<p>LucytheLakie: Great article. From this, my D has a borderline chance. It could go either way for her Ivy.</p>
<p>Thank you @momofmusician17. @jsmike123qwe clearly has a lot of passion on this topic. Interesting, given that he says over and over that he is NOT interested in any of these schools. But the more he posts, the more his biases come out. But it’s not just him. People should really look at the numbers, and realize that URMs are not highly represented in Ivy League schools, nor in college, in general. If no URMs were admitted, people should accept the fact that there are still many many students just like jsmike123qwe’s friend. How do you select among them? There is always some other factor – other than SATs and grades. And just because you think your friend/ son/ daughter, etc. is the smartest person you know, that does not mean that he/she is the smartest person that the admissions office has seen. Why would four Ivy League Schools reject an applicant? Maybe there’s something about that applicant that we’re not seeing? We do not see it all. Even jsmike123qwe did not see it all. At least he did not see who his friend was in competition against. There are reasons the schools make the very tough decisions that they do. While we may not always agree with those decisions, we must assume that thought and reason went behind it.</p>
<p>@jsmike123qwe, did you read my previous post? It’s not just the raw accomplishments that matter, it’s the accomplishments <em>in context</em>. </p>
<p>I read a book a few months ago (might have been The Gatekeepers?) that described how one particular school viewed academic/extracurricular success in light of a student’s background on a scale of 1 to 10. For instance, Erica might have a variety of extracurriculars (maybe plays clarinet and is president of a couple clubs) and a 2250 SAT score-- let’s say a 8. But she’s gone to the very best private schools and has had her path to success paved by her wealthy family and community. Her background is a 9. In light of what advantages she <em>already</em> had, her accomplishments are good but not great.</p>
<p>In contrast, Jane has good extracurriculars (plays basketball and works a part-time job) and solid SAT scores, say 2150-- maybe only a 6 or 7. But she comes from a single-parent home, her mother is unemployed, she’s a first-generation college student, and her high school is a dropout factory-- perhaps only a 3. In the context of her background, Jane has demonstrated that she has the grit and determination to push herself. Imagine if Jane had been born with the privileges of Erica-- what could she have done?</p>
<p>This doesn’t mean that privileged students can’t get in-- many, many do, and almost all are ridiculously well-qualified. But you can’t just dismiss all these soft factors as having no value.</p>
<p>From Yale’s website, under “What Yale Looks For…”<br>
“There are no score cutoffs for standardized tests, and successful candidates present a wide range of test results. During the most recent year, test score ranges were: SAT Verbal: 710 - 800, SAT Math, 710 - 790, SAT Writing, 720 - 800. ACT, 32 - 35.”
This information is laid out and there for all to see. There should be no surprises in the admission results if you have actually done the research!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What part of “supply and demand” and “seeking diversity” (of background, talent, geography, experience, etc.) do you not understand? Seriously, have you read ANYTHING people have posted? </p>
<p>You say:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You’re the one with the preconceived notions. There are hundred years of combined life experience with college and beyond among the adults posting here–both our own and that of our kids. And a number of posters have worked at universities or even been adcoms. In contrast, kids who have recently gone (not “went”) through the admissions process only know one thing–whether they were accepted or not.</p>
<p>Seriously, what will it take to get you to stop your ranting?</p>
<p>Agree with others, big yawn. I know these points have been stated by numerous other posters on this thread, but just in case the OP missed them…your friend applied to 4 Ivy’s including Columbia and Dartmouth. You say he visited Columbia and “fell in love with it.” Hmmm, NYC-Hanover, sure. :-/ You have also mentioned his strong EC’s…youth group and secretary of the math club? Big yawn, next. Sorry, I haven’t heard anything about your friend that would make any adcom want to advocate for admittance during a committee meeting.</p>
<p>
Again, here’s the misconception: that getting perfect grades and scores constitutes having accomplished a lot in high school, in the context of admission to the most selective schools. They get thousands upon thousands of applications from kids with excellent grades and scores. I suspect a lot of them look pretty similar on paper, and those are the ones who are most likely to be disappointed.</p>
<p>
I doubt undergraduate college has much bearing on supreme court selections. Obviously supreme court justices tend to be better students than most and tend to go to attend selective undergraduate colleges. However, some do not. For example, one of the current supreme justices attended a college with a >90% acceptance rate for undergrad. One could make an argument for law school instead of undergrad. However, selective law schools admit many students who did not attend ivies or highly selective colleges for undergrad. For example, the page at <a href=“Where Harvard Law Students Come From”>http://www.thecollegesolution.com/where-harvard-law-students-come-from/</a> lists 161 different colleges that the Class of 2015 Harvard Law School students attended for undergrad. Some are highly selective. Some are not.</p>
<p>If you were selecting students who you’d expect to be most successful as judges, what criteria would you use? Would you base it on GPA and SAT score? Or might you also relevant consider ECs and awards, such accepting lower stats from a state debate champion? Or lower stats for the applicant who had lots of experience working in law offices/courts where he achieved amazing successes? Or the applicant who took law-related classes outside of high school at a nearby university and achieved top grades in the class, with a glowing LOR from the professor? Or the applicant whose essay passionately describes his interest in being a judge and what unique factors he overcame in a challenging background that led him to be driven to become a judge, in an effort to improve the world for others? One could make a similar argument for selecting students who are most likely to be successful in nearly any field.</p>
<p>perhaps the schools want to see some form of struggle…weird right? perhaps these students could’ve written about something they lost, and how they recovered, etc</p>
<p>Yup, picktails, that’s one source. They like leaders. (The bad news, ha, is that some then argue long and hard about what leadership is.) Yale has other places where they do say more- it’s not all about becoming a CEO or Supreme Court Justice-- leadership works in many ways. But, in tough words, if OP’s concept of leadership is heading a youth group (activities and impact unspecified) and secretary of math league, OP is waaaaay off, from the get-go. I really think we should ignore him.</p>
<p>Lucie, interesting link- but we should remember it’s older now. The thing I found most valuable is where he gets to “personal” qualities. </p>
<p>LAD, the UC’s do factor in personal challenge. You can find info from them about what they look for, via google.</p>
<p><a href=“http://media.collegeboard.com/digitalServices/pdf/research/SAT-Percentile-Ranks-Composite-CR-M-W-2013.pdf”>http://media.collegeboard.com/digitalServices/pdf/research/SAT-Percentile-Ranks-Composite-CR-M-W-2013.pdf</a></p>
<p>2400 494 99+ 270 99+ 224 99+
2390 245 99+ 130 99+ 115 99+
2380 434 99+ 243 99+ 191 99+
2370 413 99+ 239 99+ 174 99+
2360 641 99+ 355 99+ 286 99+</p>
<p>There are about 2227 students in this score range.but the numbers go up dramatically if the colleges consider 2200 to be an acceptable which means there might be 27000+ students who fit that cut off.</p>
<p>Note that more students take the ACT than SAT (colleges in coastal states usually have more applicants from SAT-dominant states than ACT-dominant), many students take the SAT more than once, and many colleges accept superscore. If you consider ACT and superscore, the number of 2360+ SAT or equivalent ACT increases considerably.</p>
<p>Selective schools are not looking for students with perfect metrics. They are looking for interesting kids who have heartfelt and distinctive interests, as well as unique talents and creativity. That means they only want so many 1st string violinists. They also want boxers and dreamers. Years ago a member of an HYP adcom told me that the admissions process is not a “meritocracy.” That is still the case.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>As someone who applied to college 30-40 years ago, let me assure you that this is not true. If you think the Ivies accepted students based on who had the highest SAT and GPA 30 years ago, I’ve got a bridge to sell you in Brooklyn. Just as today, decisions were made holistically. We had to write essays, describe our ECs and submit teacher recommendations. And for us public school kids, high SATs and GPAs often didn’t matter one iota, since HYP and the ilk filled a much larger percentage of their classes with private school students. </p>
<p>If you bothered to look at the slide show linked by Lucie on page 21, you’d get a pretty good idea why your friend was rejected. And it’s not because he wasn’t legacy or an athlete. His extracurriculars would get a 4 rating and not the 7 or 8 needed for the top schools (yes, even Cornell). Your perfect applicant wasn’t close to being perfect. </p>
<p>And someone wondered why admissions people aren’t being held accountable. They are being held accountable, by the institution that pays their salaries. Not by the 18-year-olds who are applying. Colleges set very rigid goals that admissions has to meet. If you want to change those goals, I suggest you either become a college president or get on the board of trustees. </p>
<p>One last thing. The top colleges are looking for students who will be future leaders. Future CEOs, judges, school principals, governors, Oscar winners, Pulitzer prize winners, etc. A 2400 SAT and 4.0 GPA does not a future leader make. Test-taking ability and doing all your homework only get you so far. The grit and determination of an athlete, the innovation and creative thinking of a student entrepreneur, the perseverance to overcome obstacles of a disadvantaged student, are the types of qualities that are more determinative of future leadership. And that’s why the top schools have a different definition of merit than the OP does.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s the problem. The OP has not bothered to look. We have all been wasting our time with him. Hopefully some other kids who read this thread will get some value out of it.</p>
<p>…That’s me! I’m one of those kids.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>As with many threads on CC, this is the hope.</p>
<p>This thread has had 28,000 views. So somebody is reading it.</p>
<p>“And someone wondered why admissions people aren’t being held accountable. They are being held accountable, by the institution that pays their salaries.”</p>
<p>Just curious but does anyone know who these admissions people are? Are they Professors or Scientists at the University, Politicians, University donors etc… </p>
<p>The two whom I met at my son’s school during admitted student’s day were previous students of the university.</p>