Where is the proof that Harvard rejects so many percent of perfect scorers?

Parents Forum
141

<p>bdmrad,</p>

<p>I liked your phrase, "future leaders with a focus." Although I do understand why the Elites in particular value leaders, i.m.o. some of them focus a little too much on leadership in the societal realm. There are varieties & styles of leadership, not all of them meant for a wide audience. The discriminating & thoughtful follower is a prize, too (and too rare), as is the independent person of consistent integrity who leads smaller groups by being a respected role model. These, plus dynamic leaders, are all elements of a healthy society.</p>

<p>My D did not apply to Harvard but is attending a peer Ivy. H was not her cup of tea, but I believe that had she applied there, she would have been rejected for not being a "leader" in the conventional sense, since a classmate with slightly less impressive academics was a far better fit for H, and did get in. (D was val, classmate was obviously not -- but close -- but classmate had all the qualities H looks for.) It is not that H admits only this kind of student, but the classmate was just the quintessential H admit.</p>

<p>I wanted to address "focus," because I think that is the more important element of your phrase. (Not every U seeks leaders as much as H seeks them, and a leader without focus also diminishes his or her chances of admission to H., but even a non-leader with focus increases admissions chances everywhere, including to H.) There are 3 reasons why focus is so critical:</p>

<p>(1) Visibility among the humongous applicant pool. Good luck getting noticed if you're unclear about where you're headed, don't articulate who you are, not specific about why you want to attend. You're not being punished for that; it's merely that hundreds of students will be able to do those things, & have done so in the same admissions round. They'll get remembered; you won't.</p>

<p>(2) Fit. There is a campus culture, a University mission, and an enrollment history. The administrators and the committee have seen what works. You might "work," too, but if that isn't obvious in your application, or you're not convinced you fit (don't "own" that), your admission chances recede.</p>

<p>(3) The essay. Without focus, the essay is at best a neutral element (where other applicants will have strong ones), at worst an element to call in dispute the objective achievements in the application. Other than the teacher recs, the essay is the one feature that the committee has to <em>interpret</em> and nuance those objective qualities. They're admitting a person, not a list.</p>

<p>The larger the applicant pool, the more important focus is -- for any college or U, public or private, that does not have an 'auto-admit' policy for a certain tier. In some sense, an applicant is asked to have an atypical maturity for his or her years, which is not "fair," but it's reality. We've had discussions about this before on CC; for many students, a gap year will be helpful in promoting self-reflection & in narrowing that focus, but most students feel for a variety of reasons that a gap year is not optimal.</p>

<p>I have an example from this very recent admissions round. An acquaintance of mine with excellent stats applied to quality publics + one private. I'm telling you, with his scores and weighted GPA, it should have been a cakewalk for him. Only two of his applications were reaches. Classmates with identical and lesser records than his were accepted to the same schools which rejected him. The problem? During the application season, he expressed ambivalence -- to me and on his application, which I read -- about his academic focus. In addition, his personal self-description on his essay was awful: he described who he <em>wasn't</em>, not who he <em>was</em>! When you're talking about schools which receive over a hundred thousand applications, this is a major liability.</p>

<p>He was unfocused partly because of age/development. It was the first half of senior year -- in fact the first third -- when he had to apply. By late March, he had a focus, because it had naturally developed by that time. Too late. Fortunately, oh so fortunately, he and his family have rescued the situation, salvaged the only acceptance he received, combining it with a specific academic emphasis which has allowed him to enter a special dual-program at two campuses. Now he knows, and the colleges know, what he wants & why that dual-program fits him, and vice-versa.</p>

<p>Back to H. Like most other colleges, it admits many 'types,' styles, personalities. But there are some templates more likely to be admitted than others. Among those:<br>
(a) Writers, particularly those who write from a strong intellectual base, & with sophistication.<br>
(b) Students with frank or potential interest in issues, particularly those likely to be discussed in the public arena.<br>
(c) Students with frank or potential interest in politics, as demonstrated by previous coursework, involvement in activities, etc.</p>

142

<p>Without knowing more about bdmrad's son's other stats, it's difficult to compare him against other applicants for a number of reasons.
While it's true that perfect scorers are rare, they are not judged as being significantly (if at all) superior to applicants who score 2300-2350.
2. It is very likely that perfect scorers possess other academic achievements such as high AP scores, Intels, Olympiad medals, and so on. But so do those who score a tad below. It may be that the non-perfect scorers who were admitted possessed more of these than the non-admitted perfect scorers.
In other words, we should not conclude a priori that top schools value non-academic qualities more than academic ones. I'll take an IMO gold medal over a 2400 SAT any day.</p>

143

<p>I think that perfect scorers should be judged significantly differently than people with 2300-2350. They maxed out on the test in 3 areas. It would be unlikely that they would only be a tiny bit better than people who got let's say 790 on all 3 sections. There is a world of possible scores that they could have gotten if the test were able to measure higher ability. Perhaps they would be capable of getting a 4800 or a 10,000 if they could design the test to measure that. One would think that someone at universities would figure this out. All this mystique is so that people don't realize when legacies and other "hooked" applicants are getting in instead of people with perfect scores.</p>

144

<p>amazon, the SAT measures whether you can ace a standardized test. In context, it's helpful as a metric. It is not helpful as a metric apart from context. College is not a series of standardized tests. Success in college depends also on independent drive (which can be demonstrated by having achieved medaled academic, athletic, & artistic competitions), as well as on consistency of study habits & academic initiative (evident in high school excellence -- grades + recommendations + academic awards combined).</p>

145

<p>
[quote]
It would be unlikely that they would only be a tiny bit better than people who got let's say 790 on all 3 sections.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>That's not correct according to what is known from research on mental testing. All test scores are based on a SAMPLE of learned behavior, and if you serve up a different sample, you get a different rank ordering of test-takers, especially at the top end.</p>

146

<p>Epiphany,
I enjoyed your thoughtful post. It articulates well my thoughts. People get too hung up about getting into school X as some marker of success. My other aphorism I tell the kids is " You don't want to peak in high school." Hopefully they will both build on the strong foundation given to them by their parents and teachers.</p>

147

<p>bmrad, you sound like a great parent.</p>

148

<p>Thanks. But like most, far from perfect.</p>

149

<p>Look, whether you like it or not, whether you agree with it or not, essentially ALL of the evidence indicates that highly selective college admissions staff do not ascribe a great deal of importance to the difference between 2400 SATs and 2250 SATs. That's what they SAY -- and they say it a lot -- but more importantly that's what they DO.</p>

<p>We can scratch our heads and wonder what was wrong with this or that applicant, but the observed result -- forgetting for the moment about athletes, oboists, and the children of billionaire alumni -- is that the colleges seem to regard perfect SAT scorers as members of a much larger pool of high SAT scorers, and that the differences in SAT scores among members of that pool do not weigh heavily, if they weigh at all, in the final admissions decisions.</p>

<p>I have no doubt that perfect SAT scorers get admitted to selective colleges at a higher rate than slightly-less-than-perfect SAT scorers. But I don't think it's because the colleges themselves accord perfect SAT scores more weight. It's that the SAT is trying to measure something we all care about, and in many cases people with a lot of that something are going to show it in many, many ways, including perfect SAT scores, and the additional evidence will be what matters. But lots of imperfect SAT scorers are going to be extremely impressive on the other "tests", too -- essays, interviews, collections of recommendations, curriculum choices -- and they're going to get admitted on that basis.</p>

<p>There's something else going on, too. If a student presents as a literature student, the difference between a Math score of 800 or one of 730 or 750 isn't very interesting; same with math people whose CR scores are in that range. If you were looking for a math student, you would take the more interesting mathematician with 2300 SATs over one with 2400 SATs, and not think twice about it for a moment.</p>

150

<p>^^Exactly. By the time he applied to college, S had taken several college math courses. He did not have perfect SAT scores, because of his 750 on the verbal portion (of the old SAT).</p>

<p><a href="a">quote</a> Writers, particularly those who write from a strong intellectual base, & with sophistication.
(b) Students with frank or potential interest in issues, particularly those likely to be discussed in the public arena.
(c) Students with frank or potential interest in politics, as demonstrated by previous coursework, involvement in activities, etc.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>None of the above applied to S. But academic achievements beyond GPA or board scores definitely counted.</p>

151

<p>That post of mine that you just quoted was inclusive, marite, not exclusive. I said that H admits all types, styles, personalities. Earlier in this thread I noted why mammall's D got consideration & admission at several Elites, including H. Those stated reasons included "academic achievements beyond GPA [and] board scores."</p>

152

<p>
[quote]
Those stated reasons included "academic achievements beyond GPA [and] board scores.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>That's precisely the point I want to make. SAT scores, even perfect ones, gauge ability at the 11th grade level. Plenty of applicants can show achievement well beyond that level. There is no evidence that HYPS value non-academic qualities over academic ones. They do value non-academic qualities, but not at the expense of academic ones.</p>

153

<p>^^amazon and tokenadult,</p>

<p>I can say with a good deal of confidence that 2400 scorers are not a breed apart from those with 23xx up to 2390. It is very likely true that among the 2400 scorers, there are some who are 6 standard deviations above the mean in each category (CR/M/W), and not merely 3 standard deviations above. And those few are indeed considerably different from someone who is actually 2.9 standard deviations above the mean in each area. But the SAT is not sufficiently sensitive at the high end to differentiate accurately. If amazon's hypothesis were true, then someone who scored 800 M should also reliably outscore someone with a 790 M on the AMC 12, AIME, and other math tests. But I know counterexamples. And tokenadult's comment is--needless to say--exactly right about the theory of measurement.</p>

<p>To cite a really extreme case, there have been errors in the SAT M problems, on rare occasions. I recall one about 9 years ago. A student who takes the SAT when the question and answer service is available can catch this and challenge the question, but that service is not available for all test dates.</p>

154

<p>I agree with your post 152, marite, and I think my previous posts are harmonious with that, also. (I've said the same in the past about other Elites as well: not "at the expense of" academic traits. I also think this is a common misconception -- i.e., substitution of one for another.)</p>

155

<p>My son, who is MUCH better at math than verbal things nevertheless twice missed getting an 800 on the math SAT for making very silly mistakes. From middle school on he was the highest scorer on whichever AMC exam he took that year, beating out kids two grades above him many years. </p>

<p>Harvard Magazine ran an article about admissions several years ago. They said there are a small percentage that get accepted because they are academic superstars and will clearly be leaders in academia, there is a small percentage that get admitted because of their ECs (think YoYo Ma caliber musicians), but for the vast majority it's a combination of good enough grades and test scores combined with ECs. How much each is weighted is probably very variable and depends on the applicant.</p>

156

<p>^ I think Epiphany's post describing the "a-b-c" of what H looks for described my D1 to an uncanny degree. Also, her earlier post on genuine academic interest vs. grade grubbing was very insightful.</p>

<p>There are obviously different avenues of entry to H and its peers. Perfect scores is not one of them. They can burnish an already solid application but they cannot serve as the heart of a successful application to these schools. Also, I think the bar keeps rising as to what constitutes a perfect score application. Lately, it's the 2400 + 36 + multiple 800s on subject tests. I think there might well be a threshold where the perfect scores reach a critical mass for an applicant and constitute a true hook. That would be truly impossible to document.</p>

<p>Meanwhile, I find myself envying my mom friends with kids staying in-state and attending good old public U. Continuity of community. Geographical proximity. </p>

<p>Why on earth do we put ourselves through this????</p>

<p>Someone remind me why it's all worth it.</p>

157

<p>
[quote]
for the vast majority it's a combination of good enough grades and test scores combined with ECs.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>^Agree. In my observation, most highly intelligent students excel in more than just academics. They are usually quite accomplished in non-academic pursuits as well (often including athletics). A perfect-scorer who brings nothing else to the admissions table would be unusual and probably not qualified for Harvard, as other high-scorers in the pool would likely contribute more to the campus.</p>

158

<p>
[quote]
Also, I think the bar keeps rising as to what constitutes a perfect score application. Lately, it's the 2400 + 36 + multiple 800s on subject tests.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Is there evidence of this? I believe there are very, very few students who score both a 2400 and a 36. Tokenadult, are you out there? The vast majority of students who score perfectly on either test probably don't bother to take the other. (There may be two exceptions: homeschooled students who need to flesh out their credentials and ACT 36 scorers who need to take the SAT for NMF verification.) I don't believe colleges are playing games when they say they want EITHER the ACT OR the SAT I. A perfect score on either test (assuming it's coupled with perfect SAT II scores) certainly creates a "perfect score application."</p>

159

<p>Mathmom's got it right.</p>

<p>My daughter and I met with her admission officer during her pre-frosh weekend. I asked him why she got in. He said, "Why, she's involved in so many great things. And her academics are terrific. And, of course, there was her interview." We looked at one another when he mentioned the interview, because she thought it had not gone well. He caught our looks and asked her if she had thought it had gone badly. When she said yes, he then chuckled, commenting that students often perceive interviews as such and are generally wrong.
Anyhow, my point is that my daughter had no scores of 800, was not an athlete, musician, legacy, URM, geographically desirable, or a world champion in anything. Her summers were run-of-the-mill ordinary but fun. Yet she was admitted SCEA. She was passionate about her academics and all that she participated in while in high school. I believe that showed through in her application, interview, essays, and recommendations.</p>

160

<p>
[quote]
I believe there are very, very few students who score both a 2400 and a 36. Tokenadult, are you out there?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Few indeed, because perfect scorers on the SAT number only in the hundreds </p>

<p><a href="http://www.collegeboard.com/prod_downloads/highered/ra/sat/composite_CR_M_W_percentile_ranks.pdf%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.collegeboard.com/prod_downloads/highered/ra/sat/composite_CR_M_W_percentile_ranks.pdf&lt;/a> </p>

<p>and perfect scorers on the ACT number only in the hundreds </p>

<p><a href="http://www.act.org/news/data/07/pdf/National2007.pdf%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.act.org/news/data/07/pdf/National2007.pdf&lt;/a> </p>

<p>(table 2.1) and not all students who take one test take the other. That said, a few years ago three girls in one high school in Minnesota got scores of 36 on the ACT and scores of 1600 on the former two-section SAT, so it is possible to find clusters of students who ace both tests. (As far as I know, none of those three girls applied to Harvard, although there are certainly girls from that high school who have been admitted to Harvard in the last several years.)</p>