"Do I care that fallenchemist disagrees with me? No, that is the right of every person to have their own beliefs. My concern is that as a super moderator, his CC status confers upon him a certain level of deference to his opinions "
Oh, come ON now. I like fallenchemist personally and find him helpful, but really - this is a message board.
"What harm would it do if schools like Stanford and Harvard published the acceptance rates of its students broken down by GPA and/or SAT/ACT scores? If schools did this, then students would get a truer view of their real odds of acceptance. "
Many schools already publish acceptance rates by SAT score.
The problem is that you want those to be very “angular” - very high acceptance rates at high scores, very low at lower scores. Even at the highest levels, they are still low.
Duke has enough valedictorians applying that even if they threw out everyone who wasn’t val, they could fill their class several times over. The bottom line is - scores simply can’t be the determiner you want them to be.
http://admission.stanford.edu/basics/selection/profile.html
Here’s Stanford. Admit rates at different SAT and GPA levels. Found by googling “Stanford admissions rate by SAT”.
Not exactly the question you asked, but these discrepancies are nowhere near as wide as what is portrayed on CC.
http://features.thecrimson.com/2013/frosh-survey/admissions.html
Pizzagirl I don’t think that you are understanding my posts based upon your comments.
Thank you for the Stanford link. But why doesn’t Stanford combine acceptance rates by GPA and SAT/ACT scores rather than isolate each individually? Think about it and I think that my posts will make more sense to you.
Does anyone submit just their GPA or their SAT Math or any of the other singled out data in your link? No they don’t.
What’s the point? What difference will it make? The acceptance rate for 4.0/2400 is still going to be low. Higher than 3.5/2200, of course, but still low.
Is it that you really want to see it? Or is it that you want 4.0/2400 to have a really high admit rate?
You want there to be some formula whereby 4.0/2400 = 70% acceptance rate, 4.0/2390 = 65%, etc. because you want high predictability and guarantees. There are none in life.
Omg, it’s not used for “discriminatory purposes.” Afaik, you have never said you have any experience reading a broad number of apps in the context of what a particular college looks for (and, say, the diff between what Chi likes and Dartmouth. Or Duke vs Swarthmore.) If you did, you would have a fast education in why a swath of high stats kids are simply not automatic darlings.
Just how much spoon-feeding is Stanford supposed to do? Tell little Billy that this is a freaking college app, that it will be reviewed for admissions to a very most selective and so he’d better not assume founding the pie club or running a pep rally verifies leadership attributes? Or they should translate the prompts for Mary? And all the while, there are thousands of other kids who “get it” without having their hands held?
Can you justify it? It seems you want inherently less qualified kids, who aren’t skilled (and may or may not have the stats/rigor,) to have a formula to follow, thinking it can turn them into more qualified kids, for the purpose of the review. Tell them how to take their lower inspiration and energy and vision and “game it?” These kids should be aiming at the appropriate levels where they can flourish, where they can take the time to develop the missing skills. (Or not.)
You miss the point. Maybe we should point you to some nifty “what we look for” pages. Seriously.
Pizzagirl You were in the discussion started by Matmaven about the myth of a perfect ACT/SAT score.
http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/parents-forum/1690095-college-admission-facts-opinions-and-myths-p1.html
The schools Matmaven highlighted were holistic top elite schools. He found that if you had a perfect SAT/ACT score your chances at admission were twice that of those with scores just below perfect. Admission rates for perfect test scorers were about 25%. So about 1 in 4 students who applied to these elite institutions were accepted without any knowledge of GPA.
However because there is no data as to the GPAs of these perfect test scorers we don’t know the true odds of acceptance with both perfect GPA and perfect SAT/ACT. I could be that if you have both of these factors that your admit rate would be 50% or higher. We simply don’t know. The schools know but are unwilling to provide this data for all to see. Rather they would do like Stanford does and provide a piecemeal of SAT, ACT, GPA, CLASS RANK etc individually so to hide from students the true acceptance rates.
These schools do this to ensure that applicants feel as though they have a chance. If an applicant scored 3.7 GPA and looks at Stanford’s chart, it shows that a 4% admit rate, not bad given that 4.0+GPA kids were only admitted at 6% rate. It give these kids hope resulting in these kids applying.
These schools should just provide the admission rate matrix by GPA and Test Scores so the kids can make an informed decision whether to apply.
“These schools do this to ensure that applicants feel as though they have a chance. If an applicant scored 3.7 GPA and looks at Stanford’s chart, it shows that a 4% admit rate, not bad given that 4.0+GPA kids were only admitted at 6% rate. It give these kids hope.”
But that’s the truth. The 3.7 kids DO have a 4% chance and the 4.0 kids DO have a 6% chance. It’s not false hope when it’s the truth. If someone is stupid enough to “feel confident” at either a 4 or 6 rate, that’s on them. Either way, prepare for rejection. Hey, here’s a concept - pretty much everyone applying for Stanford (etc) should prepare for rejection. If you can’t handle that, then don’t play the game.
"The schools Matmaven highlighted were holistic top elite schools. He found that if you had a perfect SAT/ACT score your chances at admission were twice that of those with scores just below perfect. "
That was the thread in which Matmaven compared a 4% chance of acceptance with an 8% chance and said, “hey, your chances go up 200%.” Mathematically true, but also misleading and manipulative.
So your chance of rejection goes from 96% to 92%. That is a completely and utterly meaningless difference.
If the chance of rain is 96% on Monday and 92% on Tuesday, I carry an umbrella both days. I don’t say, golly gee, the chance of sunshine is 200% improved on Tuesday!
And let’s be real. You want this because you believe that an SAT is the one thing you can grind it through and control. That your kid’s time is best spent cramming to raise that score by 30 points because look, that catapults you into a different acceptance rate category. You want a formula. Just own it.
There is no matrix. Repeat after me, there is no matrix. There is no statistical ranking of these combinations. One kid may get in with combo X and another may not, with the same combo. Why not? Because stats just aren’t all it’s about. You have to see the apps to learn what shines through- or doesn’t. A 4.x 2400 has only done part of the job it takes to get in. Those kids behind him, maybe with the 2250 and the 3.9, maybe with a 1900 and the 3.8, may, in fact, have outdone your lil star on the rest of what they did with their hs years and their ability to present it well, as a coherent whole.
Pizzagirl You are wrong with your statements again. Given what you have posted I am unsure you really have any grasp of what I am trying to say.
Also Never did Matmaven state that a student with a perfect SAT/ACT had a 4% or 8% chance of acceptance. He stated the following: “Brown had 197 applicants with 36 ACT scores. 48 were admitted (24.4%). Brown had 3,608 applicants with a 33-35 score. 450 were accepted (12.5%).”
He then stated that that’s about a 200% increase in admission rates. It was you who talked of increase from 4% to 8% as being not that important and Matmaven tried to explain to you that a 200% increase is substantial although in absolute basis upon your example that such an increase is not that impactful.
Given that Brown admits 24.4% of its perfect ACT score applicants, wouldn’t it be helpful if a GPA was connected with the ACT score for a truer acceptance rate odds. Remember Brown is an holistic Ivy school.
So hypothetically let’s say that at Brown 100% of 4.0 GPA and 36 ACT applicants are admitted but the admission rate is 0% of 3.0 GPA and 36 ACT. Would not this information be useful to would be applicants? If a full matrix is provided wouldn’t such information help student to better decide where to apply?
I believe it would.
lookingforward I agree with the latter part of your post, but not the former. There is a matrix and these schools all have the data to provide the acceptance rates by GPA and SAT/ACT scores. Noone has stated that if you have X GPA and Y SAT/ACT that you should be admitted to these “elite” schools. Only that these schools should provide full disclosure so that students know their true odds of getting in. If these kids believe they have the certain “extra” beyond GPA and SAT/ACT that would more than make up for lower GPA or SAT then great, let them apply knowing that with their GPA and ACT score they are only 1 in 20 to get accepted.
“So hypothetically let’s say that at Brown 100% of 4.0 GPA and 36 ACT applicants are admitted but the admission rate is 0% of 3.0 GPA and 36 ACT. Would not this information be useful to would be applicants? If a full matrix is provided wouldn’t such information help student to better decide where to apply?”
But indeed the numbers aren’t actually going to be anything like that. The curve is much shallower than you would like it to be. The 4.0/36 might only be 35% – and then what?
Moreover, even if one year the rate was 0% for 3.0/36 doesn’t mean that the next year there couldn’t be a phenomenal 3.0/36 who blows everyone’s mind - who had a 3.0 because he was busy in the lab curing cancer or winning the Olympic medal. Or that even if one year the rate was 100% for 4.0/36, maybe next years crop of 4.0/36s includes some really, really boring people who have nothing to offer other than scores and they should be rejected.
You want a formula. It’s upsetting to you that there is no certain formula.
VOR, the overall acceptance rates are on the website. Every kid applying to H or S knows the rate is 5% or thereabouts. And yet they still apply. If they think it’s worth rolling the dice, what do you care?
Pizzagirl Why do I care? I care because $millions of hard earned dollars are wasted on application fees, testing fees, and time spent by students to complete these applications. I care because for some students these rejection letters are taken hard and personally. I care because had these kids known their true odds, many of these kids might not have to endure the waiting, the cost, the anticipation or the heartbreak. That they could have found better matched schools like a flagship public Honor College as explained in prior posts to apply.
I never asked for certain formula, but a good general admission rates based upon GPA and SAT matrix so kids can have a truer look at their chances. Will the addition information of EC, Essay, LOR be included in this matrix? No, but kids at least can see where they stand relative to other admitted students at these lottery schools for general reference and then they can determine if the other intangibles will give them a legitimate shot at admissions.
Holistic schools are not providing this information not because it does not exist, but because these institutions do not want such information to exist. They have the information and data to provide the matrix but choose not to provide it to the public for fear of smaller applicant pools and possible charges of discrimination. Harvard et. al used to provide much more information in the 80s than they do now. One guess why?
These kids know the rates are 5% but they still choose to apply. What makes you think that they don’t have sufficient info? Because it’s not personalized to them specifically?
How can that be if there is a 6% chance for the entire pool of applicants as a whole?
They certainly don’t all have 4.0.
How many applicants had a 4.0 (UW) and what percentage of them gained admission?
Is it possible that you are looking at a chart that shows 4% of the Stanford admittees had a 3.7 GPA?
“care because had these kids known their true odds, many of these kids might not have to endure the waiting, the cost, the anticipation or the heartbreak. That they could have found better matched schools like a flagship public Honor College as explained in prior posts to apply.”
Nothing prevents these kids from looking at a range all up and down the food chain. If they are looking at the websites, seeing acceptance rates of 5%-15% at top schools and not simultaneously looking at schools “lower down” proactively, that’s their fault.
I also bet that if you were to calculate that matrix retroactively, the numbers wouldn’t be all that stable year to year. Who says 2013’s 3.9/2300s necessarily “look like” 2015’s in terms of other characteristics and desirability? Not to mention geographic region, choice of major, etc.