You also need to consider that Harvard-Westlake is a highly selective private high school. Kids in the bottom 1/3 of class at Harvard-Westlake may very well be more impressive students from an academic perspective than the top 10% of class at a non-selective public HS, even if HS name is not considered in admissions.
For example, Harvard-Westlake’s school profile lists an average SAT score of 1450. Across all students, 1450 corresponds to a 99th percentile score. Many kids with average or below average rank likely score 1500+. Based on test scores alone (and ignoring bias in who chooses to take tests), this suggests the average kid at Harvard Westlake is comparable to top 1% kid at an unselective public HS. Should it be a big shock that some of these average kids at HW with 99th percentile test scores are getting admitted to selective colleges?
Yes it is. For one thing a 1450 is not 99th percentile but rather the 96th percentile. It’s also the average for the school not the median so we don’t actually know how well the kids in the bottom third scored but they could very well be closer to the top 5-10% rather than the top 1%.
Now add in the fact that they had incredible preparation by attending HW and many probably also had extra tutoring and you can see that being in the top 5-10% nationally after attending such a highly ranked school would be akin in my view to being in the top 25-50% had the student attended a non-selective school without all the hand-holding they were given at HW ie. a 5x leg up is very likely just by going to classes where English teachers will make grammar corrections on individual papers that align with the SAT reading section or have much more math tutoring etc. So yes, color me rather unimpressed.
I expect there is only a loose correlation between score and rank, such that higher rank tend to have higher scores, but there are many exceptions. Hence my earlier comment, "Many kids with average or below average rank likely score 1500+. " Many kids with average or below average rank also likely score well below the overall average of 1450.
Now add in the fact that they had incredible preparation by attending HW and many probably also had extra tutoring and you can see that being in the top 5-10% nationally after attending such a highly ranked school would be akin in my view to being in the top 25-50% had the student attended a non-selective school without all the hand-holding they were given at HW. So yes, color me very unimpressed.
It’s impossible to know how the HW students would have performed in the context of a non-selective public HS. What is clear, is that the HW students had an admission pre-selection at the HS level that is correlated with highly selective college admission. This results in kids who get admitted to HW often excelling in the criteria that highly selective private colleges look for, in admission decisions. HW high school admission is a holistic decision based on transcript, scores, LORs, ECs, statements, interview, …
They were benefits of an admissions pre-selection because their parents live in the area and can afford for their kids to attend the school but many kids can’t attend HW due to circumstances ie. their parents do not live near an highly selective school and even if they did, they could never afford it. Most of these colleges claim that they don’t base admissions on those factors but judge students by their local context. Based on the data you provide, some of these colleges should really be stating that students who go to non-selective schools (mostly not by choice just by circumstance but hey who cares about that right?) will have a far harder hill to climb than HW students even if they prove themselves in the context of their environment and even if they have a much better SAT score than HW students which should have been harder for them to earn than HW students given their lack of scaffolding. It’s true also for ec’s, letters of rec etc since HW knows how to help students present themselves well and would help them find ways to stand out while a non-selective school wouldn’t know the first thing about it. The schools claim they look past all the advantages these students already have to evaluate students in context which may be true for Harvard and Pomona but not seeing it for the other schools on this list.
As for the rest that you mention, sure HW is holistic. It is also expensive and located in one city so accessible to a very small number of people in that specific city. Again, color me unimpressed.
20% of students receive FA. Among students receiving FA, on average 72% of tuition costs are covered. However, there is no doubt a bias towards high income students. It’s not just a coincidence that Harvard-Westlake chose to put their campuses near the border between Beverly Hills and Bel Air. If a college admits a kid from HW, they can expect the kid is probably both full pay and academically capable, which may contribute to why certain colleges like Chicago and Case Western showed abnormal admission patterns for HW applicants.
Of course one could make a similar line of comments about admission to the HYPSM… type colleges that are being discussed ,which also show a disproportionate portion of kids from top income families. At time of Chetty’s review several years ago, 17% of kids at Ivy+ colleges were from top 1% families, nearly half were from top 5% income families, and only 2% were from bottom 20% families.
In the chart below, Chetty reviews the effect of high school on admit to Ivy+ colleges after controlling for test score, legacy, and athlete. The high school effect corresponds to the difference between the orange and dark blue lines. There was a difference for kids from top 1% income families, but little difference for kids not from top 1% income families. Also note that among kids with similar test scores, there appears to be admission preference for kids from lower income families (or admission factors correlated with lower income), regardless of HS.
I’m not exactly sure what you mean by this statement. If you are saying that you don’t find Harvard-Westlake college acceptance rates that impressive, I agree with you. I don’t find the rates impressive and I also don’t find the rates surprising given what I know about the school and the families that it serves. But I do think the information posted makes clear why the answer to the original question is “it depends” (do small differences in class rank (top 10% vs top 5% vs top 1%, etc.) matter in top college admissions?). At some high schools, only students at the very top of their graduating classes are admitted to certain highly rejective colleges. At other high schools, class rank is either opaque or less meaningful. Particularly for kids from schools like Harvard-Westlake or some elite boarding schools, chance me threads on College Confidential are probably not that accurate. The college counselors at those schools will be much more able to predict whether an individual kid (no matter the class rank) has a real shot at highly selective colleges.
My guess is that my kids’ prep schools, there is not that much of a difference between the cluster of colleges that accepted students in the top 5% than the top 20% of the senior class. And that an unhooked kid with a 3.8 GPA may end up getting into a college that an unhooked kid with a 3.9 or 4.0 GPA did not (as well as vice versa). That is not to say that everyone in the top 20% of their graduating classes was admitted to HYPSM and similar schools. Not at all. Rather it is to say that at highly selective prep schools, class rank may not predict college acceptance as much as at the original poster’s school (the OP wrote " Everyone in my high school who has attended a t20 or HYPSM has all been in the top 1% of their class."). That can easily be the case at the OP’s high school and not at all the case at some other high schools.
I went to a highly ranked public school with about 1000 in the graduating class, so 100 in the top 10%. Not all 100 wanted to go to HYP (actually the desired school was Stanford) but I’d say most who wanted to could go to the kind of school looking for top 10% kids. And someone who was #150 could go to a top school, and even someone who was #500 might have had a chance, especially if #500 was an athlete (as many were/are). Over the years many athletes have gone to Duke, Ivies, Stanford, CU, Michigan. The parents were connected, the GCs were connected, the coaches were connected.
Harvard-Westlake also has a lot of athletes. And connected parents.
If your school calculates and reports ranks it matters quite a bit.
Many many schools don’t report this though (almost none do around me) so colleges have to guess which can be impossible to know what is 3 vs 10% etc
You could try to convince your school to remove ranks, but that’s is hard in most places (but I have heard of it happening when they realize it harms kids)
(I ignored all the elite, selective and prep school stuff above - I’m assuming doesn’t impact OP as they have ranks (most prep schools don’t) and if they went to that sort of school it wouldn’t be only top 1% that got in to top schools)
Thank you so much for your advice! I’ve just been really confused about this because honestly everyone who has done really meaningful ECs and activities in my high school (national science awards, research etc.) and been admitted to Ivies has also been at the top of their class, so I’ve been really confused on how big of an impact class rank had on their app vs. ECs.
I’m not certain that we can assume only top 1% of class gets admitted to top 20 USNWR colleges. This sounds like it may be personal observations based on a handful of known students, rather than a GC report among all students across multiple classes. Some of USNWR top 20 colleges also claim to not consider rank directly, so it seems unlikely that they’d apply this type of simple rank threshold. It’s also inconsistent with all other public HSs I am aware of, that have a sufficiently large sample size of admits.
For example, I attended a basic unselective public high school in upstate NY. Being an unselective public HS, only a small portion of students applied to USNWR T20 colleges. Instead the overwhelming majority applied to SUNYs, local CCs, and to a lesser extent local private colleges. The one key exception is the upstate NY Ivy – Cornell. A huge number of students applied to Cornell, probably more than all other USNWR T20 colleges combined. As such, there is a good sample size of Cornell applicants.
At my former HS, there is a strong correlation between grades/rank and Cornell admission, much more so than with test scores. However, there is nothing resembling only top 1%… or even only top 10%. Of course many of the admits out of top 10% rank likely had some kind of hook or applied to one of the relatively less selective Cornell schools. With the smaller sample size of other USNWR top 20 ranked colleges, correlation with rank is less clear. Many of the admits were well below top 1%, but I’d be hesitant to draw conclusions about how class rank influences admission.
Could good SAT scores help mitigate the effects of my class rank on my college app? I’ve been predicting good results on my SAT (1550-1570 range) on my practice tests, and I’m due to take it in August. Would this help make up for the other parts of my application?
I agree it is not that simple. Being in “only” in top 5 or even 10% doesn’t rule one out- rigor, course selection, ECs, scores, family context can all help (or hurt).
Just to reinforce - controlling this is far more important than a grade.
You might be straight A, rigor, great ECs and still not get into a top 20. My daughter’s Val was that - applied to 16 top 20s. Was 0 for 16. Got into NYU full pay and went to UTK - and is going to a top law school next year.
You are not the school. You have no idea how they’ll see you.
But you know your efforts and success.
Honestly nothing else matters. Most every state flagship is littered with top 20 caliber kids.
Don’t make a school brand something that impacts your mental well being. Try your best and be proud of your result no matter what.
If a school passes, it’s their loss. My daughter’s Val was no less a student just because a school didn’t admit her. She was the best she could be. And that’s enough !!
Besides you need the right fit. The top 20 are all different - find your top 20, not a magazines. Yours will have the elements that fit you. For my kids, it turned out to be safeties - and they let the reaches go after being admitted. They were higher in US News but not in their desires for the next four years, living day after day. A rank doesn’t optimize that.
Going to agree with TSBNA here. Your goal is NOT to make up for other parts of your application- you are YOU and that’s enough! Your goal is to find a balanced list of colleges (some will be harder to get admitted to than others) which will give you a great education and help you become the adult you want to be. The best version of that.
Every college has kids who were “statistically below the bar” in terms of their grades, scores, etc. But they had something else that the college wanted. And every HS has kids who were above the bar statistically but for whatever reason- didn’t get in to where the models suggested they would.
Try to move away from worrying about rank, and just do your best on your August SAT test. And then figure out a balanced list of colleges and you’ll be good to go. There are so many other ways to evaluate a college besides “what’s their median SAT score and how many Vals do they have”. Figure out what you are looking for academically, socially, artistically, athletically- and you’ll be in fine shape.
This depends upon the university. It is hard to predict in general, except for a few universities that do not care about SAT scores.
“Top 6%” is however quite good. This might be low for Harvard or Princeton or MIT or Stanford, but it is very good for a very large number of very good universities.
This is something that we should discuss a bit.
One professor who I know told me once that all of the smartest students that he has ever known at some point suffered from some mental health issues. I think that “all” might be a slight exaggeration, but this is very common. One important issue is that medical science has gotten much better at helping. It is worth seeking out help if you need it. Another important issue is to look for a college or university that is a good fit for you. Finding a good fit can be more difficult compared to looking at US News rankings, but finding a good fit is way, way more important than any rankings.
I would be reluctant to report this to colleges unless there is a good reason to think that the problem has been corrected and will not reoccur.
And maintaining your mental health is way more important than whether you attend one very good university or a different very good university. There are lots and lots of universities where you can get a very good education and go on to a very good career.
I would be very surprised if top 3-5% made much of a difference as compared to top 3%. What may matter to highly selective colleges is whether the students who have performed similarly took the most advanced courses available. In other words, have you taken the most advanced track in math, science, and English? I don’t mean most APs, but most advanced track available.
If a college is looking at two students with about the same grades and all else being about equal, , and one student has taken a more advanced course load, it seems to me that colleges will give the nod to the student who took more advanced coursework.
Unfortunately much of this is somewhat set in stone by the time you reach your senior year, with only limited options available based on what you have done before, but if top schools are your goal then don’t shy away from advanced courses your senior year in the hopes of improving your GPA.
Also, I understand the desire to go to a great school, but there a lot of great schools that aren’t top 20. Try to find a place that is a good fit for you, even if not in the top 20.
Rank, when calculated by the HS, has become less important with rampant grade inflation. The top 20 or more students at my kids’ HS had UW 4.0’s. The difference between those in the top 10 on a weighted basis was measured in tenths and some time hundredths. The game among the top students was to take as many weighted courses as possible (rank matters in my state because of auto admit). At these miniscule differences in WGPA, there is no real distinction between those ranked 10 or more apart.
For selective schools, especially those that do some type of initial screen, I suspect they are looking at UWGPA of core courses (English, math, science, social studies, foreign language) and considering the rigor in the context of what is available at that school. If they are test required, IMO once you are above a threshhold, call it 1500/34, you have passed the hurdle. There may be another part of the initial rubric that considers allowable “context” (SES, geography, nature of HS, FG). After this, I think everyone is on about equal footing, and this is where the LoR’s, essays, awards and EC’s become the separators.
Of course, LoRs are an advantage to students in schools with good LoR writers who do not need to ration LoRs, and awards and ECs are often at least partially a function of opportunity (e.g. can the family afford the student doing travel sports or academic competitions or arts performances?).
