Just How Hard Admission Can Be

[mackinaw]

It helps but I suspect the readers of applications often take a holistic approach and don't put things together in quite this way.

And the 4 legs analogy reminds me of the story told about a former governor of New Hampshire.

"Industry, Tourism, and Agriculture are three legs of the tripod on which the economy of New Hampshire rests. Education is the fourth leg of that tripod."

[Northstarmom]

'I'm not sure how often a black-and-white piece of paper enables an adcom to see the difference between these two types of applicants, but I believe sometimes it works and that is what they are seeking."

That's why many of the top colleges also rely on interviews.

[2400SAT]

Well-Known Americans and Their Colleges

Arts & Entertainment
Annie Leibowitz Photographer San Francisco Academy of Art
Arnold Schwarzenegger Actor University of Wisconsin (via correspondence)
David Letterman Television Host Ball State University (Indiana)
James Gandolfini Actor Rutgers University
Jay Leno Television Host Emerson College (Boston)
Jon Stewart Television Host The College of William & Mary
Norah Jones Musician University of North Texas
Oprah Winfrey Television Host Tennessee State University
Steven Spielberg Director, Producer CSU-Long Beach
Tom Hanks Actor Community College & Cal State Sacramento
Toni Morrison Author Howard University

Politics
Barbara Boxer United States Senator Brooklyn College
Colin Powell Secretary of State City College of New York
Condoleeza Rice Secretary of State University of Denver
Dick Cheney Vice President of the United States University of Wyoming
Elaine Chao Secretary of Labor Mount Holyoke College
Gavin Newsom Mayor of San Francisco Santa Clara University
George W. Bush President of the United States Yale University
James Hahn Mayor of Los Angeles Pepperdine University
Madeline Albright Secretary of State Wellesley College
Ronald Reagan President of the United States Eureka College (CA)
Rudolph Giuliani Mayor of New York City Manhattan College
Willie Brown Mayor of San Francisco San Francisco State

Business
Anne Mulcahy CEO, Xerox Corporation Marymount College
Bill Gates Founder, Microsoft Harvard University dropout
Donald Trump Real Estate Mogul Fordham University
Larry Page Co-founder, Google University of Michigan
Mark Cuban Entrepreneur Indiana University
Martha Stewart Entrepreneur Barnard College
Michael Dell Entrepreneur University of Texas
Sergey Brin Co-founder, Google University of Maryland
Steve Jobs Co-founder, Apple Computer Reed College
Warren Buffett Value Investor University of Nebraska

Other
Bernadine Healy Head of NIH Vassar College
Christiane Amanpour Reporter University of Rhode Island
Cokie Roberts Reporter, Author Wellesley College
Dian Fossey Gorilla Researcher San Jose State University
Jaime Escalante Teacher California State University, Los Angeles
John Wooden Basketball Coach Purdue University
Linus Pauling Chemist Oregon State University
Martin Luther King, Jr. Civil Rights Activist Morehouse College
Mia Hamm Athlete University of North Carolina
Ruth Simmons President of Brown University Dillard University (New Orleans)
Thurgood Marshall Justice of the Supreme Court Lincoln University

[unbelievablem]

Univ. or Penn - overall admit rate 20.8%. Valedictorians who applied got in less than half the time (46%). For salutatorians, rate dropped to about a third (35%). Only 30% of applicants with over a 750 verbal SAT were admitted. Only 26% of those with over a 750 in math. http://www.admissionsug.upenn.edu/applying/profile.php

Lehigh (how many think of it as less of a "reach", possibly even a "safety" for ivy wannabees?) - overall acceptance rate 41%. Even those with over a 1500 combined SAT score (verbal and math) were no shoe-ins though -- less than 2/3's of them were admitted (61%). Those with between 1400-1499, got in 63% of the time. Which means over a third of Lehigh applicants who had over 1400 didn't get in. Sure, much better odds than at the ivies, but still -- ONE THIRD of the top sat scorers still didn't get in!! If you just looked at their SAT percentiles for enrolled students, (610-700 verbal, 650-730 math), someone with a 1500+ might figure they were in pretty good shape -- but one-third of those wouldn't have gotten in!!!
http://www3.lehigh.edu/sharedmedia/P...ss_summary.pdf

[epiphany]

2400SAT,
Your list is helpful, but doesn't quite tell the whole story, i.m.o. I agree that an undergrad choice or result (i.e., a "name") does not determine one's future. However, you have selected for understandable reasons very public figures. (Fame = success only when fame is your goal.) Students who choose less public lines of work may find that schooling in total does make a difference. A scholarly future in a specialized area (for example) may be a more likely result from a college with a rigorous curriculum than from a city college or a state college. But more importantly (& I know plenty of expert scholars whose undergrad was a low-profile Public), you have left out the graduate schools of those people -- such as Condy Rice. Also, the quality of some of the schools you list, of now-famous people, were significantly better "in their day." (Ironically, with rejection rates being what they are in the NE & student bodies needing somewhere to go, those same schools may now be returning to their former "glory"!)

But I do agree that schooling -- both undergrad & undergrad -- is just one element of opportunity in the complex recipe for success -- which include the ingredients of genetic inheritance (IQ, talent, inherited personality factors), personal desire & choice, drive/persistence regardless of environment, opportunity, luck, and timing.

[BurnThis]

We've already been through this process, to a lesser degree, when S applied to private middle/high school here in L.A. (a very competitive and angst-filled process). We were hit with the statistic, only one in six are accepted, blah blah. At the interview, the representative from the school he ended up at said to us, "he's quite exceptional" and then, before our beaming smiles faded, she added, "where else are you applying?" She then went on for a half hour explaining that nothing is a sure thing, that you can't guarantee you'll get into your school of choice, and how her daughter was rejected by the college she really wanted but ended up somewhere else where she was now happy. Even though he was accepted by that school, and in fact all the schools he applied to, I've tried to remember the feeling I had when she asked "where else is he applying." That sinking feeling since we hadn't applied to any "safety" school, only the most competitive. I don't plan on making that mistake again, yet it's hard to figure out what's a safety these days.

[epiphany]

Bingo, hazmat. (Your post #37 here, I think, -- regarding recommendations.)

I just want to say that my impression so far is not what I expected -- based on my D's & my experience with the other freshman students at her U. Nor does that impression correspond with all the comments about a "built" and a "mixed" class. (Except for the geographical diversity, which is considerable.)

I find that my D's classmates are all remarkably similar in one respect: they are just -- excuse my French -- damn nice people, & much more uniformly so than any other group of students my D has ever been with -- including in her various e.c.'s. Since the geographical representation is huge, this can't be a regional factor (Minnesota "niceness," Southern graciousness, etc.)

You will not find that listed in the Common Data Sets, Admitted Freshman Profiles, etc. There are really only 2 avenues for the committees to discover this: in-person interviews and recommendations. Now, a student whose interview is "off" for reasons of a bad fit or unskilled interviewer, will not be seen in the most genuine light, so this is not a reflection on those who were not admitted, necessarily. Also, it is a factor, not the only factor, & we know of students of impeccable reputation who were unlucky enough to apply to the same schools, but it was an "overrepresentation" problem from their h.s.

If one's personal qualities (if good!) are the aspect that is most remembered about a person -- despite outstanding anything else -- you can guarantee that those aspects will be specifically mentioned in the teacher rec. Take this from a teacher. And not just checked boxes, etc. Actual affirming, specific statements which signal to an admissions committee: Sit up & notice what kind of a human being you have here.

This says a tremendous amount about just what kind of a buffet platter top-tier colleges have in front of them these days. Their enrollment management options extend to being able to select for character AS WELL AS excellence, geography, ethnicity, etc. Naturally they also have the choice not to weigh that element as much, depending on their enrollment priorities, so this is no more predictive or predictable than a score would be.

I also have to say that last year, when reading some of the ED/EA threads & RD threads on CC, people do not realize how much their character comes across when they write about themselves or their perspectives on the world, even at this young age. One would see post after post of high-stat rejections, followed by a meek acceptance post with scores not quite as high or e.c's not as "public" or not as typical. I could often glean much about the genuineness of the person & the quality of the student in the acceptance post, which left me unsurprised as to their acceptance. (Even though that post would be followed by a shocked student post or two.)

That is why the interview & recs are so important. They are (imperfect) checks -- not just against the *technical* authorship of a student's application essay, but also against the person behind the persona.

[unbelievablem]

epiphany-
to the extent that you are saying character matters - excellent point. i think too many students (and parents) focus on the stats and the quantitative items on the application and forget that schools are looking for human beings.

but if you are implying that the difference between the acceptees and rejections is a matter of character - i think this would be a misleading conclusion that can feed into the conclusions of those parents who think "my child is not only smart but a great person, so of course they are will beat the odds." the fact that many or even most of the admittted students are truly great human beings, tells you nothing about how great or not so great those rejected with similar stats were.

[TheDad]

A quick note on the Stats side, prompted by UnbelievableM's notes on UPenn: if you have the stats of the average admittee, you have below average chances of being accepted.

[cangel]

A couple of thoughts from my position of relief being out of this hunt, probably forever (I love my son, but Faulkner State is non-competitive, despite their champion caliber Quiz Bowl team that beat out a few Ivies ).

1)Tokenadult's points about nationally ranked kids in science, math, Olympians, etc, are well taken, but they are not filling up the selective schools, they just get to pick which one they want to attend, unlike the mere mortals. Same thing is true of "development candidates", except, poor kids, their parents pick for them, whether or not they are prepared - think about that one for a minute.

2) Nothing trumps athletics in the right setting, so as IDad points out, it is important to know how you stand in relation to the athletes, how big an impact athletics has on admissions to your target schools, or how little - it can be positive or negative, and I don't envy recruited athletes, even after the admissions boost, they worked hard to get that boost.

3) The "intangibles" and the "uncontrollables" are more important than candidates would like to think - they have to be, because there are many kids with acceptable credentials, and they must be separated somehow. Personality, character, geography, gender, what the adcom had for dinner the night she reads your app - at this point there is little the applicant can do about these things.

4) A question - what impact does international applicants have on these stats? Internationals have an even lower admit rate than nationals, but how many have stellar test scores or are vals? If their acceptance rate is very low, say 1/10, but they are mixed in with the other 1600 scorers, then a 50% admit rate might be a bit higher for the US applicants - could that be?

[epiphany]

You did not read my post carefully, unbelievablem. (I knew this would happen.) Read my 3rd full paragraph, completely. I say no such thing about my own child versus others. (Especially read the last sentence of that paragraph.)

Also read the last sentence of the 5th full paragraph.

No such "exclusive" statement was said or implied. It was rather a perception of inclusivity, rather than the extent of the universe. Huge difference.

[unbelievablem]

epiphany-
since this thread is not really about the question of who gets in, but the overwhleming reality of the large number of qualified kids who don't get in, i think it was appropriate for me to clarify your prior posting. and i am glad that your position is what it in fact is.

when some superstar doesn't get into their top choice, i have often heard comments about supposed failings on their part - and i just wanted to confirm that that wasn't where this was heading.

[njdad]

Epiphany, I think your post (#52) is right on. I heard an adcom once remark to the effect, "Of course, we are looking for pleasant people. Why wouldn't we? We want the community to be a nice place to spend four years."

Your post is the first I have ever seen that directly addresses this issue, but I think that it is exactly true. There are reasons why 50% of perfect 1600s are not admitted to some of these schools, and it is not just because their ECs (or whatever other criteria) was not what was wanted at a moment in time.

[epiphany]

Other people didn't seem to have trouble with the reading comprehension aspects of my post, but if you needed the clarity for *yourself*, then fine. I think the "clarity" was duplicative, & I think I explained myself abundantly the first time.

"The superstar who didn't get in" could have not been admitted for a number of reasons -- reasons which include a whole host of possibilities. But what I haven't seen mentioned enough is the possibility of the character of the candidate being published or somehow sufficiently demonstrated for a committee's availability to evaluate as one admission factor among many (not knowing which factors would be or had been "tipping" factors). I come to that conclusion based on what I've seen at one U only: that U had the "luxury" of choosing excellence + variety of representation + character. Maybe the "superstar who didn't get in" got unlucky in the middle category.

What I do not accept -- & what I still see too much of in this thread -- is that admissions is more random than in fact it is. I think it is far less "quirky" & irrational than some of the posts in this thread imply. (Thus, I do not agree with you as to your assessment about "what this thread is really about.")

Let's take it away from my example for the moment. One of the posts on an Ivy EA thread from last year was from a rejected or W/L'ed student (I forget which) whose post was of the (positive) quality & character I had seen in posts of accepted students. She was also definitely a superstar (but a thoughtful, reflective, & caring one), & she was a legacy at that U of application. Without revealing what one of her major e.c.'s was, I'll just say that her background showed her to be (but without arrogance) quite privileged. She was also from a highly populated metro region of the country (thus stiffening her regional competition & probably her own h.s. competition). It is so likely that she was rejected for income reasons. There would have been many financially struggling students from her region. HYP particularly wanted to give the edge to similarly qualified but low-income this yr., or so it seems, generally.

Other readers, looking at her post & her stats, might call her rejection "random" or irrational, or quirky. That would not be my conclusion.

Similarly, a student I made reference to in my first post was, I believe, waitlisted for income reasons vs. the accepted student from her class. It would be unlikely that it would be for any other reason, as she was equally qualified & accomplished & of equally high character to the accepted student from this tiny class. And the waitlisted student was also a double legacy, whereas the accepted student had no legacy. I would still not call that quirky or unexplicable or random or a result of a committee member's bad meal. I would call it logical & possibly even predictable.

[idler]

So many of those who are shocked by college denials and acceptances have a very limited knowledge of the applicants, compared to the colleges, who see what's actually in the application, all of it, and know what they are looking for. I've personally never heard any institution speak of admissions as a lottery, and while some might say something polite about bad luck, the equally vague "various factors" explanation NSM mentions is a wiser thing to say. There have been millions of college applications. College admissions is an institution of many years standing. They're not just picking names out of a hat. The same kinds of applicants get in every year.