You folks are still looking for a trump card or two, the secret sauce. You can have incredible accomplishments and still come off as unpleasant, sheltered or unilateral. Or whiny, arrogant. Or missing some critical piece in the prep.
There is no level of high school accomplishment that exempts you from sections of the app. This search for the knock your socks off aspects is terribly misleading.
@whatisyourquest - Intel sponsored this year, and after they stop, STS and ISEF (run by Society for Science and the Public, not Intel - who is just the title sponsor) will be looking for another title sponsor.
There are some knock your socks off accomplishments. But you almost don’t know what they are until you see them.
They also vary from kid to kid and year to year
@lookingforward it’s true that accomplishments might not get you in, but they certainly can help. Similarly, high stats does not guarantee acceptance, but bad stats can keep you out. Also, a person can come off as unlikeable regardless of whether they have amazing ec’s or not. I think to discourage pursuit of high level ec’s is misleading.
I also think that participation in highly selective summer program increased chances for my DD and her friends. All of them have multiple acceptances to Ivies and M S C And U of C
I don’t know how else to explain the admission success for this group. I know that the year before participants had exactly the same return.
Participation in a highly selective summer program while it might be a sufficeient condition to get you in is certainly not necessary
I don’t discourage them, I feel kids can stretch. But they aren’t necessarily what CC usually refers to. I think CC thinks very hierarchically- eg, international awards trump national, which trumps state. Or that you have to have the lead in the play or it has no effect. Lots of examples.
^ lookingforward, no one has implied on this thread that there is “a trump card or two, the secret sauce.”
The CC posters here have been careful to state that highly-selective summer programs “can” make a difference or “may” be helpful. No one has stated that participating in such programs makes up for being “whiny, arrogant.” Please.
I sincerely hope that you will take the following tip to heart, because this conflict has occurred in other threads: one is more persuasive when one acknowledges that other posters have a nuanced perspective that warrants consideration, rather than insinuating absolutist, binary positions that have never been asserted.
BTW, I don’t know why anyone, anywhere would “discourage” participation in RSI or TASP. They are a blessing, if one is so fortunate as to be admitted.
WYQ, my perspective is the harsh reality of holistic, the expectations. We each try to do the best we can for our kids. Fine. But there is a distinct trend on CC to think hierarchically: he who has the most X or the highest Y wins. Even this thread asked what do those kids have that gets the multiple top admits.
I do recognize the nuance. But I disagree with the direction these threads take. I do wish people on CC would pay more attention to the fuller aspects of the app and supp and keep the honors and awards in perspective. They are just one aspect. And a kid can blow any perceived advantage if the rest isn’t there. The whole any particular school is tying to find.
That changes nothing about the value of a selective hs program, to the kid as an individual. I didn’t dismiss those programs. But they are not tips. They may reflect the inherent abilities of a kid. But it takes more.
^ lookingforward, thanks for the reasoned reply.
I agree that hierarchical thinking is unproductive. A facile assumption, for instance, would be that more APs guarantees admission. But, frankly, I give the CC audience more credit than that. I think that the vast majority of us know that holistic admissions is not that simplistic. We are aware that there is no formula or secret sauce.
Regarding this thread, however, I don’t think that there is any harm in examining why some applicants have been more successful than others. It may be something as simple as being truly authentic in essays, or conveying a genuine enthusiasm (I’m trying to avoid the trite word “passion”) for learning in GC and teacher LoRs. It doesn’t hurt to share our experiences, given that the admissions process is so opaque.
I continue to believe that highly-selective summer research programs can be very rewarding, and may enhance a student’s prospects. My kid had great grades, test scores, a rigorous coarse load, and (presumably) fantastic GC and teacher LoRs, but I sincerely doubt that the admission outcomes would have been the same without the sterling research experience that the summer programs provided.
WTQ, I hope your kid is happy with results. The satisfaction and confidence to move forward are really what a lot of the college discussion is about, to me. Even when certain adults scold about Ivy fever.
When we talk about tippy tops, though, even a few threads about “it” factor or “standing out,” posters do fall back on scores, rigor, titles, what they feel are ‘superior’ activities, etc. Someone will crop up about “likability” but others then quickly convert even this back to the more stackable elements. As in, “Yes, they’ll ‘like’ that he was national debate, not just local” or “They’ll like you better if you get that 33 up to a 34.” Or, if you’re president of that club next year. Or, try to make Eagle. It goes on.
The kids who come through as likable on their apps are just likable in a combo of normal, everyday ways. Part of it is that they stretch, yes. Some of it may be what they overcame, the determination and resilience. But it’s also the grounding, their perspectives, how they make a variety of choices, some compassion in action, some thinking skills.
It’s not much different than what makes us particularly like some of our kids’ friends. Top adcoms like to build a good community, as well as the academic strengths.
Are you now, or have you been, involved in admissions at a highly selective college? You give that impression, but if you have been asked that before and answered, I didn’t see that.
I’m the one who believes it’s not a “crapshot”, and with big accomplishments, the chances can be improved significantly.
To validate my theory, I took a look at the 2015 Intel STS finalists who should be college freshmen now and did some search. Out of the first 5 alphabetical names, I found college destinations for 4 of those. 1 MIT, 1 Rice, 2 Stanford. No doubt in my mind, most of those guys have their picks of colleges and I would put the chances to be at least 80%. The only reason I don’t say higher is because there is always possibility someone becomes arrogant or the schools think they have better choices and don’t think they are actually coming. I would imagine the same for IMO, RSI, etc.
Now there are multiple levels on those. Just use math as example, there is IMO, IMO camp, USAMO qualifier, AIME qualifier. Each level down, I would say the chances go down substantially since the schools don’t need that many math people.
However, knowing those “trump cards” doesn’t really help most people. Being a little bit politically incorrect here, many of those are gifted just like in athletics. You won’t be the best high school qb in country no matter how much effort you put in if you are not gifted in that aspect.
So depending on the level of accomplishments/hooks and how easy and replaceable those are, your chance may be 80%, 50%, 20%, 10%, 5%, and for most applicants, maybe <1%. The “crapshoot” mentality is really a misnomer, and I would say the top schools are promoting that, if only passively. Otherwise, how do they keep on reducing the acceptance rates if people know their realistic chances and stop applying. “Crapshoot” indicates it’s a lottery and you have as good a chance as other people, but really for many, it’s “no-shoot”. Just because you are above the median SAT for the accepted means nothing. You may still get your customary 15 minutes reading by the readers, but that’s about it.
I think the real issue is the fixation on getting into those top schools. Once in college, everyone is on a clean slate again and most top 100 schools won’t limit you potential if you are good. Now there will always be many 5 stars not panning out in college, just like in football recruits. But then in hindsight, they don’t deserve to be there in the first place. So don’t compare to those. Besides, even if you were one of those, your psychology may be miserable since you would have “failed” and your classmates all end up better than you.
So to perspective students, I say stop the fixation on those Ivy type of schools. You are not helping yourselves, only boosting their egos. Apply if you are ok with your realistic chance, but your path may be somewhere else.
Nestled within each student’s Common Application account, there is a form for his or her college counselor to fill out. At the end of the document asking about the school profile, student’s GPA, course rigor (etc), there is a grid titled, “Ratings.” The left column lists (in subsequent rows) the student’s characteristics for the counselor to rank: Academic Achievement, EC accomplishments, Personal Qualities & Character, and Overall. The “ratings” are presented horizontally across the grid as Below Average, Average, Good (Above Avg), Excellent (Top 10%), Outstanding (Top 5%), and Top Few. My guess is that students who have received multiple offers from top schools have received checks in the “Top Few” column for most if not all of the above mentioned student characteristics.
RSI opens all kinds of doors. About 50-80% end up at 3-5 of the top schools.
“WHAT I DON’T understand is how there seem to be a number of people”
To answer your question of “how”, the mathematical answer would be that if you add up all the probabilities, it is actually not zero, although probably a very low figure. So yes, since it is not impossible that just as some get rejected by all, it is possible that some will get accepted by all or get accepted by all but one, all but two, etc.
To answer your question of “why” would be an almost impossible task. Again, it seems to me that you are speculating that there must be some X factor that would make a student liked by all schools. As I’ve mentioned, I don’t think there is a “special ingredient” that compelled multiple schools to accept a single student. The simple reason why adcoms accept a student is because they ‘like’ that student. Although GPAs and SAT scores might provide limited objectivity, in the end, it’s a matter of personal preference and human judgement. Since people have different opinions, different schools will accept different students. And sometimes, as you’ve mentioned, there will be a COINCIDENCE when all opinions match.
Hence, the answer to your question would be that there is no answer.
^ Yet both outlier outcomes seem to happen over and over again on these boards and in IRL. Sure all 8 ivies results in the NYT article but 5 or 6 seems to happen quite a bit (I include all 20ish elites and Trustee Scholarships at USC etc in this), as does the Val with 2400 and nothing.
So cleary 2400 may not be enough but 2350 may sometimes result in an embarrassment of riches when combined with something else.
Thank you for all the responses
For those who mentioned competitive summer programs and research, this was something I had told both K1 and K2 to do but both wanted to be with their friends at other summer activities. People I know with multiple acceptances also did either free internship research at a prestigious hospital or did a competitive free or low cost STEM summer program.
For those who have a kid who loves History or English, and hates math (but presumably does ok in it) and has some time before applying, what would you suggest that is similar to research and STEM programs?
@SeekingPam TASP for sure
For kids who want poli sci, why not get involved in a campaign? Perfect timing. Even working the phones puts you in the environment. Some vol for a local congressperson. For all the kids claiming an interest in social justice of some sort (very common,) why not get involved with some local causes? (Or even via your religious group;most of them have something they work for in their communities.) I think most kids look at what’s on the hs roster. Or they frame this in terms of “number of hours,” rather than the experiences. The academic programs are fine, but again, can be at arm’s length, so to say.
There’s more. Just as it takes a certain sort of kid to think, gee, I want to pursue STEM and then find ways to expand their sci activities, the other kids can “show, not just tell.”
There’s an idea poor kids can’t do these things. But, the best of them are finding ways.
@lookingforward I want to go into public service, and I’m already doing the things you mentioned. A diploma from a top school does wonders to get your foot through the door though. Hobnobbing with the sons and daughters of movers and shakers is key, especially in politics where networking is really everything and your actual education means very little. Personally, I care very little about actual courses in college as they pertain to my future, as I have been an avid autodidact since I was young, as I assume most top students are.