in. These candidates can all do the work so the committee members decide, sometimes randomly, who will be included into a balanced class.</p>
<p>Most of the applications are in these middle buckets.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Thanks for summarizing what so many of us have been saying all along.
But I would like to note that many middle buckets applicants do get into top colleges without significant hooks; what they have going for them is demonstrated drive and creativity. I think of calmom’s D whose pursuit of Russian highlighted her obvious drive and self-reliance and general adaptability which trumped any weakness she might have had in board scores.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Ive been reading this thread for the last few days and I was struck by POIHs comment that what he really wants is his childs success in adulthood he views attending an Ivy as a step on the ladder towards that goal. It got me to thinking that perhaps admission officers are looking for much the same thing: graduates who will be leaders in various areas. So, their challenge is to look at a group of 17 year olds and extrapolate based on their accomplishments so far, who will end up living a rather extraordinary life. Now, we all know a few math prodigies who ended up shucking it all to go work on the Alaskan pipeline, or the Yale graduate who is the best darn ReMax agent in Dayton, but thats not exactly what the most of these schools mean by success. They look for the following potential:</p>
<p>Asset to the intellectual and social college environment
Potential national or international leader
Extraordinary success in science or medicine
Noteworthy artists, writers, creative people
Major role in academia
Business leader major entrepreneur or fortune 500 ceo</p>
<p>They have their work cut out for them how can they or anyone figure out among thousands of high school seniors, who is going to make it and who is not. I read somewhere that the largest number of CEOs graduate from Big Ten schools something that must make Ivy adcoms cringe. So, what do they do? They hedge. They take a few math and science geniuses, a few athletes (athletes tend to do quite well in business), a few well-rounded great kids, a few legacies (they internalize the concept of giving back better than any other group), and a few creative types with potential. This is why POIH will never crack the code to the formula. There is absolutely no certainty that the top 80 or so kids in any given class from Stuyvesant will end up a great success in life yet some kid from a crappy school in downstate Illinois could end up donating 50 million to his/her alma mater some day. </p>
<p>And that’s the beauty of the system.</p>