<p>I've been wondering lately how many applicants who apply to the top boarding schools are academically qualified. Obviously, CC posters tend to be "take charge" kind of people, but represent a very small fraction of total applicants. </p>
<p>Surely, some of those who apply to SPS, or Exeter or wherever aren't academically qualified and are hoping to get in through legacy or sports or something. I did talk to an Andover parent who was told at revisit (or some other time) that 60% of their applicants were "qualified." Has anyone else heard anything like this?</p>
<p>By "qualified" I mean, has the normal stats, glowing recs, and good essays.</p>
<p>Surely, there are some applications that get tossed almost immediately?</p>
<p>I would guess that anyone who has a SSAT score lower than 60 would not be considered, unless they have some sports/etc. Though I hear Andover's sports teams are usually post graduates, so not much a chance at andover.</p>
<p>According to Andover's website, they have only 30-35 one-year seniors and post-graduate students combined. That's hardly enough students to fill all of their varsity teams for boys and girls. </p>
<p>Yup, thats what I was going to say Gemma. Unless your an absolute retard at like lower than 40 I don't think its automatic rejection. Though it would be pretty hard for the person</p>
<p>At "Elite schools" I believe only 92% of applications are completed. Of that 92%, only 70% of the original total show the academic standings. Of that 92%, they take 20% of the total based on their "profile". I got this from an admissions officers at two different schools... They both quoted the same numbers for their different schools(I think at one school they said only 65% of the original total). </p>
<p>Remember... Exeter and Andover only have 15% legacy rates. </p>
<p>Andover I was told that over 80% of the 92% that complete applications are qualities. That was from an admissions rep at another school.</p>
<p>Andover, Exeter, Hotchkiss and schools like that use alot of PGs. Lets look at Hotchkiss's football team? 10 PGs. Lets look at Hotchkiss's Lacrosse team? 8 PGs.(This is the worst PG program from what I hear... The team is horrible because they don't work together as much as other teams) Lets look at Exeter's Lacrosse team? 13 PGs. Lets look at Andover's Lacrosse team? 8 PGs.
I heard that from my tour guides or coaches that met with me. My tour guide at Exeter didn't play Football so he wasn't sure. </p>
<p>Those numbers might be off... I hear that Hotchkiss had alot of Football PGs.</p>
<p>NOTE: You need to realize that Junior year/Sophmore year applicants are judged differently than Freshies. WHY? They want to make sure that you keep up academically. They actually place alot more emphasis on your academic ability... They only have two years to sculpt you. They won't make the experience easier for two years so you can adjust. They want to make sure that you can keep up.
THAT IS THE MOST IMPORTANT ASPECT OF YOUR APPLICATION: Are you a waste of a spot?/Can you contribute?/Can you keep up?</p>
<p>I can't answer the question about what percent of students are academically qualified. But, one thing we were told at one school was that you had to be a nice person. Remember, the adults at the school will be living in very close quarters with the accepted students....so, if they think you are arrogant/cocky/mean, the other stats probably won't matter.</p>
<p>Oh, I absolutely agree with BrooklynGuy about personality. But you can be the nicest kid in the world and not be able to cut it academically. I have to think that they look at that first. I wonder (I'm doing that a lot lately!) how many times a kid interviews and as soon as he/she leaves, the interviewer rolls his eyes and mutters, "what a PHONEY!" In those cases, it doesn't matter what the grades/scores/EC's amount to. With the sheer volume of applications these schools get, there HAS to be some kind of preliminary filter, and statistics are the easiest way to do it. I know they all say that there is no minimum ssat score. I just don't know if I believe it. It seems like they have to make sure that the kid can succeed academically. It's a school, afterall. After that, it would make sense to whittle it down by personality. So, my original question was how many of those applicants get denied based sheerly on the academic front? </p>
<p>I have no doubt that at the beginning of March, they are agonizing over those last few that they have to cut (waitlist). I don't envy them at all.</p>
<p>I'm guessing they may have to look at both the applicants' school records and SSAT scores, and toss out some especially weak ones purely based on academic qualifications. Like neatoburrito said, it is a prep school after all and it is only common sense that they expect academically strong students. Everything else - EC's and other hooks come into play only when they have the "minimal" academic qualifications. SSAT score itself may not automatically leave an applicant out of the game (unless you score is say lower than mid 80's) unless his school records (or maybe recs) corroborate that he is a "B" level student. Based on what I've read, another factor is the reputation of your current school. Granted admission officers are not familiar with most of the schools so SSAT functions as a common denominator to put everyone from schools of disparate qualities on the same ground. If, your school is "famous" for its academic rigor and you have an excellent school record, then less emphasis might be put on your SSAT scores.</p>
<p>However, all things equal, I am not sure how much of a difference an 90% in SSAT and 99% in SSAT would make. From a pure academic point of view, 99% is not something one can easily achieve so it's definetely an indication of academic excellence. However, would the top tier BS's care about getting in academically EXCELLENT students, or they would want more students that are academically "good enough" but have more "hooks"? Or, another wild guess, does the 99% in SSAT function as one of the hooks? </p>
<p>A final point. They all say SSAT is not that important, but every year they would post their mean/media SAT scores of the senior class, so I doubt they don't care about test scores.</p>
<p>I don't think they would publish the mean SAT scores, if parents of applicants didn't care. Also, the question of "selectivity" interests me. Again and again on this site, parents and applicants take a school's published stats as proof of a school's quality. I'm skeptical. </p>
<p>For one thing, the schools with the highest selectivity have promised full aid to qualified applicants. If nothing else, this must drive the numbers of applicants through the roof. A school can only take the same number of applicants, so increasing the number of applicants automatically increases the selectivity.</p>
<p>I don't think they say the SSAT is not important. I've heard it expressed in different ways. One parent stated that an admissions officer told her, "It's the last thing I look at. If the student's impressive in other ways, the scores will be acceptable." That's very different from saying it isn't important. It's rather that the applicants who are impressive in other ways will also generally have acceptable scores.</p>
<p>I think this site tends to ratchet up expectations. An applicant who needs a modest amount of financial aid, scores 82% on the SSAT, is outgoing, athletic, honest, mature, and a genuinely nice boy, may have very good chances at all the schools. Yet, on this site, very often the blind are leading the blind, so conventional wisdom on this site becomes that an applicant needs a score in the high 90s and a five-page list of extracurriculars to be accepted. This sort of hysteria feeds on itself.</p>
<p>Neatoburrito, certainly, some applicants won't be "qualified." However, the pool of applicants is so large that it doesn't make a difference. Take Andover. From their website, they had 2386 completed applications (last year?). 60% of 2386 is 1431. To admit 457 students, they must reject 974 qualified students. They could fill their school twice over with qualified students from the students they rejected.</p>
<p>Periwinkle, it was that comment from a parent that got me thinking about all this, and how it effects the actual acceptance rate. The acceptance rate for those 60% who are "qualified", whatever that means exactly, is around 30%, whereas from the total pool, it is 19%. </p>
<p>It is the generous offers of financial aid and the glut of applications that must come along with it, that made me think that surely, there are applicants who fall outside the average ssat, gpa, ec, etc, who toss in an application because "ya never know and they'll award the FA." They've got to have a way to weed through them.</p>
<p>Still, and I fully realize this, the chances for even the most brilliant of students are obsurdly low. Take Andover again, and the idea that 60% are qualified (it's probably higher than that). They have to whittle those 1431 applicants down to 457! So many smart kids! </p>
<p>The only conclusion that I can come to is that being academically qualified helps you not get rejected, but it doesn't help you get accepted that much.</p>
<p>While I don't have any data, I believe that a large majority of applicants are qualified in terms of gpa, ssat (within range), and some talent. Most applicants and their parents would not bother applying if they did not believe that there was a chance of being accepted. The process is time consuming, and probably weeds out many from just tossing in an application. Of course, some people misjudge what a chance of acceptance is.</p>
<p>Neatoburrito, I think we agree on most points. For myself, I do not think that any of the schools value academic excellence over all other factors. People focus in on SSAT scores, because they are quantifiable. I would bet, however, that other factors are just as important, and that good admissions officers always consider other qualities. Many posters here have quoted admissions officers who have pointed out how many 99% SSAT scorers they've turned down. There's a message there.</p>
<p>Yeah, we do agree. I am aware that there has to be much more than just brainpower. As a matter of fact, for our family, it is equally as important that our son be with kids who value the same things as he does, intellectually and otherwise. I'm very glad that character seems to be part of the admissions equation. If it weren't, I'd think twice about him applying.</p>
<p>It's been said before on this forum, but I think it is worth repeating: while good stats may keep you in the game, they don't guarantee anything. That is obvious.</p>
<p>"I think this site tends to ratchet up expectations."</p>
<p>Well, I might've been part of the force doing that subcontiously. To me, applying to Andover/Exeter is like applying to Harvard/Princeton only 4 years earlier and as a middle school student. In most cases, you have to come out on top of your class acadmically, have a high SAT score, and then have all the "hooks" - meaningful EC's, awards, leadership and everything else. I may get it all wrong, and I hope I do. If things are like what Periwinkle said - "An applicant who needs a modest amount of financial aid, scores 82% on the SSAT, is outgoing, athletic, honest, mature, and a genuinely nice boy, may have very good chances at all the schools. ", that would be nice, but then again I don't want the an admission officer's job at Andover/Exeter even more.</p>