<p>
</p>
<p>That is not true at CC.
If you look at the forums, the Ivy League schools are NOT listed as top schools. That is in a separate area.</p>
<p>(okay, okay, I know…but I thought it was funny to notice that).</p>
<p>Thanks, warriordaughter, for your intervention. Incredibly wise and mature. In stark contrast to the entitled “I got a 4.0 and 2360 therefore I am deserving of admission to the college of my choice” attitude of the OP.</p>
<p>It could well be that such an attitude of entitlement shone through on the OP’s (or the OP’s “friend’s”) college application essays. If so, it’s a sure buzzkill. And it’s an attitude that, if unchecked, might very well continue to plague the OP (or the OP’s “friend”) in graduate school admissions, in job interviews, and elsewhere in life. </p>
<p>Get over it, OP. The world doesn’t owe you or your “friend” diddly-squat, no matter how hard you’ve worked up until this point. There are millions of people who have worked equally hard, many of them starting with fewer advantages, and there are tens of thousands of people in your age cohort who have not only worked equally hard but who have accomplished equally great things or better, and who have applied to and in many cases have their hearts set on exactly the same colleges. From the elite colleges’ perspective, you and your friend are just numbers in a very large pack of essentially fungible applicants, unless something in your application stands out–but that won’t be top grades or top test scores or hard work, because those characteristics are shared by thousands of their applicants.</p>
<p>Again, I remind you of the numbers. In 2013, Princeton rejected 90% of applicants with an unweighted 4.0 GPA on a 4.0 scale, and they rejected 84% of applicants with SAT scores in the 2300-2400 range. That just says that a 4.0 and 2360 is nothing special in Princeton’s eyes. Does it help put you in contention? Sure. But at a certain point the adcom’s eyes glaze over if the applicant’s strongest credentials are HS GPA and test scores, because those applicants are a dime a dozen at those schools.</p>
<p>Some great posts.<br>
Not that they are seen as a dime a dozen, from the start- just that among the thousands, maybe ten thousand, with top grades and scores, some do stand out for far more than OP’s stats, leader of a youth group and secretary of math league. The kids who have vision, perspective and energy are already going for more. They have this “more” to add to their own perspective and reflect in their self presentation. This isn’t limited by SES. </p>
<p>Given a choice between a 2360 and a 2160, just the stats don’t tell you the stuff a kid is made of, “the rest of the story.” The activities she chose, the efforts put in, the manner in which he presents himself in essays and and supp questions, etc, is very telling. It’s a whole application. Not just a transcript page and a line about scores. Best wishes to those waiting. </p>
<p>I think the biggest misconception that crops up in this kind of discussion is the idea that “working hard” has something to do with admission to the very most selective schools. The sobering truth is that if you had to work really, really hard to get those top grades and scores, you probably won’t get into one of the most selective schools. Rather, they take a lot of kids who didn’t have to work that hard to get those top grades and scores, because high school classes and standardized tests were easy for them. Even those kids don’t get in unless they used their talents to achieve something else–usually outside of school. Often, it’s something where their achievement is measured against others (prizes, contests, selective programs), or something where the student took a great deal of personal initiative. Volunteering for hundreds of hours is OK, but not that big a deal in this context.</p>
<p>Don’t get me wrong. That hard work will pay off at many, many excellent colleges. But it’s not the key to admission at the most selective schools.</p>
<p>As to where this idea that hard work should pay off in this context came from, I think in a lot of cases it comes from other countries where admission to the top schools is based on high-stakes exams and little else. It’s natural for people from such countries to imagine that the SAT plays that role here–and it does, for some really good schools. But not for the most selective ones.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Good point, and one of the reasons schools like to see sports and other time intensive extracurriculars on applications. A kid who’s done nothing but study to get their good grades in high school may not be able to keep up with the more intense workload of college. A kid who’s spent 20 or 30 hours a week outside of the classroom at a job, on the field, or volunteering is likely to have the brain power and time management skills to succeed at a top school.</p>
<p>I agree +++ for warrior daughter. She is wise beyond her years. </p>
<p>Take it out of the context of college applications. My son recently auditioned for something and was called back. Call backs were scheduled two weeks before the actual event. Unfortunately, my son had to do his callback via Skype instead of in person because of a scheduling conflict. I certainly didn’t have the money to change his flight and allow him to be there in person for the call back process. That is our economic reality. All the other people who were called back were able to be there in person. Was it “fair” that my son couldn’t be there in person? Fair doesn’t come into it. It just was.</p>
<p>My son did not get the position. Does that mean that he wasn’t qualified or as talented as the other people who auditioned? Probably not. It just means he wasn’t chosen. Even if he had been there, he may not have been chosen. He didn’t bemoan the decision. He just decided to try again next year and hope that it would work out. There was no sense of entitlement because of his talent. All the kids who were called back were qualified/talented and the decision came down to other factors as it usually does. Just like all the kids with high test scores/GPAs are qualified; so, it comes down to other factors in college admissions.</p>
<p>
I agree, but I’d add that the kid who spent that time outside the classroom may also need to show that he or she was personally successful or at least significantly self-directed in those activities in order to get the attention of the most selective colleges. (I’m leaving aside here things like overcoming adversity, i.e. by getting those grades and scores while coming from a poor family, etc.)</p>
<p>This thread is great and I enjoyed it.</p>
<p>After a Princeton deferral when my son told me that he clearly understood the root cause of why he was deferred, I was curious. He told me the third sentence of 4th paragraph could have been different and that made all the difference! </p>
<p>I remembered the movie “Gods Must Be Crazy” and laughed to myself. :)</p>
<p>^^ agree, but it doesn’t always “have to” be self-directed. It can be about the responsibility itself. I hate to name things, because it’s the combination that matters. But all of us can figure what’s a time filler, super easy, or a default, versus some effort on the front lines. And personally successful is really about the impact you aimed for. Serving food at a meal site is small, but puts you there. Some work for an organization may be easy, but it puts you in the context. In theory, if the kid commits, responsibilities can grow. Collecting pennies is not the same. Joining a walkathon once a year isn’t the same. Nor is founding the pie club, where you basically sit with friends. </p>
<p>Tinnova, when mine got rejected by an Ivy, her reaction was, oh good, I can just go to my first choice. I know the folks who rejected her and I think they have the slightest twinge, since they know what she accomplished in college and is up to now. But it is how it is. And she was very happy at her college.</p>
<p>Another facet of this question: why does everyone make such a fuss over not getting into an Ivy? If the student is as hard-working, dedicated, and persevering as the OP claims, he should be able to bloom wherever he’s planted. Again, no one should need an admissions officer to validate one’s high school achievements, and no one should rely on an Ivy diploma to serve up the world on a silver platter. Many extremely successful people were rejected at Ivies-- I don’t see them complaining. In fact, most would say the experience made them more resilient and gave them the motivation to thrive at their second or third choice college.</p>
<p>OP, where did your friend end up?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This was pretty much my reaction, too-- and I hope my story turns out as well as yours :)</p>
<p>Just a theory but here goes. My D is hoping to be one of the chosen few this year. We are from a small southern state. I am almost certain that very few students in our state even consider applying to an Ivy League. We do have exceptionally bright students here with stellar test scores and GPAs. For the past three years, the validectorian at my Ds large high school has been an Asian American female with perfect test scores and GPA. Last years validictorian was accepted to Princeton. Is she any more talented or special than the other 32,000 applicants? Probably not. My theory proposes that the Ivies look at each geographical region and possibly countries separately. This theory was confirmed by admissions at an Ivy this year for campus visit. Applications are divided among admissions by geographical region for review. Thus, the fewer high achieving applicants from a certain region or country the higher the odds are for being accepted. If one happens to be a minority or female, then your pool of applicants just got smaller again. Looking at those applicants with grades, test scores, and extracurricular activities being equal, is this person a legacy? Is this person an outstanding athlete? Does this person already have credits to his/her name, ie a starring film role, for instance, or an ingenius invention? Does this person have a passion for the arts or science? Is this person selfless and motivated beyond reason to volunteer? If my D gets in to her chosen Ivy this Thursday, did geographical region play a part? Who knows? It is a just a theory…</p>
<p>Geographic diversity certainly helps. Schools like being able to say that they have students from all 50 states, so being from e.g. North Dakota is a slight help. Being female is only a help at women’s colleges or for STEM applicants; being male can be a slight help otherwise, especially at many LACs. </p>
<p>I have been reading this thread with a great deal of interest. I happened to stumble across this post yesterday afternoon, and spent much of the rest of the afternoon reading through it. Fascinating! As my screen name indicates I am the mother of a Princeton sophomore, and am a Princeton alumna myself. I also have occasion to meet a lot of young people, some applying to colleges, during my volunteer work. </p>
<p>I think that @jsmike123qwe 's post has been responded to thoroughly, and I do not have much to add. I do, however, want to agree with an earlier post, that merit is not limited to grades and SAT scores. There is also merit in being a good athlete, a good musician, or a saver of the world. Why should merit be limited to grades and SAT scores – and people admitted starting from the top of those scores down? </p>
<p>I would posit that every one who gets in to one of these schools has merit – and that includes grades and scores. You are not getting into Princeton without those bases covered. Let’s make that VERY CLEAR. There are no bottom-of-the-barrelers getting into any Ivy League school, or any other top school. </p>
<p>Now, is a 2360 SAT score that much different from a 2260 in the scheme of things? I think not. At that point, it comes down to whether or not that person has something else that makes him/her stand out, that makes him/her interesting, that makes someone want to advocate for him/her. </p>
<p>I have interviewed candidates for admission over the years. I do not see their grades, and assume that all of these students have those bases covered. But, in my interview report, I try to find something about that student that is unique, and that makes me feel passion for them, so that my report can paint the best possible picture of them. Again, few students get into Princeton, and most of the students that I interview do not get in – whether or not I plead their cases. So, again, not all qualified students get in – it’s a matter of numbers. The admissions officers, then, have to select among students who are (mostly) all qualified, and then craft the best class that they can, one that will enhance the life of all in the university community.</p>
<p>That is really a daunting task, and one for which I do not envy them one bit. Best of luck to all applying for the Class of '18, and I’m keeping my fingers crossed for four whom I have met personally.</p>
<p>^^I heard the same theory with race added to the mix. I was told by some experienced people that our competition is only with aspiring asian engineers - if true, I give up. 
</p>
<p>I’m not sure I’ve ever seen it posted on CC, but last fall when we were awaiting a decision on my son’s ED application to a very selective LAC, I came across a 34-page Powerpoint presentation made for students in the Princeton (NJ) School District by Don Betterton, former Dean of Admission at Princeton and now head of Betterton College Planning. The presentation is called “Why is it so hard for a good student to get into a top college … and what you can do to improve your chances.”</p>
<p>As much research as I’ve done on all of this stuff over years, the point system he explained in great detail made it very clear that my son’s chances at admission were significantly lower than the already miniscule admission rate at this particular school, even with the bump one theoretically gains in applying ED. In Betterton’s example, the school in question (naturally) is Princeton University, but I think the principles apply for most super-selective schools. </p>
<p>Betterton explains the “two selective processes” that go on in order to make decisions based on “meritocracy” and also to achieve “institutional engineering” goals, which results in one “process” for “regular” applicants and another for “special” ones. </p>
<p>Bottom line: Identify which pool you fall into for each school–essentially hooked or unhooked–and then “do the math.” Pretty sobering stuff, but really there aren’t any surprises in there if you’re honest with yourself. </p>
<p>But let’s not kid ourselves that it’s a straight meritocracy and that it’s all about the “purest cream rising to the top,” because while that’s true for the “regular” kids, many of the “special” ones don’t really fit that description. Nonetheless, it’s a private institution’s right to admit however its leaders feel justified.</p>
<p>[Took a little digging online, but I found it: <a href=“http://phs.princetonk12.org/guidance/Forms/Betterton%20College%20Planning.pdf”>http://phs.princetonk12.org/guidance/Forms/Betterton%20College%20Planning.pdf</a>]</p>
<p>^Delete the j at the end of the link and it will work.</p>
<p>@MYOS1634, Based on answers alone, most people here are not “in the know.” In fact the only people “in the know” are those who have recently went through the college admissions process. Everyone else is trying to mediate the situation based on their preconceived notions of students with high scores. </p>
<p>Secondly, I did not have the marks my friend had, and also, why should I be forced to go to a foreign college? Are you conceding that American colleges have become breeding grounds for athletics, legacy admissions, the disabled, and minority students? Again that is not all a bad thing, its just that so many people expect some sort of artistic/ abstract/ or athletic super-ability from students, and there is just nothing at the end of the road for the people who do what they should.</p>
<p>If you were to go back in time 30-40 years, you could see the value of a perfect SAT score and valedictorian status. These high school accomplishments had VALUE. And when you said that my friend should have applied to a foreign college - that is exactly the problem. Frankly, our education system overall (not just in colleges) has this mindset that an 80% and a 100% are close enough. This sort of attitude will mark the end of our short reign as a leader in education. </p>
<p>@bclintonk, Yea their eyes glaze over, and focus on the 2120s and 2200s. Honestly its responses like the one you posted that convince me that college adcoms have some kind of prejudice against students who have accomplished a lot in high school. </p>
<p>How do you know anything about my friend’s background? He did not have means, his parents were first generation immigrants, and lived in rented basements for a good part of his childhood. So enough of that nonsense. And since when did poverty become a attractive feature for colleges?</p>
<p>A dime a dozen? There are about 100 kids who scored a perfect SAT score each year. And combined with a perfect GPA, and a strong list of extracurriculars? Even you cannot believe that that process was fair or rational. </p>
<p>And like I said, my friend has already gotten over this pathetic system. But the pervading injustice of it all is just unbelievable. </p>
<p>Suck it up? Maybe you can say that to a person that doesn’t value education, but don’t say that about my friend. Let me tell you something, if you look at the alma maters for the Supreme Court Justices in past 100 years, tell me which schools are most prevalent? “Oh, your friend should have no problem getting anywhere!” Obviously not to the Supreme Court. And how can he get anywhere if the system is devised against him??? Perhaps he should skip a couple of questions on a job exam, so the reviewers eyes won’t “glaze over”</p>
<p>“Are you conceding that American colleges have become a breeding ground for athletics, legacy admissions, the disabled, and minority students?”</p>
<p>Hahahahahahaha. Please check out the link below and scroll down to the University Wide Enrollment by Ethnicity. You might find it enlightening. If you don’t have time, let me summarize for you. 79% of Yale’s students are White (62%) and Asian (17%). Don’t think we are quite yet in the ballpark of a breeding ground for URMs. </p>
<p><a href=“http://oir.yale.edu/yale-factsheet”>http://oir.yale.edu/yale-factsheet</a></p>
<p>BTW- I found that comment very offensive.</p>
<p>Yawn. </p>
<p>22 pages and the OP still can’t accept the simple fact that colleges do not limit their admission criteria solely to SAT & GPA.</p>