<p>True, I would prefer if schools like the HADES had their own test and would disclose very little info to Applicants on it that way instead of seeing how well students can study they could see how knowledgeable and how their long term memory would be. But it most likely won’t happen because of so many different factors but hey ya never know…</p>
<p>Not every student studies for the ssat, you know.</p>
<p>I don’t believe that admissions people are so naive as to think that kids don’t cram. Personally, I think this is where the interview comes in. It doesn’t take long a very long conversation to tell whether a kid “lives up to” their scores or not. I think this is one of those instances of the entire application “jibing” with grades and recommendation and essays. These different parts give them a better picture of who the kid is as a whole.</p>
<p>If you look at Lawrencevilles postings (our resident stats-meister), he disclaims again and again that they alone do not tell the whole story. (The lady doth protest too much, methinks.)</p>
<p>This is a very interesting discussion to which I’ll probably contribute more when I have better internet access (on vacation now awkwardly using my blackberry to post). For now, I am going to respond to Parlabane’s ridiculous, unfair slander with a simple statement of fact. In NYC there are 7 schools which are generally regarded as being the top tier schools.Any parent at my son’s school would have produced the same list long before I compiled my statistics. My son could have applied to 4 of those schools (3 are all-girls). The 2 that he did apply to happened to be the 2 with clearly weaker matriculation statistics than the other 2. The reason he didn’t apply to the others was because of a poor “fit” for him. Similarly, we eliminated another seemingly likely possibility from the 2nd tier for the same reason. Practicing what I preach is, I would think, rather conclusive evidence. You should be much more careful with such accusations, Parlabane.</p>
<p>Lvillegrad - not even the tiniest bit of slander was meant or even thought about!! In fact, I think the stats that you have compiled are both impressive and helpful - and a nice gesture too. I have tremendous respect for you on this site, Lville.</p>
<p>The point that I was trying to make, inelegantly (or maybe incompetently) is that college matriculation stats are the default mode of judgment for many CC’ers and the mere fact that you took a considerable amount of time to compile them would indicate the value that you and everyone else places on the results. The point I was making about your disclaimers (you make them more often simply because you authored the stats site) is that people always feel the need to say that “fit” is important to them whenever they discuss stats, but it’s really a secondary consideration if truth be told. The combination of yield/attrition/acceptance rate tell an equally compelling story, I think. But most everyone else disagrees.</p>
<p>Jaypeeh says “things like matriculation stats, average ssat, average sat, etc. may not say anything directly about the school per se, but those data do speak loudly about the intellectual strength and academic discipline of a bs’s student body - and the strength of its student body is the most important strength of any bs.” Here is a cc’er who would likely choose a boarding school for different reasons than I would. Maybe we’d end up at the same place, but not for the same reasons. Still, Jaypeeh represents the bulk of posters on this site.</p>
<p>SSAT is just ONE SMALL factor in the admissions process. Just as the SAT is ONE SMALL factor in the college admissions process. In fact, many colleges are allowing students to waive sending in their SAT’s. An interesting fact in that is that they do get them after they have been admitted and 2 colleges I heard from said that the scores of those who did not send in were on average, HIGHER than those who did not. </p>
<p>The SSAT CAN be an eliminator. But not at levels that most people here seem to think. Even at the “top” schools. But that’s a whole other discussion.</p>
<p>I can not agree more with Parlabane’s opinion of Jaypeeh’s quote about the “most important strength of any boarding school.”<br>
I would say that there are hundreds of boarding schools that could academically challenge 99% of all students. Would there be 5 choices in each subject matter at the highest level of challenge - maybe not…but the would be challenged. It’s everything else that goes in to the “fit” for the individual student .</p>
<p>Yes, Parlabane, some of the stats go in to fit. If a school has NEVER had a student go to an Ivy and that’s your goal…then maybe it’s not the right place. But, there has to be a balance. There is so much MORE to “fit” than what can be measured statistically.</p>
<p>I’m not so sure that SAT’s are just a small factor in the admissions process. According to Michele Hernandez, who was a former assistant dean of admissions at Dartmouth and the author of the seminal book “A is for Admission”, SAT and SAT II’s are huge factors that elite colleges weigh when reviewing college applications. She maintains in her book that 70 to 80% of the elements examined in an application are academic factors. Of these academic factors, the SAT is given 1/3rd of the weight of the academic side of an app and the average of a student’s top three SAT II’s are given another 1/3rd. The remaining 1/3rd are grades. </p>
<p>Because the Hernandez book was first published in 1997, it may now be a bit dated. Maybe there is a current trend away from SAT’s, but I sure won’t bet my application on it.</p>
<p>We were at a college planning seminar with 2 admissions professionals from well known, highly respected colleges who both said SAT’s are not large factors. As I said, many schools are now allowing students to opt out of sending the scores with their applications. </p>
<p>I am not buying that it is 2/3 of the application. </p>
<p>One did a visual presentation and the transcript was the #1 factor - by far - if you are a recruited athlete that goes hand and hand with your transcript - and the SAT was second to last (our of 7). The essay is much higher. In fact, we heard a story about an athlete who was the at the top of the coach’s list. Was one of the highest academically qualified candidates in the entire pool. Nearly perfect SAT scores. Eliminated by the essay. </p>
<p>A high SAT can not make up for a poor transcript.</p>
<p>I agree. I think people are looking for whatever information validates their position - in most cases people “want” to hear that SSAT’s and SAT’s are huge factors in admissions.</p>
<p>They aren’t - I can tell you that they act as an initial screening tool, but beyond that - the application is everything.</p>
<p>Which is why it bothers me when some students or parents post to complain that their perfect score was overlooked by someone with a lower score. Sigh.</p>
<p>It isn’t an accurate predictor ABOVE a certain threshold - but - if schools said that - it would eliminate a certain mystique. It’s called “marketing”. It’s called “hype.” It’s called “building a brand identity.” But ultimately, it isn’t a big deal especially since - at least at MIT - so many people enter with scores mostly within a range and those students are widely successful without having to have perfect scores.</p>
<p>People hear what they want to hear, or need to hear. So arguing the contrary is probably moot.</p>
<p>I didn’t say that SAT’s were 2/3 of the app. I said that it was 2/3 of the 70 to 80% of the app process, according to Hernandez (i.e., 46.69 to 53.36% of the total process). As for me, I’m clueless. I’m just reporting what I have heard and read on this front. Take it or leave it. Same to me. Still, I for one wouldn’t discount the power and impact of SAT tests willy-nilly. Seems unwise to me. But, hey, that’s just me.</p>
<p>I’m sorry, I read this:
To mean that the SAT I is given 1/3, the SAT II’s are given another 1/3 and the grades are given the final third. Sorry.</p>
<p>I also never completely discounted them. I am simply reporting what I have heard from several admissions professionals. This forum is full of students who think that anything under a 90% on the SSAT is a disaster and failure - which is simply untrue. </p>
<p>ExieMITAlum…exactly my point. Thank you.</p>
<p>You are welcome. I’ve been doing Prep school and University interviews and reports for more than 30 years, and have gone through the BS/College stuff with my own kids. So I think I’ve learned a little in that time. When I see numbers thrown out like that ridiculous 1/3, 1/3, 1/3 I just want to throw up my hands in frustration.</p>
<p>Scores are only a SINGLE metric in a much larger equation despite what Adcom’s tell you. If they told you the truth they’d have 50,000 apps instead of 20-30K. And frankly - I know a lot of competitive colleges that would rather “bet” on a student with a lower score but who has had an interesting life and stands out in every other way, than a student with a perfect score whose application - albeit academically strong - looks like every other bright student in the pile. (note I said “lower” not “rock bottom.”)</p>
<p>College is much more than numbers and grades. It’s a living, breathing entity.</p>
<p>*Lvillegrad - not even the tiniest bit of slander was meant or even thought about!! In fact, I think the stats that you have compiled are both impressive and helpful - and a nice gesture too. I have tremendous respect for you on this site, Lville.</p>
<p>The point that I was trying to make, inelegantly (or maybe incompetently) is that college matriculation stats are the default mode of judgment for many CC’ers and the mere fact that you took a considerable amount of time to compile them would indicate the value that you and everyone else places on the results. The point I was making about your disclaimers (you make them more often simply because you authored the stats site) is that people always feel the need to say that “fit” is important to them whenever they discuss stats, but it’s really a secondary consideration if truth be told. The combination of yield/attrition/acceptance rate tell an equally compelling story, I think. But most everyone else disagrees.*</p>
<p>Ok. I initially assumed your comment was implying that you felt I was being dishonest when I claimed that matriculation statistics are only part of the story for judging high schools. I’ll take you at your word that I misinterpreted your comment.</p>
<p>On the face of it, I can certainly see why people would doubt my statements. After all, why would someone spend a large chunk of time doing that work if he didn’t believe such statistics were relevant? Well, I DO believe they are relevant, but certainly not the whole story. And as I’ve also said before, this is the sort of project I enjoy doing (yes, I’m a bit odd). And, it’s been something that my son and I have worked on together and it’s given him something to focus on as he’s been developing his coding skills (He’s now working on transforming the data into an app for use on Android. I don’t think many of you will use care that much, but that’s not the point, of course).</p>
<p>Before I give my view on your basic point for starting this thread, let’s back up a little. Although I do believe that matriculation statistics are important, I also believe that people overrely on them simply because they are relatively easy to quantify and thus, easy to use. Of course, by doing some additional work in this area, I’ve made it even easier for people to rely on matriculation statistics. To draw an analogy, matriculation statistics from college are also important (to law school, med school, PhD programs, certain specific types of jobs, etc.) are important, but because they are more difficult to quantify (data is not as readily available, diverse destinations), these sorts of statistics are not relied on nearly as extensively as at this level. Sure, people have a sense that if they graduate from Yale, for example, they’ll have an easier time getting to their next stage than if they graduate from Rutgers, but they don’t attempt to quantify it nearly as much as we attempt to quantify getting into college. </p>
<p>I think you’re claiming that “fit” is also important, and that the statistics that you cite are ways of quantifying that “fit”. I don’t think anyone seriously contends that “fit” isn’t important, though many will disagree to what extent it is. The question really is how well do those statistics - yield, attrition, and selectivity - measure “fit”. And unfortunately, I think the answer is mixed. Many of the points have been made already in this thread (though after some thought I may later add a few, but I just returned from vacation), but it seems that these are the types of measures that it isn’t so clear that “more is better”. For example, I don’t think an attrition rate of 0% is the optimal attrition rate. Doesn’t that mean a school never takes any chances in its admissions process by taking a student who isn’t perfect but shows lots of potential and whom the school might be a truly life changing experience for, but there’s a chance of a total washout? At 14, kids still have lots of room for growth and change. Similar possibilities exist for your other measures of “fit”.</p>
<p>On the other hand, I do think those statistics you mention do provide some sense of “fit”, though I’m not yet sure how to use them.</p>
<p>
And it also means that a school does not discipline anyone. I always give Canterbury huge credit for kicking Paris Hilton out when she didn’t live by the rules. I’m sure the development department was crying, but it was the right thing to do.</p>
<p>I guess the thing with the stats is that if you look at them ALONE for “fit” you will find a bunch of schools that all appear the same/or very close. But they are in fact very different schools in how they “feel.” Just read the topics about revisit days and you’ll see that. I read Alex825 (I think? I may have the numbers wrong) report of Deerfield and I’ve read others impressions of Deerfield. Same school. Probably similar students “statistically” but different “fit.” </p>
<p>Maybe stats can be a starting point. Heck I had a spreadsheet with various things on it - not the typical here (things like library, smart boards, athletic facilities, campus, coaches, etc)- and we rated them 1-5 and then weighted them to come up with favorite schools. So I’m not completely against the numbers.</p>
<p>After rereading this whole thread, I think (hope) most of us look at some sort of stats and fit balance when making a boarding school choice. Where we stake ourselves on this continuum is the fodder for our endless argument. My position is much closer to the “fit” end of the spectrum than the “stats” end. If a boarding school has a solid record of college placement - and any of the top 20-30 schools do - then everything goes to “fit” and to choosing an environment where I will be proud of the adult my child becomes. Everyone will agree with this, but for some that would be dishonest. Why? Because for a percentage of parents, some who frequent this site, “proud of the adult my child becomes” = HYP. </p>
<p>Thankfully, the majority of us would be no less proud of our child if she were graduated from an Andover or a Taft, a Middlesex or a Cate as a happy, healthy, kind, hard-working, honest kid who went to Dickinson College. For those who would experience disappointment that it wasn’t an Ivy, that unhappy and unhealthy attitude represents a value system that pushes me away from the “stats” end of the continuum and away from schools where I think there is a large percentage of kids/parents who think like that. </p>
<p>Each to his own, of course!!</p>
<p>For those who would experience disappointment that it wasn’t an Ivy, that unhappy and unhealthy attitude represents a value system that pushes me away from the “stats” end of the continuum and away from schools where I think there is a large percentage of kids/parents who think like that. </p>
<p>There is that fear, isn’t there? </p>
<p>I think, though, that many of the parents who obsess about stats are male, and on the whole, those who are more interested in fit are more likely to be female than male. I think of it as the same sort of phenomena as baseball statistics. It would drive me out of my mind to try to remember the stats for RBIs, etc., for players and teams. I would be bonkers within two days. However, the thriving “fantasy baseball” (football, etc) hobby argues that some people really love stats.</p>
<p>heh heh…maybe you’re right Periwinkle, although I’m a guy.</p>
<p>I feel like many in this discussion are looking at stats and fit like black and white. I think most use them both in their decisions, stats to short list schools, and fit to select the right school from the list. These either or arguments I think are moot. :)</p>
<p>Yes, but the question was
Not, how do you pick a school. :)</p>
<p>Great thread, though I don’t have anything to add, it has given me much to think about, thank you.</p>
<p>Linda S, Please read all the posts in the thread, not the thread title.</p>