@Much2learn, not true actually, at least when it comes to UCI and UCD.
This year, you’ve seen plenty of kids in the top 1% of test scores shocked to discover that they were rejected by those 2 schools.
They admit by major to a large extent, though, so for the most competitive majors (like engineering and CS), being in the top 5-10% may not be enough. The UC’s also weigh GPA and class rank heavily.
Though in the USNews uni top 50, for someone with top 1% test scores, NEU (and probably BU and Tulane) are likely admits. Also Miami. In competitive majors, probably even more so than UCI and UCD.
Just to comment, people often mention legacy in admissions as a privilege. Legacy is not all it’s cracked up to be. My children had legacy to u of Penn through myself and legacy to Princeton through there grandfather. They had straight A’s, 6 AP’s 4 or better and top 2% SAT’s. Neither of them were admitted to Penn or Princeton and I would have loved them to have gone to my alma mater. Being an underrepresented minority is a far stronger hook then legacy from what I have seen from their high school. In fact she was denied as a white female third in her class and her friend was admitted as a white male forth in the class as a first generation college student. Legacy is the weakest of hooks in admissions in my opinion.
@purpletitan “This year, you’ve seen plenty of kids in the top 1% of test scores shocked to discover that they were rejected by those 2 schools. They admit by major to a large extent, though, so for the most competitive majors (like engineering and CS), being in the top 5-10% may not be enough. The UC’s also weigh GPA and class rank heavily.”
Perhaps for a few impacted majors, but not for most students. The middle 50% SAT at these schools is not especially high: Cal Irvine 1040 - 1310, Cal Davis 1080-1350, Penn State 1090-1290.
@Much2learn, yep, but the middle SAT scores only tell you who enrolled, not who were rejected.
For schools that admit by major and value GPA and class rank more highly than test scores, the SAT scores of those rejected may be mighty impressive as well. Especially since high-stats kids seem disproportionately drawn to certain majors.
@robotrainbow, grandparent legacy is typically quite a weak factor (unless your family is famous).
For Penn, did they apply there in ED?
I’d just add to @lostaccount 's hitting-nail-on-head post that high-achieving kids often make it clear to their teachers, either explicitly or not, that they care more about their grade than the subject material. Those students, no matter how high their grades, may get lukewarm LORs as a result.
hebegebe, I did not mean to imply that all high stats students were grade grubbing or that their primary motivation is always grades. Nearly every one of the students in the most competitive schools have high stats. So the issue is how to distinguish those with high stats who are motivated because they have genuine interest in scholarly questions from those who have high stats because they are chasing grades and prestige. So, no of course I don’t think all high stats students are chasing grades. I am certainly not advocating that the top schools accept low stats students. Rather, I am saying an appreciable number of the high stats kids are adopting behaviors that make them appear like they are academics when they are not.
“… safeties namely Brandeis and RPI and U Rochester and UMD honors”
On what planet are Brandeis, RPI, URochester and UMD honors not elite schools??
“Someone mentioned that this sounds like “everyone gets a trophy” entitlement. I don’t see it that way. Why? Because these kids with the top 1% test scores and high GPAs have already “won”, in really the only quantifiable terms (maybe apart from scholastic competition victories), at school. They are at the top of the heap. And winners get a trophy. I’m not for handing out elite admissions to anyone but those who quantitatively deserve it.”
Students with the top 1% test scores and high GPAs are not necessarily the “best” and don’t necessarily 'deserve" entry into an elite college. Among that group, there are many who are probably the best and some that are not. And I think that is what schools are trying to decipher. And a related question is best for what? And some students who are best for one school are not best for another. The student with the most promise is not necessarily the one with the highest GPA or highest scores. Although among those with the highest scores and grades you are bound to find many with great promise.
McGill and most other Canadian schools admit by the numbers. For Canadians it is their high school/CEGEP record. For Americans it is their UW GPA and SAT/ACT scores. There are no hooks at all.
Some of the disagreement in this thread is probably related to perspective-from the stand point of being a student, and therefore a consumer vs from the standpoint of the university-in which case the student can be described as the product or customer. Some people are arguing that they worked really hard in high school, got good grades and scores and expected those to be the ticket to an elite school. For some, promise of a golden ticket was the motivation for the hard work to get good grades and scores. That is also where there is a certain irony because the top colleges want students who got top grades because they have inherent interest in the world/academics/scholarship and would have done as well had they never planned to apply to college and who would have pursued excellence even if no grades were given and colleges didn’t care. So the very motivating factor for some students is exactly what certain colleges view as an exclusion factor. It is an obvious conflict in perspective.
Being motivated by the desire for certain grades is an exclusion factor because it is a factor that places a limit on potential (to go beyond current contingencies and the status quo to exceptional discoveries, achievements, etc). And, colleges are looking for students who will continue to achieve after the game stops. So they want those with inherent interest. If you just wanted a golden ticket they want you to take it elsewhere.
Re #82
SAT or ACT scores are not all that useful for assessing selectivity of UCs. GPA is far more important; “test score heavy” applicants were those complaining the most about not being admitted to UCD, UCI, etc.
@lostaccount those schools are plenty elite in my book but apparently not to other posters since all of those schools I mentioned have an admission rate >35% and therefore they are not selective enough.
How many TOP students come on these forums and say they absolutely have no good choices? Usually it is I did not get anywhere BUT Rice, UCB, UChicago, solid LAC, flagship honors whatever, fill the blank. So it is not like they are denied a rigorous academic environment. And usually when the flagship is the only choice is because they did not apply anywhere in between. Based on what I see here and in my area TOP students that apply wisely have plenty of academic choices coming May 1st. Of course financial issue can complicate the issue, I understand that.
This is a very interesting thread, and timely too, as I have offered to meet next week with sophomore and junior parents to share everything I learned through our senior daughter’s college admission process. She was accepted ED to a very selective LAC in December. She had a list of schools she planned to apply to regular decision and was already in the process of writing supplemental essays when she received her acceptance email.
I believe applying ED was very helpful, as the school’s ED acceptance rate is double it’s RD rate. They like to fill a good portion of their class with student who are passionate about attending there. It was a decision that she made after touring nearly a dozen LACs. She is a very bright, confident, articulate, well mannered and well spoken young woman. I think that visiting the campus, sitting in on classes and interviewing with a senior student were all ways that let the school know she was being very thoughtful about the process.
Her SAT score was in the 65th percentile of their median score ranges. She took the most rigorous courses offered throughout high school, though it was clear from her SAT, SAT 2 scores and ECs that reading and writing were her strengths. She took the SAT three times, improving her scores each time without any kind of tutoring. I have been told, though I was not invited to read it myself, that her essay was outstanding. She attends a small private school and I am certain that her letters of recommendation were well written and personal in nature. She spent all four years on the school’s award winning mock trial team with the last two as captain.
I suspect though, that being born and raised on an organic farm on Kauai, having dual citizenship and a father who did attend college all weighed heavily in her favor. Is that fair? I don’t know. What I do know is that selective private colleges make it clear that they are holistic in their admission process and that our girl will bring a unique perspective to her fellow students where small, discussion based classes are the norm. She is passionate about peace, justice and human rights and intends to major in political science. She would also like to attend law school and someday become an international human rights lawyer. She is just one of those young people who knows what she wants to do and has the focus and perseverance to pursue her dreams. These are the qualities that don’t always come through in mere SAT and GPA stats.
@purpletitan “For schools that admit by major and value GPA and class rank more highly than test scores, the SAT scores of those rejected may be mighty impressive as well. Especially since high-stats kids seem disproportionately drawn to certain majors.”
If they are rejecting many top 1% students with 1500+ SAT scores, while 25% of their students are barely cracking 1,000 on the SAT then they have a significant mismatch between their supply of majors and the student demand for majors. It sounds like they need to increase the supply of majors where there is demand, instead of nudging students into majors they are not interested in and employers are not targeting.
I think we are diverting away from original question…
@Much2learn, valid point, but that still doesn’t negate my point that you can’t tell whether being top 5% (say in test scores) guarantees you admission at a certain school just by looking at that school’s middle 50% test scores.
am9799, So some view as elite only those that accept a tiny number of students? They want those places to accept different group than they accept. And, if those schools were to increase their enrollment, or stop soliciting as many applications, they would not view those schools as elite any more.
As @lostaccount pointed out, there are simply not enough slots for everyone who is qualified. And the 16,662 seats don’t take into account those who have hooks: recruited athletes, actors, musicians, children of huge donors, celebrities, senators and other top politicians and top government employees.
There are many, many fine institutions out there. The trick is finding the one that fits your kid, that you can afford.