The truth is a kid cannot put all their hope in one or two schools. If you are all in with one school and only one school well the Test score is important.
If a kid is well-rounded and they apply to a good number of schools, they will get accepted into a good one. The problem is tunnel vision “it has to be that school”.
Test scores only tell part of the tale. There are kids pumping out 1500+ on SATs because they train for them like marathon runners. You wouldn’t want them on your campus because they don’t add any value to the school community.
But, I do agree that some high school give away grades and everyone is over 90%.
With all the applications coming in PLUS the growing number of internationals ready to pay full price, I do understand how hard it is for an admissions department.
Plus, the college essay and ChatGP have added a new layer of problems.
[quote=“Canuckdad, post:101, topic:3649648”]
“There are kids pumping out 1500+ on SATs because they train for them like marathon runners. You wouldn’t want them on your campus because they don’t add any value to the school community.”
Ask any private school college advisor and they’ll tell you the list of colleges which are HAPPY to take the 1500+ SAT kids, no matter how many times the kid has taken or prepped.
You assertion is false. What they add- for colleges looking to rise in perception, reputation, etc. as a place that “smart kids” go to- is quite substantial. Especially if that kid is full pay.
So both Yale and MIT are on the record saying that SAT scores are very important indicators of future success at their particular (and extremely elite) schools. They have obviously analyzed reams of data on this.
There is a persistent myth out there that privileged kids with access to private tutoring can somehow “game” the SAT or that with training, they are assured a 1500+. This is not exactly true. It IS true that money/privilege is associated with higher scores (for many many reasons). However, getting a truly high MIT and Yale level score is still extremely rare, even among those with unlimited resources.
In our well-resourced high school, nearly every kid either engages a tutor or attends SAT prep classes. But those getting above a 1500 are maybe the top 15% of the class? Those getting 1550+ are even rarer and…it is exactly the kids you would expect. The kids who got NMSF, the kids who were stars in the 6th grade, etc. In my anecdotal experience, the ones getting 1550+ tend to be the kids with no tutor. They just show up once and ace the test.
Yes, privilege gets you higher scores for a host of reasons. But the thing I took away from the Yale director is that Yale wants kids who score among the highest at their school. If a school routinely has kids in the mid to high 1500s, you’d better have that score (for Yale) unless there is something else super compelling in your app. If a school never does, they want you to be the highest your school has seen in a while.
This shouldn’t be surprising. Elite schools want the academic elite. My main takeaway from Yale director was that unhooked kids should always submit.
And, as an aside, my view is that legacies (although hooked) should also always submit. Colleges will be scrutinizing the legacy admits this cycle (many have announced they have committees assessing equity in admissions this year) and they will want to justify every legacy admit.
Yeah, just anecdotally, the recent legacy admits to such colleges I know about tend to have really good numbers. And while I don’t know this for sure, my guess is they would tend to have good essays and teacher recommendations too. Where the advantage (such as it is) shows up is, I suspect, that they do not necessarily need to then completely wow the AO with anything else to beat the odds. This is too crude, but almost like it was a really good activity or award to finish off the case for admission.
Of course some legacies have all that too, and may not even have needed to be a legacy. But I do suspect that the cases where it can make the most difference are when you look really solid on numbers and recs and such, and just need that last thing to beat out the too many other high-quality applicants who otherwise look a lot like you.
That’s my view too. Legacy + Super high stats + average excellent everything else = probable admittance. For everyone else with super high stats, you’re one of thousands.
Exactly. People try to hold up the legacy who do not fit that profile as an example of unfairness. In those cases it was not legacy that got them through the door, it was athletic recruiting or every once in a while a building.
After endless discussions with my classmates at Brown- our conclusion was that legacy in and of itself did NOT move the needle. And these were the children of alums who ended up at Penn, Cornell, JHU, Columbia- where they did NOT have legacy status- so it’s not as though these were kids with a 2.9 GPA and 1200 SAT scores.
Legacy plus something VERY compelling (not high scores and top grades)-- that seems to mean something. Mom is the first female governor in her state. Dad is an EGOT-- and credits Brown’s theater department for his success. Yeah- those are legacies where the thumb is on the scale.
But alumna mom is a social worker and alumnus dad teaches HS history-- eh. Doesn’t seem to matter. And again- we’re all fine with it (none of my kids applied so I have no axe to grind) since the university’s focus on First Gen kids seems quite appropriate- but if a kid is counting on high scores and legacy (at least at Brown) to move the needle-- not in my observation.
Brown may weigh legacy less than other schools? My experience is that HYP + Columbia + Cornell + Penn are very different than Brown. These legacies at our HS have close to 100% acceptance rates with high stats. My best friend does alumni interviews for Brown and I do think Brown is different in this regard.
The couple of Penn legacies I know, did not get in. One was valedictorian at their BS, but I think had fine but generic ECs. The other was a good (but not great/TO) student from a name BS so I imagine there was stiff competition from athletes, URM, stronger legacies and a few brilliant students. Definitely not the shoo in that society at large likes to believe it is. First parent was disappointed, the second was furious an did the whole “they will never see another dime from me” type thing.
Pretty sure this was a plus for my D. She had no business taking the hardest science class offered but did anyway bc it was the one she found interesting. I am glad it didn’t lead to any regrets but it was pretty touch and go along the way
This is where thoughtful and well-crafted recommendation letters come in and can make a big difference.
Lots of kids at top U’s today who did NOT get A’s in the classes outside their comfort zone (I know some of them… and that describes my own kids). One of my kids had the option to drop down from AP to “honors”- and told the teacher “I’d rather be surrounded by kids who are smarter than I am, than be the top of the class”. I heard from the guidance counselor that this line made it in to the recommendation…
Again this is mostly anecdotal, but it definitely feels to me like it very much varies by college, including among general peers.
And I also think it can be very subtle. Like, with really highly selective colleges, it is not like every high numbers legacy gets in, but it is more like when someone like that does get in, people will note, “But of course they were a legacy, so . . . .”
And I do think things like the Harvard litigation data confirmed something similar. Like, a totally unhooked person with a certain general profile might have a modeled 5% chance. A legacy with that profile might have a 15-20% chance. That of course is a massive multiple, so significant in that sense. And yet like in 80-85% of such cases, it won’t work. And if you do not have a huge sample in front of you, it may be pretty hard to really see that difference–again other than that you just may have a few more opportunities to say, “But of course they were a legacy, so . . . .”
Anyway, if there was ever a day where an otherwise unhooked, non-Dean’s list sort of legacy, could be like a standard deviation low on numbers, it doesn’t appear to be happening any more. At least not anywhere I can see it. But having a somewhat better chance when you are in that zone of low chances–sure, perhaps.
Penn seems to care A LOT about test scores. At our school, no one with under a 1550 gets in. Even valedictorians. Wonder what your valedictorian legacy example had for a score…
I tried to DM, but High score, I agree with you, based on our school Penn really cares about test scores. I don’t think there was a single sub 1500 acceptance in 5 years and we send 2-4 students most years.
At our large public, there are a few sub-1400s and a few 30 and below ACTs. Most are declines at that level, of course…but most are declines at the highest scores, too!
I’ve seen this across the board in Naviance for admissions to top schools from our HS: most acceptances clustered in the high grades/test scores portion of the graph, but also at least a few in the high grades/lower test scores portion. No clean cut-offs.
