Google reddit Stanford acceptance essays. Talking about the kid who got in REA. I saw a future script or broadway writer in that kid.
That Black Lives Matter had great everything so his essay really didn’t matter. Also the adcoms more likely to be liberal anyway.
The thing about essays making or breaking a student is frustrating, as I know many kids who can afford to have professionals guiding them, suggesting topics, editing extensively etc. I hate to think a great writer is penalized because they think a pro wrote it when they didn’t and when a regular kid without help writes from the heart, but the essay pales in comparison to the more polished essays they see. I just think it’s tricky to know who wrote what.
@citymama9 I feel the same way. I have recently read some sample “before” and “after” essays on consultant’s websites. I could easily see that the befores needed work, but the afters sounded like they were written by someone else entirely. All the cadence, sentence structure and tone of voice were altered. The final results were formulaic and pale. I am certainly not a member of any Ad Com, but I think I would have been able to spot them as haveing been at least heavily edited by a professional. They had excellent grammer, but no heart. All in all, I actually preferred the originals. With a small bit of editing, they would have been excellent.
And then there are the kids with the perfect GPAs, perfect test scores, kids who followed their passion in their ECs, had wonderful LORs, and wrote well and got denied. Some kids’ applications present to AOs beautifully but they are just not what the school is looking for. In that case move along and go where you are wanted. You will be successful regardless and it will be all the sweeter.
This thread has opened my eyes and confirmed some theories.
This is one of the best threads I have read on CC.
@cleoforshort Schools have institutional needs and unspoken quotas. Many kids with perfect scores fail to realize this and they think that great GPA’s and a 1600 or 36 would raise their chances because they are easily in the top quartile, or decile. In actual fact, therein lies the problem.
For the 2016-17 year, Harvard’s interquartile range for ACT is 32-35 composite, 31-35 math, 33-35 english. Identical numbers for Princeton and Yale (which only published the composite score). Stanford composite score range was 31-35. There are both push and pull factors disadvantaging students with perfect scores. I use ACT, but one can make a similar case with SAT.
Push: due to the needs of making up a rounded class rather than a purely high-scoring academic class, many students are admitted on other grounds - music, theater, sports, URM, legacy, and so on. The statistics imply that there are only ~400 places for students with a 36 score given these schools have 1300-1700 places.
Pull: these schools surely can raise the scores of their enrollees by admitting more students with perfect scores, but does it deter students from applying if the interquartile range was 34-36, 35-36 or 36-36? (which in turn means the school will have less choice of candidates to select from, and therefore lead to failure in meeting its institutional needs and result in a different cultural environment).
Given the “shape” of the class, students with 36/1600 scores should realize there are at most 400 spots for the pool they are competing in, as a matter of fact. The percentage of perfect score students at other institutions is even lower.
I think this is a somewhat perverse and counterintuitive way of looking at things, but would be interested to hear your comments.
@bronz2
I’m surprised that schools without dedicated theater or music conservatories value those skills so highly. Harvard doesn’t have a music or theater audition. Do they really save spots for kids who are good actors?
@gallentjill not a dedicated conservatory, but aiming to have an orchestra which performs “at a conservatory level!” https://yso.yalecollege.yale.edu/orchestra
I have listened to some of their music on Youtube and although the repertoire is basic, the performances are pleasing.
@bronze2 and the theater kids? Harvard doesn’t have auditions so how are they selecting for them? Is it celebrity status, having performed on broadway? Or are there really spots for the high stat kid who spent four years doing the high school play?
No one is a good fit for every school.
Agree this thread attempts to assign blame where it is impossible to know an answer. There might be twice the number of apps from your school as usual. Or the AO is brand new cause the one assigned to your school quits. Or the school decides to defer all the out of state students. Nobody knows. Cast a wide but thoughtful net, visit and meet as many AOs as you can, & always apply to your instate public flagship.
@gallentjill on the other hand, you can think of it like the person who wants to do biology who has no experience outside of a few high school clubs in science vs the kid who interned at labs, can thoroughly comment on the research, and participated in competitive summer programs. Not many spots are there for kids who don’t go the extra mile.
So some find this mean and some helpful. I’m in the helpful camp. This is less for this year’s crowd as it is for next.
I think understanding impacted majors is more important than ever. It seems so many programs make you apply upfront. A shame but they cant admit a whole class of engineers.
@bronze2 You really want to know what I think? I think it’s all bull and that we no longer live in a merit based society.
I also think that the people who make themselves feel better by assuming the kids who are turned down from the prestigious schools have some glaring mistake in their application, or a character flaw such as arrogance are not paying attention. There is a healthy amount of schadenfreude going on here. Futhermore, they are KIDS! They are allowed to make mistakes! If they are already perfect why do they need college? LOL. Our expectations these days are ridiculous.
After watching the pain my D17 went through last year, we’re done. There is no way my daughter through hard work and brilliance could be what the schools she applied to were looking for. Their loss.
As for me? My family is checking out. We are not throwing our hat in the ring with S19 and D21, the rat race will have to get along with two less rats. My younger kids will apply and go to schools that still welcome well rounded, articulate, well educated performers, who have made time for fun and friends, athletics and video games. We haven’t and still won’t participate in paid philanthropy or pay $11,000 for Harvard summer school. No one here is buying into TASP or Yale Global Scholars. They will not invent a new electric engine or cure cancer. My kids will mow lawns, play lacrosse and get caught drinking beer at parties. They will live big lives, go to good schools and hopefully have happy lives with awesome families. An Ivy league degree is not required, and my kids are too smart to hang out with people who think so.
@cleoforshort , awesome post! It is indeed a rat race. My son refuses to be a rat too:-) My daughter was a rat. There will always be students who want to be rats, so there’s this post, and lots of other helpful posts, to help them understand the maze.
“I think it’s all bull and that we no longer live in a merit based society.”
When did we ever?! Seems a tad naive to think that.
I’d argue it actually is much more merit based than any other time in history. At least now, admittance to the most selective schools offers an opportunity for all - students from every quarter, race, socioeconomic group. In the past, admissions to these schools were very much going primarily to the well-off and connected. A lot has actually changed making the schools more diverse and more “fair” yet much more competitive.
I also think that applicants and their parents have to be aware of the numbers/statistics and realize that there are a lot of really special, amazing students out there. It’s a big country and a big world. Being in the top 1% academically doesn’t really make you that special.
“Schools have institutional needs and unspoken quotas. Many kids with perfect scores fail to realize this and they think that great GPA’s and a 1600 or 36 would raise their chances because they are easily in the top quartile, or decile. In actual fact, therein lies the problem.”
You’re actually wrong on this. There is no doubt that the higher score you have, the higher chance you have of getting in, to any school. Here’s Stanford’s breakdown for class of 2020:
SAT Reading, percent of applicants who got in with that score/range:
800 12%
700 - 799 7%
600 - 699 4%
Below 600 1%
SAT Math
800 8%
700 - 799 7%
600 - 699 4%
Below 600 <1%
SAT Writing
800 13%
700 - 799 8%
600 - 699 3%
Below 600 1%
You see that 13% number for perfect score in Writing, that’s the best odds you’ll get at Stanford if you’re unhooked. And most if not all kids with perfect scores realize that high scores are necessary but not sufficient for admission into the top schools. And 90% of Stanford’s class has an ACT above 30. It’s not Cal Tech or Chicago, but it’s a high stat school.
@doschicos To say that historically the spots in the most selective schools went only to the well connected and wealthy is misguided and does a disservice to the majority of people who graduated from those schools. There will always be allowances made for the wealthy, they donate the money that creates a pool for scholarships and aid. You cannot have one without the other.
I think it’s amusing that you think kids who spend four years or longer working hard and achieving at the very highest level aren’t special. Let me assure you, they are.
There is nothing fair about college admissions, thinking that schools are being more fair now is naïve. Just because the most selective schools are on a huge diversity kick right now doesn’t mean it will always be that way. Schools will chase another demographic or try to reshape their admissions matrix soon enough. To think that they are on some journey of self discovery is beyond naïve. At some point everyone will get screwed,
So perhaps it is fair after all.
@Lindagaf My D17 is a natural born rat too, not competitive with others but strives for excellence and achievement. She’s exhausting. LOL
I am not an admissions officer but I did regularly hire people and in reading this thread there are so many similarities when it comes to landing a job. For every job I had there were always around 200 applications (harder then a selective university). 100 could easily be thrown out from some basic problem (ask for 5 years experience or a related degree, the candidate had 1 year experience and unrelated degree). Another 50 would be taken out because of something like the person didn’t answer the question completely, and some recommendations that didn’t seem to match the experience, a inconsistent job history, etc… When you got down to the last 50 it got harder but some of the candidates surfaced because they did a great job researching the positions, the staff, the responsibilities and showed very specific interest in the job. They showed great passion in this particular job and weren’t overqualified, and I knew they would be successful and accept the job if they were offered it. After that there was generally a group of 5 that were great matches for the job. At that point it becomes intangibles, was the personality the right fit for the current staff, did the candidate provide a diverse point of view, did the candidate have unique skills that we needed.
I think what I am getting at with the post is all our kids can control is choose the schools where they can get into that final 5 and after that, it is up to what the colleges feel are the best matches for their school. And just like in jobs, it just takes one to get employed.