How do top scorers on tests fail to gain admission to top schools?

Parents Forum
321

<p><a href=“calmom:”>quote</a>
Would you want your kid at a school full of introverted nerds who spent most of their time holed up in their rooms absorbed in their computers? I’m not saying that all power scorers are like that – but if they look at the numbers only they could very well end up with a student body top-heavy with brainy but self-absorbed students.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Would you prefer a student body heavy on students who consider playing football (or downing large numbers of shots at the football tailgate) a distinction, or academically unenthusiastic spawn of the upper classes, or other such categories? The tradeoff works in both directions, and a by-the-numbers matriculant pool might be in many ways more pleasant than an overly “holistic” one.</p>

322

<p>Yes, it does work both ways – which is why the schools do best by considering SAT + GPA along with all the other factors. I also think that there should be a place at the top schools for those brainy introverts – I just think there needs to be a good mix of introverts & extroverts, artists & scientists, etc. I personally don’t care at all about athletics – but I am sure that others do, and might find attending a college with no sports teams to be rather dull – just as college life with no theater or orchestra might also seem dull. No one is suggesting shifting completely over to the intangible, holistic factors – the point is that an admissions process which takes into account all factors will result in a more lively and heterogenous student body.</p>

323

<p>“I suppose if your own kid is kind of like that it could be a good fit - but the point is – if the college wants a vibrant student body, if they want participation in arts and athletics and student organizations – then it helps them to look at the bigger picture.”</p>

<p>It is extremely common for top math/science students/scorers to also excel at classical music. Maybe this doesn’t count as “the arts” in your mind.</p>

<p>Also, for most of MIT’s history athletic ability was a non-factor in admissions, and still they managed to field more varsity teams than any other school in the NCAA. (Maybe they are second to Harvard in # of teams, but no lower than that.)</p>

<p>Anyway, there’s a big overlap between the top range of scorers (1500+/1600) and the top students–most often they are the same people.</p>

324

<p>There seem to be no lack of interesting, involved students at the colleges that are most selective by admission test scores. I’ve been to most of those colleges on business trips, and none of them struck me as dull places. I think for a student who enjoys thinking about quantitative relationships, a high range of math scores is a good proxy for a collection of students who will be simpatico with that student. The same goes for a student who enjoys reading and thinking about words and their meanings, and the range of reading scores. Yes, I acknowledge there are other ways to be smart and creative besides being smart and creative in the testing room (that’s kind of what prompts this thread, that admissions officers acknowledge that too), but there is no proof here in this thread that being smart at testing is INIMICAL to being smart at acting, entrepreneurial business, social service, music, sports, or anything else that makes campus life inviting and interesting.</p>

325

<p>

Well, now, the ad com isn’t going to know that unless they also look at EC’s, are they? It sure doesn’t show up on the SAT report.

And which colleges are those that select primarily based on test scores and put little weight on EC’s or other intangibles? I’m sure there are a lot of parents of very high scoring students who would like to know which schools they are… since everyone seems so eager to complain about the difficulty of predicting admissions to the Ivy League.</p>

326

<p><a href=“calmom:”>quote</a>
“It is extremely common for top math/science students/scorers to also excel at classical music.”</p>

<p>Well, now, the ad com isn’t going to know that unless they also look at EC’s, are they? It sure doesn’t show up on the SAT report.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>But by-the-numbers admission would deliver plenty of those musicians anyway. That was the point, I think: you don’t necessarily lose this kind of “diversity”, you may even gain some, all that is sacrificed is the expensive, complex (and at the great majority of schools with low yield, ineffective) attempts by admissions to CONTROL whether the class delivers a lot of classical musicians or tuba players this year in comparison to theater specialists or athletes.</p>

<p>There is also, at the selective schools with EC-based admissions, a lot of LOST diversity of students with extracurricular activities that are off the admissions radar. Instead of spending 30 hours learning to cook (speaking of things that bring life to a college!), shoot a gun (diversity!), or whatever else they might do without “holistic” college admissions policies setting the scale of values, they spend 300+ hours on some standard EC in art, music or math contests because no smaller amount would help their admission. They might need to also spend 30 hours more SAT prep in a numbers-based system, but in the end it probably is less than what people are wasting on college driven ECs.</p>

327

<p>actually, they need to “control” for classical musicians because they have campus orchestras. Some U’s have several such classical groups, and need to fill all those spaces, or to fill the classroom seats with enough musicians who are merely likely to continue, even if not fully committed or intending to be music performance majors, etc. They need a variety of instruments, & those cannot be filled with merely math majors. That’s apart from other performance groups such as dance, drama.</p>

328

<p>and yes, I definitely want more students who can shoot guns. Then every campus can be a potential Virginia Tech redux. There ya’ go…</p>

329

<p>You are aware that holistic admission MIT, former workplace of Marilee Jones, has a gun club, right? Their holistic admissions practice has certainly limited the number of mentally unstable students as measured by, for instance, the incidence of on- and off-campus suicide.</p>

<p>The point could have been illustrated with guns or with hobbies of more immediate campus relevance such as cooking, fixing cars, interior decorating, and striptease. College admissions offices put out the signal that decisions are highly EC-influenced; that distorts and concentrates in particular directions the extracurricular activity of applicants, and the “EC diversity” of enrolled students is reduced.</p>

330

<p>

</p>

<p>There are solutions to inelastic shortages that do not involve the tuba-playing tail wagging the, um, dog of holistic admissions. It’s not a disaster if the number of musical ensembles fluctuates year to year but also the odd cooking or interior decorating club appears, or a student rock band, or more students who like to sit around playing poker or watching TV instead of playing medieval music.</p>

331

<p>Numbers-driven admissions work better for larger campuses where the needs of the institution for a a very wide variety of students can be met through the sheer size of the student body. This diversity, by the way, will also manifest itself in the wider range of academic excellence of the student body. In smaller campuses, the administration will want to ensure that the needs of the faculty (more students in classics and or South Asian studies, for instance) and of the college community (orchestra, athletics team)… And it’s not just for the entertainment of the students. Since the smaller colleges also tend to be private colleges and are dependent on alumni donations, they may have a vested interest as well in keeping the madrigal group going from year to year. Alumni seem to remember sports most fondly. When Swarthmore decided to eliminate its football team (which took up a large proportion of admitted students given the small overall size of the entering cohort and yet lost consistently) the alumni howled and the college reunions were dominated by protests, as though all students ten or 25 years before had been football players.
But large universities tend to be state universities and attract populations of applicants that may be more homogeneous that the universities might wish.</p>

332

<p>Many schools have a large number of recruited athletes. Except for conservatories, we never found a college that admitted to fill the orchestra. With one exception, admissions did not seem to be made on the basis of intended major.</p>

333

<p>Not on the basis of intended major, since students change their minds, but general area (humanities, social sciences, natural sciences). It’s no coincidence that only 1/3 of students generally major in the natural sciences at any given liberal arts college.</p>

<p>I read that in the past (things are bound to change now), colleges used EA/ED to address their institutional needs, and this included sports, orchestra, legacies, etc… They then used RD to fill in the gaps and also to admit BWRKs.</p>

334

<p>“And which colleges are those that select primarily based on test scores and put little weight on EC’s or other intangibles? I’m sure there are a lot of parents of very high scoring students who would like to know which schools they are… since everyone seems so eager to complain about the difficulty of predicting admissions to the Ivy League.”</p>

<p>I’m wondering where these schools are too. Would you consider UCSD one of those schools? Maybe Cal Tech? There’s got to be some American schools out there. Given the number of people that feel that is the way to fill a exemplary freshman class you would think those schools would be considered elite for some members of this board. Why even fuss with the Ivy League schools when there are schools that admit only the highest academic achievers? Leave the schools with holistic admissions to the people who find that valuable.</p>

335

<p>So what is the definition of “highest academic achievers?” GPAs and SAT scores? And that’s it?<br>
I would not be surprised if Catlech rejected a power scorer highest GPA in favor of someone who shone at international competitions but did not have perfect GPA and SATs. It would not need an adcom if all it had to consider was the AI.</p>

<p>See Tokenadult’s post 296: </p>

<p>

</p>

<p><a href=“https://www.commonapp.org/CommonApp/CollegeInfo.aspx[/url]”>https://www.commonapp.org/CommonApp/CollegeInfo.aspx&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>EDIT: crossposted with Tokenadult. At the other end of the spectrum is the “diamond in the rough” who has a passion for math and science but did not have the means to cultivate it through ECs and demonstrate it through national and international competitions.</p>

336

<p>I have seen Ben Golub, a recent graduate of Caltech who was formerly a student member of the undergraduate admission committee (Caltech always has current students on its admission committte) describe the way in which Caltech is “holistic” in admission decisions. The Caltech committee, like every admission committee, knows that some high school students grow up in neighborhoods with much more lavishly supported school systems than others, and some in more wealthy families. If a first-generation college student from a poor neighborhood shows a passion for math and science–which is what Caltech is always looking for–that appears to be limited in its expression more by the student’s environment than by the student’s drive, that student still has a decent chance to get into Caltech, even if the student’s achievements are “less impressive” than the achievements of a student in a very favorable environment. To the best of my knowledge and belief, most college admission committees operate that way, and as long as the student is prudent and explains his or her background, I don’t think that disadvantages anyone unfairly if done thoughtfully. It’s a desire to pick up “diamonds in the rough” like highly able students from limiting backgrounds that keeps most United States colleges from choosing students purely by the numbers, even though the numbers are important too.</p>

337

<p>I have ample evidence that my son’s interest and awards in Classics and music were a factor in admissions descisions and one notable exception where they were not. Not only did admissions letters mention them, but he was contacted by orchestra heads who had heard his supplemental materials. UChicago, Vassar, Amherst, Williams and Brown were all very interested in intended major and music involvement; Dartmouth wasn’t. This was made clear to us by chair of Dartmouth music department.</p>

338

<p>Post 330 is just plain silly, & the related similar ones by this poster, & I think he knows that.</p>

<p>Overwhelmed admissions committees at the nation’s Elites have not the time for micro-analysis of MINOR e.c.'s. Unless the existing e.c.(s) of the applicant are major ones where the U is concerned, the particular category of e.c. is not a significant aspect of admission – and also because the U knows full well that the student may or may not be continuing to participate/practice that, in either an informal or structured way. Applicants compete mostly on the basis of intellectual potential, not on personal interests. Obviously the U knows that any group of individuals will present with a random & varied mix of private interests, hobbies, passions – some of which may be shared in campus organizations, some informally, some not at all. </p>

<p>On one of the admission letters from HYP, the Director wrote a note indicating a desire for my D to continue one of the e.c.'s which was the subject of one application essay. The point of the note was to add a warm touch to the acceptance letter, and to communicate pleasure in reading the essay – hardly to state that that was the basis for her acceptance. (Which it couldn’t have been, as the campus itself offered no such e.c.; she would have had to pursue that elsewhere.) Lots of other applicants to such U’s have rec’d simliar personal notes on their acceptance letters, too – & some of their essays have similarly discussed e.c.'s. The warm note is to encourage yield, more than to encourage the pursuit of the e.c.</p>

<p>Hmmm. I can see it now: Likely Letters for cooking interests & NRA membership. </p>

<p>Competition for Elite college acceptance is an academic competition primarily, and the poster knows it.</p>

<p>Editing for response to mythmom’s recent post here: I consider her 2 examples of interests, major interests – one being academic, the other being a major e.c. My D was contacted during hosting month by one of the campuses she was intending to visit (a prof called us at home), requesting that she pursue a particular major. I gave him her cell # and she met with him during the hosting events, although ultimately choosing a diff. major.</p>

<p>(Profs, if you’re listening, my D and I both appreciated that personal touch even more than the note from the Admissions Director, from another U; it may have helped persuade her to choose that U, during hosting week. It’s also a great way to break-the-ice for a student with regard to approaching profs. When a prof is the first to make the invitation, it’s terrific for a freshman. Also, in her case, it cemented the fact that the Committee had actually read her app in detail, as she had forgotten that she had listed that as a possible major, & was shocked that the U remembered that fact. That was another Plus for their yield,)</p>

339

<p>In what I hope will be an irenic comment, I would like to suggest that these discussions tend to get heated at times because we are all trying to develop a “theory of mind” about college admission offices in the United States, and that is one of the hardest things for any human mind to do. My friendly suggestion to the readers of this thread is that it is a good idea to meet college admission officers in person when that opportunity presents itself, as it does in cities around the country every spring and fall, </p>

<p><a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?t=233416[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?t=233416&lt;/a&gt; </p>

<p>because seeing in person how college admission officers respond on the spot to random questions from students and parents, and noting what issues they emphasize in prepared talks and what issues they ignore, helps develop a more nuanced sense of how their minds work. Perhaps no two admission committees operate exactly alike, nor does any admission committee operate this year exactly as it did last year, but there are some broad patterns of standard practice that are administered by the human beings you can meet at college information sessions. If this thread raises as many questions as it answers, one place to take the questions is to the next round of college information sessions in your town. I’d be delighted to hear what you are told by the admission officers you meet in person.</p>

340

<p>Regarding the importance of prospective major, my S received a letter and a long email from the Chair of the department he was interested in, as well as several recruiting emails from the adcom, all after he had been accepted. So they definitely noticed what he intended to major in.</p>