I don’t think you’re familiar with how the elites review for admission, VoR, from opening the app, through multiple reads and ratings, to the final committee decision. You’d like to think you can guide students via some data point, but that’s just one little bit- and not representative of how apps impress (or not) and how admit decisions are made. It should be obvious that none of the elites chooses based on stats alone. If you are driven to understand more, you need to look at the range of factors that matter. Perhaps get involved with admissions at your alma mater, see this process more closely.
Here’s an article that should provide ammunition to the critics of the current system of (mis)information.
One question deserves to be posed: do the articles that place a good dose of guilt at the doors of the “ranking groups” contribute positively or … negatively? Do people who read the alarmist articles conclude that it is bad or that they … should become more aggressive in applying to more schools?
Huevo y gallina!
@epiphany Of course a database in and of itself is neither accurate nor inaccurate and is dependent on human error. I’m just saying it is not a good place to look for admissions stats for a particular high school like people seem to think.
Oh, what a slice of hypocritical baloney! For starters, I posted a link to a spreadsheet that contained a bunch of raw data and did not add any editorial comments nor interpretation of the data. I posted it because the spreadsheet contained information in a format that seems to what you’d want to see published by all schools. Had I add a comment it would have been that it would NOT do much for the … audience of 17-18 years old applicants. If they get overwhelmed by the current sanitized information, why do you think they’d make head or tails from such a database. Professional might not figure it out!
However, do you really think you’re addressing a bunch of naïve folks who are oblivious to your agenda and knew it was a matter of time before your idle speculation about holistic admission would turn into a discussion about … discrimination against Asians? In fact, many pages ago I mentioned the restraint you did show thus far. But do not believe for a second that WE failed to understand what your use of the term “discrimination” was pointing towards.
In the meantime, I hope that the link to the spreadsheet and the work/research by Groseclose will add to your collection that started with Sander’s similar research. Perhaps it might help you understand the criticisms I directed at the writers/researchers of the Harvard lawsuit. Well, that is probably hope against hope!
“How are kids and their parents to decide about applying to these holistic schools without the relevant data of admit rates based upon their general GPA/SAT profile? The statements of these posters are representative of the very issue about holistic that others have questioned. Those that think holistic is a good thing seem to favor opaqueness and nondisclosure.”
First of all, don’t flatter yourself. I know you don’t begin to know me and my positions on college admissions, and I highly doubt you know LF much better. I have been on this site for 10 years, LF for 8 years, and you for less than one year. You don’t half of what our positions are.
Again, the relevant data, inasmuch as it applies to the lone applicant, is there. What the applicant will never know, not for specifically “opaque” REASONS but due to the legal dimensions of privacy which RESULT in opaqueness, is what the competition has. Since competition often has perfect scores and grades, clearly much more is involved in admissions. If stats were the main or only angle, the private universities would become mega-plexes.
“I have never argued that factors beyond GPA/SAT should not be considered.”
But you seem not to understand it - because knowing that last year’s crop of 4.0/2400 got in at a 14% rate doesn’t mean, foreshadow, predict, or indicate that this year’s crop of 4.0/2400 “should” get in at a 14% rate too.
There may be double the applicants at that level. They may have a different geographic skew. They may be “better” or “worse” in terms of their extracurriculars, leadership, etc.
“I have advocated for use of affirmative action to benefit of the disadvantaged over the privileged even if that means that I or my family are the ones who would be negatively affected.”
That’s wonderful, but that is irrelevant to what’s being discussed here. How would the numbers you seek help inform that? Hint: This year’s crop of 4.0/2400 may have a different socioeconomic skew (richer OR poorer) than last year’s crop of 4.0/2400. Or the college might consciously seek out more of a certain type (kids from Idaho, bassoon players, etc.).
With all due respect, VOR, what do you think many of us have done here for many years? Many of “us” have long “graduated” as our cycles ended a while back as a parent or a student. I placed “us” in brackets as the “us” is not a monolithic group that agrees on every issue. Actually we hold very different opinions on several parts and have … argued (and still do) to the bitter end about many separate views on the same principle. The purpose is not to be right but to (perhaps) help the lurkers form their own opinions based on a sprinkle of our divergent opinions.
In a way, I would venture to say that all of us have raised strong displeasure with the system, but over time learned to mellow our opinions as we witness a system that ends working rather well considering the enormity of the exercise. It works well because the overwhelming majority of the students in the US end attending one of their first TWO choices – see NACAC for the details. Over the past 10-20 years, the numbers of selectivity have changed, and all of us will agree that a lot has been fueled by “willy-nilly” applications. Wanna see fireworks? Let me start a thread that attacks the marketing muscle flexed by Chicago! If you think we do NOT AGREE that many students are misled into applying to a school they have no chance to be admitted, I got news for you! Read our posts more carefully!
However, we were seem to have a divide is in the indictment of the schools. You seem determined to expose a deeply nefarious atmosphere in the ivory towers where crooked adcoms are manipulating the outcome to please the worst of them in cycles of discrimination. Some of us here think those same adcoms are doing their best to please many “demanders” and really, really are trying to form the best class for their school, as well as “helping” many students attend a school that fits them better. They could be more open about the process, but we have to stop thinking that selective colleges can redress all the shortcomings of our society!
As far as helping, let me end by sharing that the perennial claims of open discrimination are NOT doing anything to help the future generations. A more pragmatic and dedicated approach to actually ameliorate the contents of the applications … does. The difference is between DOING and merely debating about what should be done by others.
I would just like to note that the College Board’s “Big Future” feature on each college really provides you with pretty much all the information you need to know in terms of stats to determine whether any particular college is a sensible place for you to apply. A good reach/match/safety approach really does not require any more specificity than that. If you want even more information, it’s often available for many colleges. But at the most selective colleges, the value of stats-based information declines as your stats increase. In other words, admission to the most selective schools becomes less predictable the higher your stats are–because for lower stats, rejection is pretty easy to predict.
We’ve had lots of discussions about whether colleges lead on no-hope applicants, such as by sending them slick brochures. But a kid, even an unhooked kid, with a 3.85 GPA (in a challenging curriculum) and SATs over 2100 can reasonably apply to any college in the land–if he’s got some good stuff in addition to stats. And the point is that an unhooked kid with a 4.0 and 2400 SAT still needs good stuff in addition to stats to get in to the most selective schools. Maybe a little less good stuff. But trying to quantify it doesn’t really help.
“These same posters and the like have been arguing ad naseum that all the information that is in a stats matrix is available in many places that if only a student took the time to research this that they would have a good idea of their real chances at an elite holistic school admission. Now they claim that even that won’t provide much info about their chances.”
No, no, no! We are NOT saying that all the info in a stats matrix is available in many places.
We are saying that there is plenty of info available about what specific schools look for. But I want to be very clear.
We are NOT saying “there is plenty of information to suggest that Yale wants oboe players and Brown wants tuba players and Stanford wants yearbook editors.” We are saying there is plenty of information for those who are skilled enough to read between the lines and comprehend things holistically about what a college’s particular ethos, values, and sense of community are about. And that one can consequently position oneself to tell a story that indicates that the applicant understands those things, and will be a positive addition to such a community.
5 years ago (!), I visited a bunch of schools and did these reports. I’m not claiming that these are brilliant and others will certainly have different observations, but I want to be clear what these reflect. I was looking to try to identify, as best I could from taking a HOLISTIC view of this college … the students and the institution’s values as best as we could discern them. Here’s a sample from that old thread, entitled 8 Colleges in 4 Days:
TUFTS. Students: Intense. Values: Global justice, making an impact.
BRANDEIS. Students: Outgoing and charismatic. Values: Social justice, highly welcoming to prospies.
CLARK. Students: Collaborative, not competitive with one another. Values: Being interesting and offbeat.
WELLESLEY. Students: Achievers. Values: Academic excellence for its own sake.
MT HOLYOKE. Students: Interesting mix of pearls-and-sweater-sets and Carhatts-and-piercings. Values: Personalized education.
SMITH. Students: In your face / push the envelope. Values: Exploration.
CASE WESTERN RESERVE. Students: Earnest and studious. Values: Preprofessional.
KENYON. Students: “Chill,” mainstream, smart but not cutthroat. Values: Warm and welcoming.
Voiceofreason - this is really important. **I want you to think of the above as “data” in the same way you think of data as being 4.0/2400 = 14%. ** With this data in hand, what would you tell your child to emphasize in an application for Tufts? Would it be the same for Wellesley or Smith or Brandeis? Why or why not?
You’re not used to thinking of these things as data, but they are data - just a set you’re not used to dealing with.
The nature of the beast is that reviewers are winnowing. You can’t ignore that Harvard’s number of seats can’t exceed 2000 or so, no matter how many apps they receive. And that a Harvard has high expectations for the level of a kid’s thinking, vision and pursuit of what it values. (We can’t continue this discussion unless all agree on that, it’s so essential to the understanding.) All that comes through or not, in the full app itself. Not just the lines for gpa and scores.
In the Stanford numbers, roughly 12,230 kids applied with gpa in the 3.7-3.99 range. 4% got in, about 490. Your little Billy may think he’ll be one of the 490, and come after you for his $100 fee, just because his stats fall there. But the question is: what’s he doing to propel himself out of the group of 11,740 who also were in that range and didn’t get in? Parents have an obligation to think, too, not just open their checkbooks.
Blaming Billy’s lack of vision and understanding on, say, Chicago, one of the worst offenders, is not going to excuse his simplistic and ill-informed mistakes in judgment.
When you want the big leagues, you don’t put on blinders. You respect the beast. You want to be a gladiator, then be a gladiator. Not the kid with his fingers crossed that maybe the lion had a big lunch, ha, and he’ll be lucky.
“@epiphany Of course a database in and of itself is neither accurate nor inaccurate and is dependent on human error. I’m just saying it is not a good place to look for admissions stats for a particular high school like people seem to think.”
Inaccurate data should never be relied on. When Naviance is accurate, it is helpful. Private high schools tend to keep their Naviance more up-to-date. If they don’t, the parents are getting cheated for their tuition. Generally, updated Naviance data provides info for recent classes, such as in a group of 3 years or 5 years.
Drivel alert:
D2’s private school Naviance scattergrams are telling. For schools with more formulaic admissions policies there are clear trends, like it would be easy to draw a linear regression. For the highly selective, most “holistic” schools, the plots look kind of random. Low stats kids are not getting in, but there is no obvious trend or cutoff.
Why does Lani Guinier hate Asians?
Hunt’s comments, above, about how the higher your stats the less helpful any “matrix” might be, are right on the mark. And since it is the high-stat schools that engender the most angst, it is those students who are parsing the data to see what their chances are, only to come up against the painful truth that, yes, perhaps students with 800 across the board have a 35% acceptance rate vs. a 15% for 700 scorers–but that still leaves 65% of 800 scorers not admitted. And no matter how you want to frame the decision, the truth is, statistics say you won’t get in. Having a 10% better chance than your friend with the 2250 doesn’t mean anything to your choice of whether or not to apply, in my experience, and if it leaves you thinking that you will get in over him, it’s deceptive.
Good point Sudsie. How do students without access to Naviance data draw the line between formulaic schools (some of which claim to be holistic) and the others? This is more about data to find good matches and safeties rather than reaches.
Note that schools that admit by formula may still have fuzzy borders between admit and reject zones, due to factors other than GPA and test scores that Naviance scattergrams use. One of the probably more common things that can cause this is different levels of selectivity by major or division at the school.
Unlike at less selective schools, there won’t be a clear admit green zone for super selective schools.
@epiphany No wonder, I go to a miserably underfunded (or at least mis-funded) public school and have long since learned not to trust anything remotely connected to Naviance. Didn’t know that private schools actually keep theirs up to date, thanks for the info.
I suspect the public school naviances might be providing stats across the school district. I have seen a similar problem with ours and when I raised it to the college counselor in the past, they said it was bad data but it would make sense if the data is for several schools.
Naviance is owned by the same group that owns college confidential. May be some folks here might actually know the answer. 
@hopefulperson - our Naviance seems more accurate, though it takes a while for test scores to be updated. (I believe they do them in batches at certain times of the year.) We see the last five years of data. However, I’m not sure if that’s because we just got Naviance five years ago, or that’s how much data they keep in the record.