<p>curious14 – i’m done – obviously i as well as just about everyone else here just am not intellectual enough to understand you.</p>
<p>That test always works to catch lazy thinkers.</p>
<p>Weird thread. What do you mean by interests in <em>non-academic stuff?</em> That <em>could</em> be a hook, you know. Most kids who score 1500 on the SAT and get excellent grades probably have <em>something</em> going for them. If not, then why would they care how <em>smart</em> their peers are? Are you talking a hypothetical kid who has absolutely nothing else going for him, only test scores and grades, and watches WWF every spare moment (only non-academic interest I could think of, off the top of my head)? Hey, even that might be a hook, if you write an amusing essay about it . . .
*
*</p>
<p>*</p>
<p>yup - everyone besides you here is lazy, unintellectual.</p>
<p>I’ll take the “curious challenge” does the question boil down to: where can a kid who’s an academic 1 and a personal 4 (on a 1-5 scale) be more or less guaranteed admission, and be surrounded by other academic 1s? </p>
<p>I think you’d get some concrete answers to that one. Most would begin with nowhere and end with . . . . thank goodness.</p>
<p>mstee,</p>
<p>You’re new to the argument so the idea is that they are active and involved in some non-academic things but nothing that rises to the level of a hook in the sense of national accomplishment or singular skills. They just have some non-academic interests that take up a reasonable amount of time and commitment. I am tryiing to avoid getting into the details of what these might be becasue I don’t think it matters for the question raised.</p>
<p>Bizy,</p>
<p>I think you are just not willing to try. Maybe you’re just stubborn, maybe you’re lazy, how should I know. I know you’re making no effort to understand before objecting.</p>
<p>Marathon, </p>
<p>Kind of a narrow range, if 1 to 5 are quintiles. If an academic 1 is meant to capture a fairly big group of students it kind of misses the point. It’s easier to talk in percentages. But with that qualification the hypothetical candidate is top 1% academic, say top 25% in terms of EC’s but and not a recruited athlete, URM, legacy, celebrety, development candidate or nationally recgnized participant in anything.</p>
<p>curious14 post #38:
</p>
<p>ok - here’s the problem – you are setting up an illogical construct. you are defining your hypothetical student as top 1% in intellegence. but then you want him virtually guarenteed acceptance to a school where he is merely average. so by definition, that school must receive applications from people who are higher and lower and accept students who are higher and lower - hence your hypothetical student being merely “average” for them. well, i think by definition, no student can consider themselves a shoe-in at a school where they rank at the 50 percentile. if this person REALLY wants to be at a school where he will just be average for that school, he has to also accept the fact that any such school may have such tough criteria, that he may not get an offer of admission. and that some students he considers “lower” will get admitted – otherwise, how could he be “average” for that school if no one below him got in (as well as those above him)?</p>
<p>Well, I say that if you can write an interesting essay then you are probably in at Chicago. I don’t know what the average SAT is, but there are probably a sizeable number of kids with 1500’s there. If your 1500 SAT does not include something that catches the adcom’s eye, though, then you are probably out of luck. </p>
<p>But if this hypothetical person really cares about being surrounded by people of his intellectual ability, there must be a reason – does this hypothetical person like to engage in intellectual debate, get inspired by other students who love learning? Because that would indicate some <em>personality</em>, some <em>passion</em>, which most likely would attract an adcom’s attention. One of my son’s friends fits your criteria, I think, (though I don’t know his SAT, but I know it was less than 1600 because the school recognizes those who score 800). He as far as I know, had no major hooks, just a love of learning, and not afraid to say so, very enthusiastic, hard working, good character, non athletic, no legacy, not URM, etc. I don’t know if he had any non academic interests. I don’t recall him winning any major awards at school. He was accepted to Chicago and some other schools and chose to go to Deep Springs and has since transferred to Harvard. (Of course, once you go to Deep Springs, you’ve definitely got a hook!) I very much doubt if he cares what SAT scores his peers have, though. He cares about learning, not test scores. </p>
<p>If it comes across to an adcom that you want to go to her/his school because you like being around people with high scores on a standardized test, I think you are dead meat. And I don’t find that at all sad. So, yes, come up with <em>something</em> other than test scores and grades. Some personality. SOMETHING. If you can’t, well then you’ll just have to go to one of the many many schools that will be thrilled to have a high scoring kid who is above its average . . . Oh well! Not a tragedy! If you want something more selective than that, you’ll just have to come up with a reason for a school to want you other than test scores.</p>
<p>If a student who, by your definition, is going to be merely average at college X, then obviously, there will be half of the students at the college who will be below that average, however you choose to define it–SAT of 1500 or whatever. Only half of the students intellectual enough to be considered peers of your hypothetical un-hooked applicant?<br>
- Perish the thought. Doesn’t he want to be truly surrounded by his intellectual peers? How can he live with only half of them operating at his level or above?
- The adcoms must have seen some spark in those below-average applicants to consider them worth sharing space with your 24/7 intellectual snob (oops, student).</p>
<p>EDIT:
Ask Curmudgeon whose D scored a 35 or 36 on the ACT and turned down Yale for Rhodes where the median SAT is 1276 how happy and how intellectually challenged she feels there.</p>
<p>Unbelievable,</p>
<p>No, I’d take a 50/50 chance.</p>
<p>Marite,</p>
<p>Yawn, I’m going to bed.</p>
<p>This is a bizarre thread, and I’m going to regret this, but here goes.</p>
<p>My D kind of fits your criteria, applied Ed and was accepted to Dartmouth. Her stats were a little higher, but less than 1560, and not a statistically significant difference from 1500. She wrote what I would call an OK essay. She had one state level recognition, received as a freshman. She does come from an “underrepresented state”, but four kids from our state were admitted her year, 3, including her, from our town, which is almost unbelieveable - you have NOT heard of her high school.
Dartmouth’s application is pretty much bare bones, and she didn’t submit anything extra - basically a BWRK. BUT, a BWRK who got a good rec from a teacher who knew her well, both inside and outside of class, who could portray her as a quirky, interesting, intellectual person - the person we know, that her high school classmates didn’t “get”. She was not val or sal, and because of a bout of sinusitis and our naivete, not an NMF either.
BUT, here comes another caveat, Dart was the only Ivy that she applied to, and her other schools were all LACs with intense academic climates, in small towns and suburbs (no U of Chi for her, although she fits the Chicago persona).
I have no idea why she was admitted, neither does she, but I suspect that it had something to do with having no obvious holes in the academic record (that punches your ticket), ED, great recs that weren’t just flattering, but demonstrated that the recommender really knew her, ECs that were a little unusual and outdoorsy, and she is from a non-NE, non-CA state.</p>
<p>SHe wanted Dart, because she wanted to be ordinary academically, she got that and she is really blossoming (she’s a soph this year).</p>
<p>why assume your hypothetical student should even be able to expect a 50-50 shot at a school where he would only be average?</p>
<p>lets assume College X gets 20,000 applications but will send out only 2,000 acceptance letters. But what do we know about the 18,000 destined to get rejection letters? Why should your hypothetical student assume he falls in the top 4000 (which he would have to do in order to have a 50-50 shot at one of the 2000 acceptances)? All 20,000 know how tough it is to get into College X – and presumably they all think they have a shot – presumably they aren’t fools just throwing away their $60 application fee. Why, most of them have probably been told within their own high schools that they are just simply “the best” – certainly the intellectual equals of those at College X! </p>
<p>Being top 1% in the country isn’t what’s relevant – its where he falls in the application pool. And your assumption is that he’s not a top applicant – he’s only destined to be an average student for that school. And since you’ve already conceded that this isn’t about sat’s, just how is the adcom to conclude who is a top candidate and who is just average, and who is below average but warranting of admission? They use all those criteria that you have objected to having people raise because there just isn’t some universally recognized “metric” such as you posture. And your hypothetical student just can’t assume that he has any better shot than the 2000 acceptances out of 20,000 applications would imply. </p>
<p>And the adcoms aren’t there to try to create the type of intellectual mix your hypothetical applicant may desire – they think school spirit may be served by having some athletes available to field teams; they think that all students will benefit from having a diverse student body rather than a cookie cutter student body, etc. And overall, they can’t be doing too bad a job at maintaining the intellectual integrity of College X while doing this since after all, it is intellectual enough such that your hypothetical student would only be average there. </p>
<p>I’m sorry – I just don’t see anything sad about your hypothetical student dealing with the reality that his intelligence will afford him certain, but not unlimited opportunities, in the college application process.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t believe I said anything like that, but I won’t be rude and tell you to reread the thread.</p>
<p>On athletes: like most small LACs, they allocate about 15% of the freshman slots for recruited athletes. However, the coaches are well aware that the admissions office drives the process and that a recruited athlete must be a fit for campus culture, including the notorious academics. It’s a somewhat different dynamic because athletes with “lower standards” generally wouldn’t want to go to Swarthmore in the first place. The one example of a recruited athlete I know of from college confidential got deferred early decision and accepted regular decision. He was top-10% of his class at one of the most competitive high schools in north Jersey and was “intellectual” by your standards (well over 1500 SATs). He worked the hell out of his admissions process, visiting campus several times, meeting with professors, sitting in on classes, etc. I’m sure the coach’s push helped, but it would be an insult to say that he wasn’t qualified or enthusiastic.</p>
<p>On URMs: Yes, the school bends over backwards to enroll minority applicants. 53% of the acceptance letters this spring went to US minority students. However, they most assuredly do not “lower their standards”, unless you are defining “standards” in some superficial way like SAT scores. They reject about two-thirds of their minority applicants, which is a pretty self-selected pool to begin with.</p>
<p>On legacies: no prayer of getting accepted unless you are good applicant. That’s true at most of the schools I follow. Legacy is a good thing, but only if you are a solid applicant. One of only two students I’ve said “sure bet” to in three years here on CC was a multi-generation legacy. Unbelieveably strong applicant – top academics (val, 1500+ SATs) with really interesting ECs (including serving as a teen judge in the local court system’s diversion program for juvenile offenders). As George Tenant might say, “slam dunk”.</p>
<p>On development admits: Beats me. There is one student on campus, that I know of, with a lot of buildings named after his family). I have no idea what his application looked like, but I suspect that it was probably strong enough. Not many students flaunt their money, so it would be difficult to know the rest of the development admits from Adam.</p>
<p>On celebrity kids: Again, tough to know. The one I know of currently is the daughter of a prominent long-term Republican Congressman (currently making news for a potential Senate run). Her brother went to Swarthmore a couple of years ago. Their dad is an Amherst grad; their mom is a Byrn Mawr grad. How they ended up at Swarthmore, I have no idea. It’s pretty popular with the D.C. crowd. The older brother was a delegate to the Republican National Convention while a senior in high school.</p>
<p>If I could offer some well-meaning advice to your hypothetical friend. Forget URMs, recruited athletes, legacies, and development admits. Can’t do anything about those. Focus on what he brings to the party, what schools might be a good fit, and how he can put together the most effective application. And, tell him to lose the notion that he might not find his “intellectual” peers. SAT scores have nothing to do with that.</p>
<p>A student with 1500 SAT–and other demonstrated signs of intellectual abilities–has at least a 50/50 chance of being admitted to any of the most selective schools (which also means a 50/50 chance of being rejected–ask Jian Li). But that does not mean that the school and the student will “fit.” An admitted student decided not to attend Caltech because he thought the foodfights he witnessed were a sign of insufficient intellectualism. Another student did not like a class he sat in at Chicago.</p>
<p>More data:</p>
<p><a href=“http://admitspit.■■■■■■■■■■■■■/2006/10/24/typical-sat-scores-for-specific-top-schools/[/url]”>http://admitspit.■■■■■■■■■■■■■/2006/10/24/typical-sat-scores-for-specific-top-schools/</a></p>
<p>Curious- you are indeed curious.</p>
<p>Just a thought for you-- many kids who have “outside interests” in HS, non-national participation, non-hook, etc. are able to turn those interests into very significant intellectual interests in college… since college is a lot bigger than HS. So a kid with an interest in folk music, for sure a non-hooked activity if there ever was one, would absolutely catch the adcoms eye at a school with a “community” of those kinds of people, professors with interest in ethnomusicology (even if the kid never intended to take one of those courses), performance groups devoted to the craft, a museum or archive on campus involved in an oral history project, etc. </p>
<p>Your coyness in dismissing EC’s as relevant is what makes you so ridiculous here. Adcoms know how different interests play out on campus, and admitting a kid whose only compelling passion is finding kids who have similar SAT scores isn’t really part of their mission. You seem to take great delight in pointing out the flaws in the system without wanting to admit that by and large, kids like the one you describe do very, very well in the admissions process, and end up in great places.</p>