<p>The P.2 Ratings are not about quantitative standing but what the GS thinks (or hears.) So you can get a val who doesn’t get top 1% checks. Or schools that think Val is “Excellent” and the higher checks are for the few once in a lifetime sorts. (Even though it also says, comparing this class.) Many report exact standing. I think we have to settle for YMMV. </p>
<p>There is no hard and fast rule about how GC prose is taken. What he/she checks has to be backed up in the words. And, what the GC thinks, from that perspective, can be secondary to what the actual teachers think- which is one reason it’s so important to pick the right teachers for LoRs. Not just those who “love” the kid, but those relevant to the future academic direction. </p>
<p>GC’s rating is not done just by GC and it is not subjective as one may think, at least at my kid’s school. D2’s GC had to get the headmaster’s approval to see if she could check off the top 1% box for D2 even though she was ranked #2 out of 160 students. At D1’s school, they had a team of 4-5 college counselors, and I believe they also had to agree on student ratings - not everyone can be ranked top 1%.</p>
<p>I see the CA says they don’t even have to submit that P.2 rating, to send in an SSR. I can’t dispute what your school does- especially since I know there can be competition within a hs. But not all hs have this team effort. Or even a “team.” YMMV applies. And OF, I do think you were right to check this in advance.</p>
<p>But the colleges get what they get. Of course it can be subjective. Or formula. Because there are lots of GC out there, working in lots of different contexts. Main thing: kids should get to know theirs, check what they can, in advance. </p>
<p>Grades and transcripts are viewed in the context of the school. If this kid was shown as ranking out of the top 30, and he had classmates applying to the same schools that were shown as being in the top 10, you KNOW that was going to affect his chances, unless he was a recruited athlete. Which he wasn’t.</p>
<p>Does it mean he would have gotten in to the Ivies if the rank were correct? No, of course not. Does it mean that they chose to take his classmates instead of him because of it? Quite possibly. </p>
<p>I hope, for the sake of the peace of mind of the OP and son, that they find that this error was confined to the Val list.</p>
<p>Well, if they find out that the rank was incorrectly reported, that would give them something to convey to his wait list schools, if he prefers any of them to his acceptances. One would hope that the GC would make a call, at least.</p>
<p>The lower reading scores in the mix could have taken him out of the running at the very top schools, but those schools are such a crapshoot that anyone with stats like OP’s son and better could be denied. There is really no saying with them. But there is a grouping of schools where the outcome is puzzling.</p>
<p>I would suspect LORs. They are notoriously bad from most schools to the point that colleges often just skim them for key words like “best I’ve had”, “absolutely top of the class”, “never had a student so wonderful” type of accolades. Those “key” words make or break the LORs. A lot of the counselors and teachers do not even bother to check off those things on the rec form just writing “see attached” and the same rec is attached to all of the recs and submitted. There are some killer words and words that kill, “diligence”, 'hard worker", ‘plugger", "grinder’, even “dedicated” are not what one wants in LORs and a lot of GCs are clueless about that which is what make the system work, as they will put the words down that come to mind when they write all of those recs they have to write. That’s where the very top high schools shine. They know. And they know how to formulate the letters that give their kids the best chances of getting into them most selective schools. There even is a list of certain schools where the kids are given some academic leeway and where these things are generally top grade.</p>
<p>With teachers, “best ever” and then no supporting detail can be a problem. Or supported by something not relevant. Or a teaser, then goes off topic- two lines of praise, then two long paragraphs about ECs. I’ve never seen plugger or grinder, but plenty of “always ready to take notes.” As if that informs. </p>
<p>Rader: are you Asian? If so it is well known that being Asian results in a penalty in the SAT interpretation. For Asians this penalty is approximately 160 points on the two-part SAT I. So in this context your son’s SAT I scores would be: 600 CR and 720 M. </p>
<p>What state are you from? If you are Asian and also from an over-represented state (like CA, TX or NY) then I can see why he was doomed.</p>
<p>Oh, not that again. The guy who authored that even says: don’t assume this means anything, it’s only an initial look, draw no conclusions. </p>
<p>Elite colleges don’t go off and reduce scores or set higher standards for Asian American kids. But yes, as mentioned earlier, geo diversity can be a tough one. </p>