<p>If post 540 is referring to me by the snide comment about win-win, then this poster has never read my posts or my previous comments carefully. I am not an advocate of “fuzzy intangibles,” never have been, and you are confusing me with someone else. Both my “win-win” comment & my previous comments about holistic admissions are in the sense in which marite describes them: supporting of tangible, concrete, academic accomplishments, most of which are actually quanitifiable, all of which are verifiable and substantive, with objective reference points.</p>
<p>Siserune:</p>
<p>My argument is that, within the context of “holistic review,” which, in the opinion of some puts undue emphasis on non-academic factors, a numerical holistic review is being undertaken–as epiphany understands.<br>
I am convinced that, except for a very few clear-cut cases, adcoms looks at academic factors in a holistic manner; in other words, they do not confine their evaluation only to SAT+SATII+GPA but also look for academic awards, strength of curriculum, and other instances of academic achievement and/or promise. It is quite likely that a numerical rating is assigned to such factors.</p>
<p>In fact, I do not believe that non-academic factors play as much of a role in admissions as people suspect they do. ECs, hooks and tips come into play because there are more highly qualified students than there are places. </p>
<p>It is a good idea, however, to be precise in our use of terms, and I agree that most people understand holistic review to emphasize non-academic factors.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Following the practices mentioned above puts a college in pretty good company: </p>
<p><a href=“https://www.commonapp.org/CommonApp/Members.aspx[/url]”>https://www.commonapp.org/CommonApp/Members.aspx</a> </p>
<p>Within the ambit of considering “subjective criteria,” colleges can look mostly for intellectual acumen of the kind that goes beyond choosing the correct bubble on a multiple-choice test, or for the ability to perform well in a by-the-numbers fashion even against bad odds caused by poverty or societal prejudice, or for ceteris paribus geographical or ethnic diversity, or for athletic prowess, or for whatever they please. Different colleges have different admission priorities. On the one hand, if a student has really, really strong test scores, it is hard to imagine the student will have no offers of admission at all. On the other hand, a student who has a favorite college might just as well deal with what that college appears to be looking for (after all, that’s part of what makes that college desirable to the student) and bring forward an application not only with strong test scores but also with other desirable characteristics. Different students can differ reasonably in how they resolve these trade-offs.</p>
<p>“In fact, I do not believe that non-academic factors play as much of a role in admissions as people suspect they do. ECs, hooks and tips come into play because there are more highly qualified students than there are places.”</p>
<p>Nor do I. I believe that “fuzzies,” if any poster wishes to call them that – do not usually replace the academics. They usually supplement them, admitting one fine student “over” another otherwise equally fine student. Occasionally they compensate for less dazzling academics if the e.c., hook, or tip is exceptional, extraordinary, of great value to the U practically, monetarily, in some other way. Most students seeking Elite U admission are not getting in by being merely ‘competitive’ in the non-academic area while non-competitive (to that U) in the academic area. I hope my position is clear now, with regard to that.</p>
<p>Separately, I approve of holistic review in a dual, or even triple sense that I believe can be applied. I think as it applies to academic performance, a better word is probably evaluative or qualitative OF THE TANGIBLE EVIDENCE OF ACADEMICS, whose tangibles can usually be quantified in one sense or another: i.e., Valedictorian out of a class of ___ students, Rank #3 out of a class of <strong><em>students + NM finalist in a high cutoff state + the following first place national prizes (</em></strong>__). Etc. </p>
<p>That would be level #1 of “holistic.” Level #2 – which is as perhaps how most people use it – is the level at which the whole candidate, academics + nonacademics, is examined relative to the other whole candidates, academics + nonacademics. (The way marite is using it in her most recent post.)</p>
<p>Level #3 would be selection of a ‘whole’ class based on the combined individual attributes of serious candidates, academically + nonacademically. The three ways in which I am separately applying the use of the term is not necessarily the way that admissions officers have always expressed it, or the context in which they have used it. However, all three aspects of admissions (however those aspects are labeled) have been referred to by these officers over the last several years, & explained similarly to the way I’ve explained them.</p>
<p>(Generally, they have mostly used the term ‘holistic’ to refer to Level 2; occasionally have used it in additional contexts.)</p>
<p><a href=“marite:”>quote</a>
within the context of “holistic review,” … a numerical holistic review is being undertaken
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Of course. That is not only true, but also never disputed in any CC thread that I have come across.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>My view is that the whole idea of anti-holistic academic selection (“SAT+grades” as though exclusive of other academic factors) is a strawman or, if that term has unwarranted negative associations, a misunderstanding of the discussion.</p>
<p>I have never heard anyone who argues for pure academic selection show hostility to the idea of using further academic metrics such as math competition results, grades in college courses, research papers published, or whatever else, as credentials. It goes without saying that people who favor metrics such as the SAT-I and SAT-II (until better is available) are not against the AP/IB/GCSE/GRE (effectively an SAT-III) or AMC/AIME scores (effectively an SAT-IV) or math/physics olympiads or research papers (metaphorically an SAT-V) being used with even greater weight, when available. </p>
<p>There is some room for philosophical dispute within the pure-academic camp as to the value or legitimacy of grades as a selection factor, but as far as relatively objective factors are concerned (tests, competition results, refereed publications) I see no evidence of any opposition to their use.</p>
<p>If you wish to take literally the statements of some posters in this thread, then at the most it seems they are saying that perfect SAT + ACT at an early age is a strong enough indicator of talent that little else is needed. I see no implication that other qualifications aren’t as good or better (winning math olympiad, qualifying for RSI or Intel finals, etc).</p>
<p>Siserune:</p>
<p>You and I are in agreement about the importance of academic factors other than SAT+SATII+GPA. However, we also read time and again complaints that xyz with perfect SAT and sky-high GPA was not admitted to HYP as though that should be the only criterion for admission, and that the reason xyz was not admitted was that HYP practice holistic review in order to privilege certain types of students and disadvantage students with profiles similar to xyz.</p>
<p>My whole point has been that there is more to academic achievement than SAT+SATII+GPA, and that holistic review enables adcoms to include those academic achievements.</p>
<p>So you and I are not in disagreement at all. I am trying to inject some subtlety to a thread about why “high scorers” (meaning high scorers of SAT) are not admitted to top schools.</p>
<p>“My whole point has been that there is more to academic achievement than SAT+SATII+GPA, and that holistic review enables adcoms to include those academic achievements.”</p>
<p>In addition to a review of academic achievements --some quantitatively assessed, such as scores on standardized & on national subject-specific tests… and on recognitions with numerical values and in a numerical context; some qualitatively assessed, such as recommendations which note growth, outcomes, and intellectual potential, here’s what holistic review also does:</p>
<p>Identifies the intellectually efficient students. </p>
<p>The student with a 4.0 in classes taken in high school settings, + a 2400 SAT may be quick & have enormous potential, but those data points do not in themselves show that. However, a student with a 3.9-4.0 in those same classes, plus some 800’s or near that among his scores, + academics outside the high school setting + tests/academic awards outside high school + at least one very time-consuming extracurricular activity that requires regular discipline (serious sports, serious performing arts) + one position of significant responsibility (part-time employment, managing an activity, leading a serious effort outside of a high school club), this is a student who is less risk-adverse to an elite University. He or she has already proven that the academic level attained has not required a 24/7 attention to high school grades & test prep. </p>
<p>Further, on a practical level, it also shows success with managing competing responsibilities within a finite time frame – an important attribute for success in college. </p>
<p>The Elites do admit plenty of students with 2400’s or near that. It’s just that the ones in that category that they admit, have much more than a perfect score to show for themselves.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Since this is an anonymous board, I can’t do anything else but take what folks write literally…</p>
<p>I think you would find that the Intel or Math Olympiad winners, RSI participants, etc. are a subset of the talented high SAT or ACT scorers at young ages. There is plenty of actual evidence to back up this particular claim (read the SET newsletter, for example).</p>
<p>Now, you might find more distinct categories when comparing young high scorers with other “hooks”, such as sports, legacies, etc. I don’t suggest one would find as much overlap there.</p>
<p>I have been fascinated by this thread and have been reading it well into the night and again this am, and I just have to respond to something.
In reply to post #344
Absolutely disagree. Look here
<a href=“http://www.unl.edu/amc/e-exams/e9-imo/e9-1-imoarchive/2007-ia/2007[/url]”>http://www.unl.edu/amc/e-exams/e9-imo/e9-1-imoarchive/2007-ia/2007</a>
imoteamannounce.shtml
and here
<a href=“http://www.aapt.org/olympiad2007/team.cfm[/url]”>http://www.aapt.org/olympiad2007/team.cfm</a>
Both Exeter and Andover are excellent breading places for high achievers.</p>
<p>Allmusic:</p>
<p>The point is not that most metrics of academic achievement correlate with one another. They often do. But a strict SAT+GPA cutoff could fail to capture academic exceptional performers, many of whom are highly lopsided. It is not unusual for a USAMO or Intel finalist to have less than stellar SAT verbal scores or only a slightly above average GPA (which could be brought down by lower grades in English, foreign languages or social studies). </p>
<p>A school like MIT for instance will be very careful when evaluating applicants so that it does not arbitrarily disqualify such lopsided candidates and will allow a high AIME score for instance to compensate for a relatively low verbal SAT. The expectation of the school in admitting such a student is that it can help him remedy his less than stellar verbal skills with extra tutoring and extensive writing requirements after enrollment. On the other hand, MIT does not expect a 2400 SAT scorer to be competitive in a major math college competition such as the Putnam for instance. These types are typically well defined an identified before their college enrollment. </p>
<p>Therefore, in the MIT context which I know best, a holistic approach based mostly on academic achievements will give much greater weight to AMC/AIME scores than SAT scores for instance. In fact, anybody who scores over an 8 on the AIME is classified as “academic superstar” by the adcoms, and while not guaranteed admission such a candidate will have much greater chance than a 2400 SAT scorer.</p>
<p>“I think you would find that the Intel or Math Olympiad winners, RSI participants, etc. are a subset of the talented high SAT or ACT scorers at young ages. There is plenty of actual evidence to back up this particular claim (read the SET newsletter, for example).”</p>
<p>^^ Fine. Then that will happen, won’t it? As I’ve said before, high scorers have nothing to worry about if they think they can demonstrate something besides high scores. But admissions committees are being perfectly reasonable, then, to look for some sort of matching achievement, if it is, in fact, an indicator of ability. And if those particular named contests are not available for any reason to the student, other evidence of intellectual initiative should be there, since others DO have it.</p>
<p>In regards to post #460 (sorry guys, I am reading from the begining, that’s how fascinating it is 
Tokenadult writes:
I grew up in Europe and the admission system was exactly like Tokenadult describes. Two to four days of exams that can be compared to AP exams here. Some of those exams were written (no multiple choice though] some were oral. All of us had to take a written exam from a foreign language followed by the oral one. Other exams dependent on the type of major one was selecting.
All that testing was done the same spring as a HS competency exam. You had to pass the HS competency in order to take college entrance exam. And HS competency was always math,first language and a subject of choice which in my case was history. Then for college entrance I had to take history (written, not multiple choice), first language essay (long, 3 hours), oral exam from history and grammar of my first language, written and oral second language and a written test from the history of theater (I wanted this really obscure major). There were 234 applicants for 18 slots. Only two colleges offering that major in the country. No wonder college admission was avidly sought after.</p>
<p>One of the aspects of American college admission that is so different from the process prevailing in other countries is that it happens before, and in many cases well before, the end of secondary school. As a result, there is a certain amount of guesswork involved as to how well prepared a student is. This is in addition to the lack of national curriculum and of a uniform sequence of courses.</p>
<p>I took the bac too long ago to remember exactly what happened. But the bac was/is a far more comprehensive affair that SAT +3 SATIIs.<br>
At any rate, the bac happened at the end of 12th grade (with a first part at the end of 11th grade along the same lines) and covered every single subject; some subjects included both a written and an oral part. For the history oral, I remember being grilled about the Pacific War and asked to discuss the role of Gen. MacArthur. Having recently learned that I had been admitted to an American university, I was emboldened to pronounce MacArthur the American way. A huge frown on the part of the examiner caused me to forgo any further attempt and go back to calling him G</p>
<p>The topic is how do top scores on tests fail to gain admission to top schools. It was generally assumed test means SATI. Then the answer is obvious, SAT1 is just too easy to be able to distinguish the good from the really good. However SAT1 is not the only test. SAT2 is more difficult. It should be noted when UC was arguing against using SAT1 for admission, they were not against SAT2. However, SAT2 still suffers from a too generous curve, at least in the math and the sciences. AP calculus suffers a similar problem. It should be pointed out some criteria which are consider ec are really standardized tests. The AMC can be think of as a souped-up SAT2, it is still multiple choice. AIME is not multiple choice, but it can still be graded by anyone who can match 3 digit numbers. This is to keep the administration cost down. AMC and AIME are much harder. They are designed to separate the really good from the merely good. It is possible to argue about the qualification of student with a perfect score in a SAT1 subject. However it is difficult to argue against perfect score in AIME or even just the AMC.</p>
<p>Even the GPA is determined to a large extent by tests. Of course there are academic factors that are not test based, such as research, letter of recommendation, and there are non-academic factors considered for admissions too. However, many arguments in this thread has not been fair to “test” because they only consider SAT1 to be “test”.</p>
<p>boomgeedad –</p>
<p>Oh come on. The SAT ain’t that easy sir. Just 238 perfect 2400 scores last year. Many of us just really don’t go with you to this dismissal of it as a blunt instrument not fine grained enough to find the true diamonds in the mud. Sorry but I beg to differ. And I still think math olympiads, intel, etc are highly dependent on parent intervention and SES. The SAT and ACT are much more fair measures and very, very few kids ace them so no real dangers that relying on them will stampede the selective schools. If you want to say big endowment big name schools want varsity athletes with lots of testosterone to go wring bucks out of wall street then fine. But if you’re trying to say the four-hour SAT is unable to discern for us who has lots of g’s then I say – nah!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What kind of evidence would a researcher have to investigate to determine whether math olympiad tests are more or less dependent on parental intervention and SES than SAT I or ACT scores? Do you have citations for any research publications on this issue?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s not the point. The point is that the SAT measures 10th grade math knowledge and there are many many students who, whether or not they achieved perfect SAT scores, have learned math well beyond algebra II and geometry, even beyond calculus. This includes many who did not participate in Olympiads.</p>
<p>mammall - “And I still think math olympiads, intel, etc are highly dependent on parent intervention and SES”.</p>
<p>No. Parents can push kids to practice SAT to have significant improvement on scores but cannot push kids to do well on math olympiads and intel because math olympiad and intel are really hard and require continuous work from 7th grade to 12th grade. A typical public high school may have 5-10 kids with 2300+ on SAT but may not have anyone with 5+ on AIME. Also, most kids who do well on math olympiad already have SAT Math 800 when they were 12 or 13 year old.</p>
<p>Sure – many, many score 800 in math but how many 800 on all three sections? That is the reason the SAT is in fact extremely useful. Good night folks. I just think sometimes you are all singing to the choir and need a note of dissonance in your midst.</p>