I feel like dot plots with stats and test scores say people should get in far more that they actually seem to. Do these dot plots just overstate acceptance odds for a white female from a private school with no hooks?
Or are GPAs overstated here bc of weighting, ability to get over a 4.0, and easy grading where GPA doesn’t match class rank?
I look at these plots that say I have a strong chance at schools where it just doesn’t seem like it.
If you’re looking at something like Niche and their dot plots - at best it helps provide a sense for where you might be in the pool. It doesn’t consider all of the other factors that many schools weigh in much less the specific high school situation (elite private school? poorly ranked public school?). When people put their GPA’s into those things are they putting in UW or W? It gets squishy REAL FAST.
S23’s high school uses Naviance and there are dot plots in that system as well. For the schools that showed a representative sample of students that applied I felt like it was directionally accurate. The problem is that there might only be a handful of local schools with good sample sizes to gauge.
Like everything else - use it as one small tool/data point out of all the other data points you might be accumulating when forming your Reach/Target/Safety lists.
Is the source generic to all applicants or specific to your school data (such as in Naviance or SCOUR)? The stats for all students everywhere is fairly useless because results vary greatly based on your school profile. This is particularly true of general sites because they don’t take into account different GPA averages at different schools – not only that everyone weights differently but that some schools grade easier unweighted than others. Which is why the scattergram is useless unless the data is specific to your school.
A scattergram plots the average GPA and average test score (whether specific to your school or more generally). Which means that the true average for unhooked applicants is likely somewhere above the overall average, but the trick is you have no way of guessing how far above.
If you truly have access to your school specific data and for enough years and applicants to be statistically meaningful, the data can be directionally useful. However, in evaluating your chances don’t just look to see if some others have been accepted in your plot point area, but whether you are in the middle or better of the plot point for acceptances. Being near the bottom left of the acceptance cluster is not that reassuring.
Also, if you are using a scattergram at a site like Naviance, I suggest you filter out all the results except the exact scenario you are applying with. For example, if you are applying RD, then filter out all the ED, all the waitlisted and undetermined outcomes, etc. Much easier to compare the relevant outcome.
My D found the scattergram plots not helpful at all, especially for reach schools because there was no accounting for hooks and intended major. It was better for my D to look at the common data sets and make her list of safety/match/reaches based on acceptance percentages.
Yes! This is the issue with scatter plots for fairly to highly selective schools. They only factor in GPA and test scores and leave out the 2 dozen other factors these schools consider.
It’s informative to also look at the distribution of rejected students. Often you’ll see students with the same GPA/SAT rejected.
Two comments:
I expect the guidance counselor at your private school will be the best resource in terms of learning where students with your profile should apply.
My kids found the scattergram plots to be somewhat helpful other than for the highly rejective schools (which turn down students with perfect GPA/SAT). The scattergrams we had access to did not note things if candidates applied ED, had hooks, etc. so we regarded them as a very general guide.
This topic was automatically closed 180 days after the last reply. If you’d like to reply, please flag the thread for moderator attention.