<p>And there is a real cost associated with the failure to identify a properly-targeted school or two or three early in the process. If I had to identify one common theme in successful applications it would be the ability of applicants to target the right school and prepare an application that communicates the sorts of things that school is looking for. </p>
<p>In that sense, the "shotgun" or "dart-throwing" approach to college admissions is counter-productive. The odds of success would increase with a shorter list of colleges that are truly good fits and applications to those colleges that communicate that fit in specific ways.</p>
<p>The elite colleges could help tremendously. They know what they are looking for. If they wanted to, they could easily detail the types of applicants who have no prayer and the types of applicants who have a shot. But, then they would cut their application numbers in half. Instead, they all stand at the podium and say things to encourage thousands of applicants who are, literally, wasting their money.</p>
<p>For example, looking at Brown's published acceptance rates, it is quite evident that you have basically no shot with a class rank below the top-5% unless you attend a super-competitive prep or magnet feeder school or unless you have a socio-ec, athletic, legacy, or URM hook. But, I bet the adcoms don't say that in their info sessions if they are like adcoms in any info sessions I attended.</p>
<p>There is a difference between availability of information, dissemination and interpretation. Some posters have called for more (i.e. different from what is currently available) information. The biggest problem, however, seems to me to be the dissemination of information that is already publicly available. For example, GCs who tell students "you're in at HYSPM" based on the students' stats alone have not kept up with information that is available on CC or elsewhere. Interpretation of available information is another concern. No matter how often someone will argue that it really does not make a lot of difference whether an applicant has a score of 1550 or 1600 on the old SAT, there will always be a poster lamenting that s/he "only" got 780 on the Math and should s/he retake the SAT?
I've got the title for a new book, "College and the Art of Divination." by the CC Collective. Contributions welcome.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Had I looked at those statistics ..., I would have found that with her verbal SAT taken alone, she'd have a 26% chance of admission; with her math SAT, a 16.6% chance, and with class rank a 33% chance. So, what would I have concluded: no matter whether it's one in 3 or one in 4 or one in 6, still seems like a reach to me.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I would have interpreted the stats very differently. I would have thought that her class rank makes her odds of acceptance more than double the average rate. I would have thought that her SAT scores nearly doubled her odds of admission. So the combination is probably a pretty positive indicator.</p>
<p>The raw odds don't mean that much. For example, in Brown's case, 3/8ths of the applicants do not have a top 5% class rank and, therefore, have little or no chance of admission (a third of the average acceptance rate). Thus, your D's 33% odds of admission really jump to about 52%.</p>
<p>If you can get to 50%/50% on pure stats, then you can start making a qualitative judgement about that "additional spark" from a strong EC, etc. Will this combination of ECs and recommendations be better than average or worse than average, because approximately half of the apps in that stat pile will be accepted. You are also in the range where applying ED can all but seal the deal.</p>
<p>So, to make a long story short, your daughter's application to Brown wasn't a long shot at all. Sure, there are no guarantees, but based on stats alone she was a serious contender, as proven by her acceptance letter.</p>
<p>InterestedDad, I realize you are talking beyond merely class rank breakdowns but just on class rank, that information is not that hard to get. If you look at the USNews site alone, it lets you know what percentage of the admitted students were in the top 10% of their class, in the top 25% of their class and in the top 50% of their class. Maybe the breakdown is not AS specific as Brown provides but it is enough to go by. If a school's admitted students has 98% who came from the top 10% of their high school class and you are from the second decile, well, USE that information and apply accordingly. </p>
<p>I also do not think my kids or other informed kids had shotgun or dart throwing approaches to colleges but visited schools and read about them and found ones that fit. At a certain level of school, after you have the right "stats" and a very reasonable fit, there is still unpredicatability if you will get chosen. I didn't need any more information or breakdown of any more statistics.</p>
<p>Suppose the elite colleges did start detailing exactly what they are looking for. They would have fewer applicants and less application fee money coming in. Therefore they would need fewer people in the admissions office. Their acceptance rates would increase thus jeopardizing their precious rating numbers that reward high selectivity. Why would any admissions department willingly go down that path?</p>
<p>I agree with interesteddad! If colleges would be forthright about exactly what they are looking for, many students would be able to put together a reasonable list. Unfortunately, many schools ooze optimism for all (not just the top 5%, URMs, legacies, athletes, etc) and kids don't realize just how dismal their chances really are. It is really a disservice to both students and parents.</p>
<p>Marite, I had not seen your post when you posted above but I totally agree with you. So many kids on CC, post "stats" and others look at those and try to interpet who got in and why and "oh if I only had another 30 points on my math, that was the difference", etc. They don't get that it goes BEYOND stats. Yes, you must have stats in the right "range" to be admitted but it doesn't matter if you have 50 this way or that way as much as the entire package. That is why some who have 1600 are rejected at elite institutions and some with 1480 are accepted. It is NOT just numbers. You MUST have the numbers in a certain range to be considered, no question, but it is so much more than that. So, when you read the accept/deny threads going up now, and it is mostly about GPAs and SATs, it is not THAT helpful. You can get that kind of data in any college directory. Readers can't analyze why Kid #1 got in and not Kid #2 by just that information alone. They accept people, not just numbers.</p>
<p>And yes, I predict InterestedDad will say that's why we need breakdowns of all these other factors and stats but I don't need them. We know the "qualities" or areas that colleges look at and if you fit in that ballpark, apply.</p>
<p>lfk....when you see the acceptance rates under 15%, I think anyone should know that the chances are slim, no matter how qualified you are. If someone does not view it that way, it is a problem, but not an unavoidable one.</p>
<p>If you have the stats and extras to be a truly viable candidate, then one should apply, but also apply knowing that even so, the odds are slim. Be realistic. This is not so difficult to do.</p>
<p>Having gone to several admissions information sessions, I don't think that I've been fed erroneous info. In fact, at Swats, the Dean of Admissions turned off quite a few attendees by emphasizing how hard it was to get into Swats. </p>
<p>Optimism is a characteristic of adolescene (as is the belief in one's immortality). It's well known that the admittance rate at several top colleges hovers around 10%; that they have room for fewer than 2,000 freshmen. It does not prevent 20,000+ high schoolers from applying.</p>
<p>A middle-class student who does not qualify for fee waivers, but wants to target 4-5 realistic scholos would do well to see a breakdown of acceptance stats. Likewise, a URM who applies to a school with a low graduation rate for his/her group would want to see what type of support, atmosphere, etc is available at that school. (Does the school put their money where their mouth is?) But I have found too many people have a la-dee-da approach to admissions,and throw lots of money away at reaches where realistically their chances are low. OK I can see 1-2 wild reaches if one is a dreamer, but the rest need to be firmly in the ballpark, and the colleges could help with that!</p>
<p>Collegialmom, by reading up on college admissions, I think we knew exactly what we were getting into. I did not need MORE information. You are right that many people have too many reaches where their chances are low but that is their own fault, not the colleges. People need to build appropriate lists based on the information about stats and selectivity and type of college, etc. It is not impossible to do. The fact that some have very unrealistic lists is the fault of those who make those lists who may not be appropriately informed or who simply are not realistic types.</p>
<p>I believe that the above information is a lot more useful than the typical "xx% of applicants are in top 10%" we see on most sites. If we had more data points, we could determine if rank does indeed carry much importance. Having the same distribution for SAT scores and GPA's would also help us define the focus of the school on tests scores. </p>
<p>Now, let's look at the Decision Plans:</p>
<p>Early Decision:
Number of early decision applicants 559
Number accepted 168* (30%)
Number enrolled 161 (96%) </p>
<p>Interim Decision:
Number of interim decision applicants 3,349
Number accepted 938** (28%)
Number enrolled 327 (35%) </p>
<p>Regular Decision:
Number of regular decision applicants 4,202
Number accepted 616*** (15%)
Number enrolled 210 (34%)
*Eight (8) were deferred and admitted under a later decision plan.</p>
<p>Here, again, the distribution between ED and ID is revealing. The percentage of ID is almost identical to the ED. Since ID is a lot less restrictive, an applicant may wisely play the ID card. </p>
<p>The data exist ... it boils down to the school desire to share them! :)</p>
<p>
[quote]
Suppose the elite colleges did start detailing exactly what they are looking for. They would have fewer applicants and less application fee money coming in. Therefore they would need fewer people in the admissions office. Their acceptance rates would increase thus jeopardizing their precious rating numbers that reward high selectivity. Why would any admissions department willingly go down that path?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Bingo! We have bingo!</p>
<p>And, that's why it irks me when [insert name of generic elite college admissions dean here] writes about the unfair pressure the system places on high school applicants.</p>
<p>These admissions deans could, as a group, signficantly reduce the uncertainty AND make the system work better by increasing the degree of self-selection. All it would take is being much more forthcoming about what it takes to get into Acme University.</p>
<p>But, it is not in their best interest to do so. They like record numbers of applications.</p>
<p>To play devil's advocate, though, why would any admissions office want to scare off applicants when they might lose a few great candidates who have weak scores but other outstanding characteristics?</p>
<p>Harvard and other schools routinely send letters to students around the country who score reasonably well on their SATs, encouraging them to apply. The vast majority of these are almost certain rejects. While the main purpose of the letter campaign may be to pump up applications, certainly they end up with a few candidates from the hinterlands who might not have thought about applying before the letter.</p>
<p>I think any admissions director will be very careful about discouraging apps, ranking and bureaucratic reasons aside - you never know which baby might get thrown out with the bathwater.</p>
<p>
[quote]
To play devil's advocate, though, why would any admissions office want to scare off applicants when they might lose a few great candidates who have weak scores but other outstanding characteristics.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Correct. Basically, the schools are greedy. In order to get their mitts on a couple of dozen diamonds, they send letters to thousands of families who actually interpret a form letter from a mailing house using addresses purchased from the College Board as an indication that their little Johnny is being recruited by Harvard! The reality is that little Johnny probably has zero chance of getting into Harvard.</p>
<p>I don't blame the colleges. Heck, it's a business and they want to attract all the potential customers they can. But, I have to chuckle when the admissions deans then turn around and wring their hands over what the system is doing to the kids. Methinks they doth protesteth too much.</p>
<p>BTW, the applicants are equally guilty of being greedy. God forbid that they not send those applications to "all of the Ivies" and miss the opportunity to, by some fluke, prevail against 100 - 1 odds. Meanwhile, the time invested in those "greedy" apps is likely to reduce their chances of getting accepted by schools they should have been concentrating on.</p>
<p>To add to Roger's comments, admissions officers are looking for a lot of things that the applicant community is not aware of. Last year an elite school admitted a lot of talented brass players. They had a need and didn't declare it. Simply put, the more applicants, the better for the college to be super selective and admit their ideal 'well rounded' class. They love the power of super selectivity.</p>
<p>Finallly, ID loves class rank as the single best determinant of admission success. Unfortunately, virtually all private schools and many public schools don't release it. At best you will get some kind of range. Hardly the holy grail in admissions. I think the swing away from class rank over the last 25 years has put more emphasis on test scores and APs, which are common across the applicant pool.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Basically, the schools are greedy. In order to get their mitts on a couple of dozen diamonds, they send letters to thousands of families who actually interpret a form letter from a mailing house using addresses purchased from the College Board as an indication that their little Johnny is being recruited by Harvard!
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Sorry, I don't see it as "greed." If HYPSM want more students from certain regions, different SES with different sets of talents, how else are they going to get the "couple dozens diamonds" but engaging in this kind of campaign?</p>
<p>Do people who have been receiving letters inviting them to apply by the sackful actually apply to all the colleges from whom they've been receiving those letters? Of course not. </p>
<p>I think I know what elite colleges are looking for. I don't need more information. They want the best possible students; they want to staff their sports, their orchestras, their student papers, their community services, etc... Knowing all of that would not have persuaded either of my Ss (who are as different from each other as chalk from cheese) to pursue different ECs or choose different courses, or apply to different types of colleges than the ones they did apply to. Knowing that some years down the line an elite college would have a need for brass players would not have persuaded my S to take up a brass instrument, or for that matter, to apply to that college if he had. And I cannot believe that the needs of that particular college could not be met from within the regular applicant pool. Now, if it had been a viola da gamba or an early period instrument....</p>
<p>hahhaha.... the hypocrisy of such a blog post... she's fooling herself if she actually believes all that. I'd love to see what she actually does about all her new found wisdom..... my guess? Absolutely Nothing.</p>
<p>A little greed, either in a school or an applicant, is a healthy thing. The real problems occur when greed becomes the most important or the only consideration.</p>
<p>A public admission by an admissions dean that the system is extracting too high a price on the applicants is a good start. I would like to think that this is the start of a solution to the problem rather than a cynical exercise in PR. If it turns out to be just that, then interesteddad's annoyance is justified.</p>