What is the profile of an "Ivy caliber" applicant?

Parents Forum
601

<p>Let’s get back to our regular program.</p>

<p>I sensed that there are more interests in building what I called Model-B, profiles of kids who are likely to be accepted by at least one tippy-top. It is becoming clear to me, despite various interludes we’ve had, that we believe “Ivy caliber” kids represent a band of high achievers, ranging from BWRK’s to superstars. We may combine Model-A and Model-B to a single model and assign different weights to stats/attributes. A student scoring above a certain lower threshold is identified by the model as “Ivy caliber” in the sense that we would be surprised if the student gets rejected by every tippy-top. Likewise, we can also quantitatively identify superstars as ones that score above a certain upper threshold. Of course, there will be “Ivy caliber” kids that the model fails to recognize due to its limitation; however the model will become more and more useful as we tune it to include more and more “Ivy caliber” kids.</p>

602

<p>And, I would like to end this thread by stating that exactly 4,590 angels can dance on the head of a pin.</p>

<p>There you go!</p>

603

<p>PCP, with all due respect, I don’t know why it’s “just becoming clear to you” that Ivy-caliber kids represent a band of high achievers ranging from BWRK’s to superstars. The Ivies and other top colleges SAY this. Real-life experiences bear this out. They already TELL you that they have enough excellent applicants to fill their classes umpteen times over – they just can only seat so many. Given that, why is it so hard for you to accept that at a certain point, there is some randomness / lottery in the process? By which I don’t mean “the kid with the 2.0 can get in” but that it’s random that today the oboe player from Montana might appeal to the adcom and tomorrow he might not?</p>

<p>Why can’t you just take what the Ivies et al say at face value? If there was a “formula,” they wouldn’t go looking for geographic diversity and get the kids from Montana and Nebraska, or the kids from the 'hood who don’t have access to AP classes and can’t participate in Siemens or Intel.</p>

604

<p>An “Ivy Caliber” applicant the the one who applies to an Ivy. You’ll never get in if you don’t apply.</p>

605

<p>I’d say “Ivy Caliber” is one who applies and has a reasonable chance of being accepted – but with schools that accept less than one out of every ten applicants, a reasonable chance can be quite slim. I’m sure that at least 2 out of every 3, and probably more like 4 out of every 5 “Ivy Caliber” students, probably don’t get in.</p>

606

<p>

</p>

<p>PG, I wasn’t referring to my own opinion. I was referring to what I gathered from the different posts on this thread. I don’t think everyone agrees with this, but this definition seems to be the converging opinion. I want to make the “model” useful to most people and this convergence is a good one.</p>

<p>Yes. I still haven’t given up on a qualitative/numerical approach to the model yet. Everything an applicant has eventually filters and distills into a set of words and numbers on an application. The content of the application is finite and it doesn’t change (for vast majority of the applicants). Many folks may disagree with me and they may be right, but I’d like to push this littler further and see where it gets us.</p>

607

<p>Here is my latest attempt at the Ivy-caliber model. I’ve not factored in the quality of the application yet. In particular, the model below does not take into account the quality of the essays. I’m biased by my own experience and by what my kids have been through, and for sure missed or erred on many things. Please add or modify to the list so we can make this model better. </p>

<p>I would say an applicant is qualified as “Ivy-caliber” by the model if s/he scores 30 points or more. The inverse is not necessarily true. A superstar would be someone who scores 90 or higher.</p>

<p>Select one </p>

<p>(10) 2400 SAT
(8) 2300+ SAT with 750+ in each section
(6) 2200+ SAT
(4) 2100+ SAT
(2) 2000+ SAT</p>

<p>Select one </p>

<p>(40) Val or sal in Top 50 ranked high school in the country
(30) Val or sal in Top 51-100 ranked high school in the country
(25) Val or sal in class of 500+
(20) Val or sal in class of 201-499
(20) Top 5% in Top 100 ranked high school in the country
(20) Val in class of 101-200
(10) Top 2% in non Top 100 ranked high school in the country
(10) Top 5% in non Top 100 ranked high school in the country
(8) Top 10% in Top 100 ranked high school in the country
(6) Top 10% in non Top 100 of 400+<br>
(4) Top 5% in non Top 100 of less than 200 students
(2) Top 10% that does not meet any of the above
(2) Unweighted GPA 3.8+ with most rigorous curriculum
(1) Unweighted GPA 3.5+ with most rigorous curriculum</p>

<p>Select one </p>

<p>(10) 800 Average SAT II’s
(6) 780+ Average SAT II’s
(4) 750+ Average SAT II’s
(2) 720+ Average SAT II’s
(1) 700+ Average SAT II’s</p>

<p>Select one </p>

<p>(6) AP National Scholar
(6) 6+ 5’s on AP’s
(4) 4+ 5’s on AP’s
(2) 2+ 5’s on AP’s
(1) 2+ 4’s on AP’s</p>

<p>Select one </p>

<p>(8) D1. 2 year above AP in 2+ subject >= A- in all university classes taken
(6) D2. 2 year above AP in 1 subject >= A- in all university classes taken
(4) D3. 1 year above AP in 1+ subject with at least A- in all university classes taken</p>

<p>Select one </p>

<p>(5) Achieved professional or graduate level proficiency with solid integrity<br>
(4) Once-in-a-decade-greatness type of testimonial with solid integrity
(3) Best-in-class
(2) Excellent </p>

<p>Select one </p>

<p>(8) Made at least one aspect of the community substantially better
(4) Made at least one aspect of the community better
(4) Won an award (not from school) for community service
(2) Community service beyond what’s required to graduate</p>

<p>Select all applicable (80 points maximum)</p>

<p>(30) Siemens 1st place
(30) World Champion in a well known activity (e.g., chess, piano, high jump)
(20) TOC 1st place winner
(20) Top 5 in world championship
(20) Published novelist
(15) Intel or Siemens Finalist
(15) Performed on national stage or television at a professional level
(15) 1st place or second place national level award (excl NMF’s and AP scholars)
(15) Started a profitable business grossing $150K+
(10) TOC qualifier/invitee
(10) Member of a US Academic Olympiad team
(10) Published in professional journals
(10) 15+ hr/wk job helping to support family
(10) Started a profitable business grossing $50K-$150K
(8) Published an article in national media
(7) Intel or Siemens Semifinalist (must be two different projects for double count)
(6) Class President of a 500+ senior/junior class
(6) National level award (not 1st or 2nd, excl NMF’s & AP scholars)
(6) 1st state award
(5) Started a profitable business grossing under $50K
(4) 780+ SAT Writing with 10+ on essay
(4) Outside research for 1+ year
(4) Class President of under 500 senior/junior class
(2) Started a club with 10+ people and ran the club for two years or more
(2) State level award (not 1st)
(2) Made a club/organization substantially better
(1) 3+ years of an EC participation with increasing involvement
(1) P/VP/Captain in an existing club with 10+ people
(1) Regional level award</p>

608

<p>Oh my…</p>

609

<p>Oh good lord. This is not Asia. What part of holistic isn’t clear? </p>

<p>And what’s the point of this model – unless it’s to score ones own kid and either a) make him feel inadequate, b) give him false hope, or c) create a little machine whose solo purpose is to get into an Ivy to feed parental egos? </p>

<p>Sorry, you’ve jumped the shark here. All these attempts to reduce it to a menu are a waste of time.</p>

610

<p>Regarding Post 607:</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>And what part of qualitative isn’t clear? 607 is not even in the ballpark, I’m afraid. It sure would have knocked my no-Ivy-rejects D out of competition, not to mention all the other similar only-acceptances candidates I have known in the last 7 years. Not to mention, your ranking system is pure imagination.</p>

611

<p>Holistic simply means looking at “everything”. It does not necessarily rule out a quantitative evaluation.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>I answered this question many times upthread already, and it is not among your three choices.</p>

612

<p>

</p>

<p>Well, that’s why I put it up for discussion so we can tune it. Btw, I did say the inverse is not necessarily true. I just refuse to accept admissions to elite colleges as a mysterious and largely unpredictable process.</p>

613

<p>Shrug, then why do our local schools produce non hooked BWRKs who don’t have “national awards” or Intel / Siemens or even freaking class president who get in? Because they are interesting kids, PCP. Not automatons dutifully racking up points in your pinball game.</p>

614

<p>so, this an attempt to substitute explicit qualitative measures currently used in admissions with disaggregated quantitative meaures to predict the outcome of those qualitative measures </p>

<p>not to mention the obvious tautology (a Top 50 high school is one in which many graduates attend Ivies, so attending a top 50 HS predicts greater Ivy chances?) sheesh!!!</p>

<p>I guess it’s OK as a CC bagatelle as long as nobody takes it seriously</p>

<p>worked out your warning label yet?</p>

<p>Kei</p>

615

<p>

</p>

<p>But what you still don’t want to believe is that the quantitative is subordinate to the qualitative. And that’s why it’s unpredictable.</p>

616

<p>PG, your question is the reason for the model. </p>

<p>Yes. There seems to be a wide slab of middle band that’s murky. Rising above this band, you’re close to a sure bet. I work under the assumption that the murky band is wide because we lack data. People who gave their “stats” on cc or elsewhere only did so partially. This partial revelation does not give us enough to say much; in fact, this is why when asked why a certain 2300+ valedictorian did not get accepted, people say because the process is holistic - implying the candidate is lacking in some area that is part of this “holistic” eval. Granted, the lacking part may be relative to what the college in question is looking for in that particular year.</p>

617

<p>epiphany, how do we evaluate quality? Don’t we eventually form an opinion of quality based on some collected metrics, which are frequently derived from sets of collected data? If not, how do you compare quality? Granted, the data collected for quality metrics tend to be collected over a period of time rather than just a snapshot in time.</p>

618

<p>The murky band is murky because it’s qualitative, PCP. Duh.</p>

619

<p>PCP:

</p>

<p>I would not say that a candidate is “lacking in some area.” The candidate may not lack in anything; but the college may like another even more in that particular year.
Let me use the example of applicants to graduate programs who ask for a deferral. They are warned by those programs which do not permit deferrals that, if they do not take up their offer of admission this year, they will have to re-apply next year. Their admission will not be guaranteed as they will be consider in the context of a totally different pool of applicants. And this is for graduate programs when factors such as ECs and potential contributions to the life of the community are irrelevant.</p>

<p>By the way, quality is different from quantity. Quantitative data give the illusion of objectivity; but often, it is only an illusion.</p>

620

<p>PCP, sorry, but you are beating a dead horse. Even kids with scores above your “superstar” level get rejected. It happens. Life continues. Happily, too.</p>

<p>This is way too heavily based on class rankings. From the colleges my kids have considered over the past two years, only 35-40% of the students’ schools even provide rankings. No consideration is given here to specialized programs where kids may take a GPA hit for the sake of interesting, challenging work.</p>