<p>The reason that kids with “perfect” stats, ECs, LoRs, etc, etc get rejected is because, in fact…they are not perfect.</p>
<p>“Perfect” is not what you think it is. It’s what the adcoms at that particular college think it is.</p>
<p>I believe that so-called “Perfect” applicants are getting rejected more and more nowadays is because admission officers see them as cookie-cutters. Every school has that one mega over-achiever that has a 4.2 GPA, a thousand ECs under their belt, and 5,000 hours of community service to boot. This is not unusual anymore.</p>
<p>I believe that colleges look for true effort and students that overcome obstacles, rather than painstakingly hard work from students who are privileged enough to go to top schools and have resources available to achieve everything they want and more.</p>
<p>So yes, of course colleges want good grades and excellent resumes, but they also want something different. They want there to be an actual person underneath the grades and ECs and a lot of these “Perfect” applicants lack true character, and now the negative effects of the “student robot” are becoming visible.</p>
<p>…But thats just me. lol</p>
<p>You have a higher chance of getting admitted if you sent everything in earlier.</p>
<p>
You are way off base by even using this as a premise. These schools have stated numerous times that they consider anything above a 2250 to all be about the same. The student that gets a 2300 is at no disadvantage to a student that got 2400. And to say they are lying? That is a bit harsh. Putting the best face on things? Sure, no doubt. Just like, as someone else said, you undoubtedly did on your applications. To use language like that, you should have proof that it is widespread.</p>
<p>I think it was all said. Welcome to the forum, OP.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The acceptance rates for students with higher scores say otherwise. Nonetheless, I agree with your basic premise, fallenchemist, that other things come into play after a certain point. The way I think about it is to imagine myself as an adcom opening file after file. Numbers would impress me, sure–a 2400 more than a 2300, a 4.0 more than a 3.8–but what would get me excited about an applicant would be their voice, the less tangible things captured in their essays, activities, and awards. A nationally acclaimed novelist with a 2300 would eek ahead of the 2400 student government president. The 2400 Intel finalist would (obviously) look better than the 2250 state science fair winner. Unhooked applicants with less than a 2100 would almost certainly be off the table, even given state-level accomplishments. And so on. Adcoms are driven primarily by intuition, by a nebulous “feel” for what their institution needs, so I don’t see why we CCers can’t do the same instead of trying to pinpoint the perfect admissions strategy.</p>
<p>Perfect applicants don’t get rejected by colleges…there just aren’t any perfect applicants to begin with…</p>
<p>
Please don’t spew nonsense here. The # of perfect SAT scorers is ~400, and that’s an overestimate. </p>
<p>
“Perfect” applicants are not getting rejected more and more nowadays so your entire premise is moot. That one mega over-achiever in every school is usually the one going to a great school, though he or she may not get into every school.</p>
<p>
Wait so “true effort” is not “painstakingly hard work”? Sorry but your nonsensical rambling is well, nonsensical. And these so called “cookie cutter students” you describe do not just come from privileged backgrounds and top schools, so I don’t see your point. </p>
<p>
How incredibly ignorant of you. So all applicants with great objective stats and good extracurriculars lack “true character”? And they are all “student robots”? Your post just reeks of immature spite.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Because the admissions committee is trying to build up a class of diverse backgrounds and interests. It’s art and not a science, because you’re asking *people<a href=“although%20experienced%20and%20well%20qualified%20ones%20I’m%20sure”>/i</a> to make subjective judgments on who can and will contribute the most to school and community, who will be successful in the future in their respective fields, with their respective goals.</p>
<p>Colleges want representation of people from all fifty states, half and half in terms of gender, some with strength in humanities and some in math/science, people to fill up all those sport teams and music ensembles and publications and countless volunteer organizations and so on, people across the socioeconomic spectrum, ethnicity, and nationalities… you get the idea. No, college admissions is not random, but there are factors in the process that you as the applicant cannot control such that it would be pointless for you to stress over them. It may be that a female engineer/dancer from Utah is admitted when a similar male poet from Connecticut with the exact same academic credentials is not, because it just happens that the freshman class is at the moment in need of more people from that area of the country and more science students------in that case, is one of them necessarily “better” or “more qualified”? How do you judge?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It’s hard to make the judgment that someone with a 2400 on the SAT is “smarter” than someone with, say, a 2300, or that the former will do necessarily better in his classes, more engaged with his or her learning, or accomplish more in life. A top SAT score shows that you’re good at reasoning, but after that I want to know what you did with your talent and skill in order to gain a sense of what you will do with your intelligence in the future. </p>
<p>Also, when you’re junior or younger in high school, the SAT seems like the most important thing, but by the time you’re accepted to college, no one can care less what someone else got on those old standardized tests. Instead, you relate to people based on how they come across as a person—witty, dedicated, talented, compassionate, etc, just as you do in life. When you’re a senior in high school, getting into a top college seems like the most important thing, but when you’re in college and looking at career and life, you realize that that top university is just like any other college, and that you go to class, work hard, complain about crappy teachers, hang out with friends, just as you would at any other place. And when you’re an adult in later life, employers and the people you meet can care less where you went for undergraduate-----they want to know what you did after graduation, how you’re doing at your current job, and what kind of skill you can bring to their company. That 2400 that seems to you so impressive at the moment will appear a lot less significant in as little as a few more years :).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>As reasonable as this is, how are strangers going to know who you are personally? It’s extremely unfair to distinguish a student who does ECs to get into top institutions to a student who does ECs because he/she feels passionate about it based off something as trivial as essays and interviews. </p>
<p>I do realize that colleges try really hard to differentiate between the real and the fake, the motivated and the manipulative. But more often than not, their methods prove inefficient and unjust to many applicants.</p>
<p>EDIT: Eh, I just pretty much repeated Jersey13’s post in a less blunt manner. I take a while to post. :P</p>
<p>Just read the book the Price of Admission by Daniel Golden and it will become very clear why it’s so hard to get accepted to the very top schools.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Absurd. The higher SAT score you have, the more likely you’ll be accepted. Check out the Columbia statistic. </p>
<p>@DemolitX: I’m not a native speaker</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>True. but it is still rare.</p>
<p>@Bookmama22: They said that to everyone. Those like the finalist being waitlisted are what I’m interested in hearing about. Please elaborate</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>False. How did you get the information that 100-200 others that have similar resumes? They should be all denied because of plagiarism :D</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Maybe not all of them are lying. But they tell us encouraging words. Sometimes outright lie. Look at how many people in this thread got the notion of “ there are many people achieving the perfect score on the SAT.” We all know that it is not true. A 2250 is not the same as 2400. You have more chance of acceptance with a 2400. Check out the Columbia statistic for reference</p>
<p>
Thank you, but I haven’t found what I’m looking for here. A sound explanation.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>When I say perfect, I mean extraordinary.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Did I say 2400-ers are smarter? I don’t recall. But are they unique? Yes. So why does that not satisfy colleges?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>True. But it is like saying, if you don’t want to be a lawyer, don’t care about the LSAT. And the SAT is not the most important thing to me.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Because the admissions committee is trying to build up a class of diverse backgrounds and interests. It’s art and not a science, because you’re askingpeople (although experienced and well qualified ones I’m sure) to make subjectivejudgments on who can and will contribute the most to school and community, who will be successful in the future in their respective fields, with their respective goals.[ quote]</p>
<p>Okay. So why do they select some with extraordinary stats and whatnot (this includes rec, activities, award, like the CC community) over others? </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Don’t exaggerate. Nobody is like that. except for the 4.2 GPA. </p>
<p>
[quote]
I believe that colleges look for true effort and students that overcome obstacles, rather than painstakingly hard work from students who are privileged enough to go to top schools and have resources available to achieve everything they want and more.
[quote]
</p>
<p>Not quite. If they’re rich and recourse to college counselors, they can easily fake or bypass this.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The fact that Andover regularly gets about 15 kids into Stanford, 20 in Harvard, etc. EACH YEAR sort of undermines dissing the top schools argument that you seem to put forward here.</p>
<p>
What do people on this thread saying something have to do with what admissions officers say in their official capacity? That is outright bizarre for you to say. Complete nonsense. And please give a link to the Columbia statistic, as you always should when you cite data. Anyway, I am just telling you what the admissions people at various schools have said regarding how they look at SAT scores. If you choose to believe they are lying, that is your issue.</p>
<p>I am looking specifically at the Columbian page that listed the percentage of people accepted according to their range of SAT scores. It seemed that they had changed the page into a more general one. Here is the link, if you insist [Admission</a> Statistics | Columbia University Office of Undergraduate Admissions](<a href=“http://www.studentaffairs.columbia.edu/admissions/applications/stats.php]Admission”>http://www.studentaffairs.columbia.edu/admissions/applications/stats.php) . I’ll update the other as soon as possible.
And as for what people are reporting, where did they get the information from? From the admission officers, of course. So if these admission officers lie, the information is distorted. I once asked an admission officer about whether Asians are at a more disadvantage compared to other races; he denied the claim. Do you think he lied? Your judgement.
And if you choose to take in everything they say too, by all means pursue it. That is your issue, too.</p>
<p>i don’t like OP… :D</p>
<p>clearly he’s looking for someone to validate his opinion or else he wouldn’t be trying to so hard to prove other people wrong</p>
<p>or he just likes to worry</p>
<p>or he likes being pointless with his post. why does it even matter? if you’re a senior already, it’s a little late to be doing anything about it. </p>
<p>triple S status guys… bathe in the light and enjoy your last months in high school.</p>
<p>edit: cue OP’s retort</p>
<p>Kingcat you have a lot to learn about admissions to the top schools. I personally know numerous applicants with SAT over 2300 and GPA’s above 4.4 that were rejected by all the top ten schools. In fact without some sort of hook the typical high achieving but normal student has a only a small chance of admission to the very top schools. The point is that 40-60% of the student body is admitted on the basis of a hook or mini-hook leaving many fewer spots for the simply smart high achiever. They are qualified but have SAT/GPA significantly below the average of the students admitted without hooks. Keep in mind for students without hooks the average SAT at the top schools approaches 2400. But having a 2300 without a hook still means you will most likely be rejected from the top five schools. Read the suggested book and you will understand.</p>
<p>@ Say…what would you consider significantly below the average SAT/GPA? Are you saying people should spend more time working on that “hook” rather than SAT/GPA? </p>
<p>Wouldn’t it better to have both?</p>
<p>Easy answer - they are building a class. Looking for different things to fill different slots. They may have their fill of perfect scores but are looking for additional ultra-volunteers, or Chinese majors, or artists, or women… depends on the pool at your specific time.</p>
<p>Look this has been discussed in detail on this site many times. I personally know two classmates of my son who got into Harvard for sports with SAT’s of 2100 and GPA weighted around 4.0. This is how it works if the applicant has some accomplishment or thing(URM) valued by the school(hook). It varies from school to school based on the importance of the sport(football/hockey-much lower scores, soccer-slightly lower, running/swimming-very little difference) Most of the hooked students have excellent credentials but without the hook they would stand a much lower chance of admission. Read the book.</p>