<p>Adcoms look at a lot of things other than test scores. It’s a holistic admissions process. Test scores often lie at the bottom of the list of criteria, below GPA, EC’s and recommendations. Harvard rejects tons of 2400’s every year; actually, I bet every Ivy/Ivy-equivalent/top LAC could say so. Why? The reason, quite simply, is that there was something else that didn’t click. Oh, the wonders of a holistic admissions process…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I am not sure what you meant by that part of your post. If you meant that your post was not supported by logic, I’ll be happy to concede that point to you!</p>
<p>In the meantome, I do not need Business Week nor Avery’s and Hoxby’s revealed preference simulation game to help me read and interpret the SAT averages reported by the colleges on the CDS surveys. They are written black on white. </p>
<p>No amount of misplaced grandiloquence will make your statements less unfounded.</p>
<p>I’m not sure what exactly your point is with the SAT data or why you think it contradicts my statements. The Common Data Set numbers are too crude to contradict them in any case. </p>
<p>I do know that the underlying data set, not the simulation game, from the Revealed Preference and Early Admission studies, showed extremely high admissions rates for candidates with high SAT I+II at the elite LACs, without even bothering to control for grades (which can only help when high). This is a direct measurement of admission rate, not “grandiloquence” as you call it.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>They applied to the wrong schools ;).</p>
<p>Yeah, I’m being facetious to some extent, but we can swap anecdotes all day long. </p>
<p>If the question is why don’t American universities base their admissions solely on test numbers as do some famous foreign institutions - the answer is that they just don’t. Some of the reasons are good, some are bad, and some are well-intentioned, but perhaps silly (I’m thinking of the notion that the admissions people can pick out the great leaders of America).</p>
<p>This is an interesting thread, especially because it shows the limitiations in our understanding of the admissions process. Consider:</p>
<ul>
<li><p>The SAT is a poor predictor of college success, especially when compared to HS grades. The CB’s own data shows this. I think it safe to assume adcoms know this too!</p></li>
<li><p>As others have said, the reliability of the SAT (i.e. how close in score will repeat testers come) is only so so, especially at the upper ends, where one question (marking error, for example) can lead to large swings in scores.</p></li>
<li><p>Assume adcoms look at both grades and test scores (a safe assumption!). Then, you can divide kids into 4 groups, High/low grades matched to high/low test scores (i.e. HGHT, HGLT, LGHT, LGLT). A lot of published work has shown that the HGHT group is the one that gets in with a very high frequency. Caroline Hoxby used to have some data on her website that showed this. Conversely, the LGLT group is never considered. Looking at the remaining two, HGLT and LGHT, which group do you think the adcoms will prefer? Slackers or Poor Test Takers? Or neither, because they filled their class with HGHT! (and a smattering of special cases, as these posts have suggested)</p></li>
</ul>
<p>Thank goodmess adcoms don’t just look at test scores or grades. Our kids and our schools are far to varied for simple formulas.</p>
<p>"If the question is why don’t American universities base their admissions solely on test numbers as do some famous foreign institutions - the answer is that they just don’t.:</p>
<p>Because American universities view more than academics as being important in students’ college experience. From what I’ve seen, in other countries, academics are the sole purpose of college. In the U.S., however, extracurriculars, socialization, gaining a broader perspective by interacting with a diverse group of peers, developing strong leadership skills, all are considered an important part of the college experience at most colleges, particularly the most competitive ones.</p>
<p>Most top American colleges view part of their mission as developing leaders in all fields, and developing students who are committed to improving their communities, not just getting the skills to succeed in their fields. I don’t think that most universities abroad view these things as part of their mission. I think they are more focused on developing intellectuals and scholars.</p>
<p>It’s interesting that when people around the world rate universities, the American universities dominate: <a href=“http://i.cs.hku.hk/~tse/topten.html[/url]”>http://i.cs.hku.hk/~tse/topten.html</a></p>
<p>Thanks for the many interesting replies in this thread.</p>
<p>“What were the top academic awards that this young man won?”</p>
<p>Hi marite, my memory may be failing me (no surprise 
), but I think he was 1st in the state math exam (don’t remember the name of it) and the state science olympiad. No national recognition that I can recall. I suspect the issue was that he could not be differentiated from the other “200” perfect score valedictorian applicants. Whether this was because his application/essays did not do this, his letters of recommendation did not do this, or because he was just not different, I don’t know. I do know that he and his parents were devastated because they had always figured he would be at Northstarmom’s alma mater. And, yes, to us, U of M and UPenn are not shabby. But, to the kids from this small high school where 1/3 of the class ends up attending U of M (and these are the kids in the 2nd decile and below), U of M doesn’t hold the cachet that it does to others.</p>
<p>I suspect there are several lessons that can be gleaned from this young man’s experience for the student and parent who is willing to look: 1) Choose the college list wisely, and try to be as thrilled about the safety as the first choice, though this is not always easy; 2) The admissions staff only see what is on paper…the application, the essays, the letters, the transcript, the scores…so be meticulous all the way through and make each piece of paper count; 3) The admissions staff needs to remember YOU amongst the 1000’s of applications they read…so something needs to be memorable; 4) Even if you don’t get accepted to your #1 choice, you can be happy where you land. This young man loves UPenn, so I hear.</p>
<p>“If roughly 40% of these slots go to students with admissions preferences e.g. URM’s, recruited athletes, legacies, etc., then there are only 12,000 slots avalable to students competing on the basis of a combination of academic merit and EC’s (excluding recruited athletes).”</p>
<p>Where did you get the 40% figure?</p>
<p>Landing at U Penn., one of the country’s top schools indicates that what the young man did worked very well even though all of the other Ivies rejected him.</p>
<p>With a perfect SAT, gpa and ACT, I also suspect he was at least a Presidential Scholar finalist. From what I’ve seen, perfect scores and a 4.0 unweighted gpa are the way to get that designation.</p>
<p>If so, then his experience is a lesson to many that one can’t assume that very high stats will open the doors to places like Ivies. Many people would have assumed that a student like him could gain acceptance to any school he chose, but that’s clearly not the case.</p>
<p>Guiltguru, I had to chuckle at your last post. We are also from MI, and I understand exactly what you mean about U of M not holding the cachet that it does to others. My best friend’s boarding school son is coming to UM this fall … he could have had his pick of lots of schools across the US (parents are living in China, so location is irrelevant to him) … my D can’t get over the fact that he picked UM! Of course, “everyone” from her school goes there (or if they don’t “go there,” they were accepted there). It’s hard for OOS folks to understand that UM is kind of like a safety in these parts!</p>
<p>These days, at the top US schools, you need to have a memorable personality in addition to the stellar stats. Even though these elite schools say that each application is read by two (or three) admissions officers, imagine what it is like reviewing the number of applications they get; the adcom must be swayed by distinctive applications and ECs, not test scores and GPA (although obviously those are essential as well). Since the Ivies no longer do admissions officer interviews on campus and instead rely on alumni or volunteer student ones, that means that most applicants get only two chances to stand out from others: their essays and their alumni interviews.</p>
<p>I think your child’s school’s reputation and connections with the school is the most important deciding factor concerning acceptance. (with no legacy or other special factor).</p>
<p>I have seen candidates report over and over on CC that they had Great Scores and didn’t get in.</p>
<p>What I have noticed over and over is that they took the Math1SAT2. Even if you are a humanities major, schools want a top score in Math2.</p>
<p>Schools also like the most challenging curriculums. There have been hundreds of discussions about this, but if your school offers it, IB Diploma is considered more challenging than AP at most tier 1 schools.</p>
<p>AP scores on AP TESTS are not considered at a lot
of schools for admissions.</p>
<p>References, esp. from the GC are very important.
Begin cultivating this relationship Freshman year.
GC usually knows which teachers are good rec writers and he will advice you whom to use.</p>
<p>
Provocative thought! Especially when you realize that some schools could fill an entire class with High SAT High Grade kids!</p>
<p>
with no insider information I would add a third item to your list … recommendations … some recommendations can help make the accomplishments on the application really stand out.</p>
<p>I do not think that alumni interviews carry a lot of weight. They have not done so for quite a while. One of our friends did interviews for Harvard. He told of his experience with two applicants. One, anAsian-American young woman who was so nervous she could not get a word out and burst into tears. He wrote in his report he was unable to get an impression of her because of her nervousness so the adcom would have to rely on other parts of her applications. It did, and she got in. Apparently, the non-oral parts were stellar. Another applicant oozed self-confidence and had a great interview. He did not get in. My friend did not find out what the rest of his application was like.
My S had two interviews (one at MIT where he did not apply). Neither was very informative. The two interviewers spent more time discussing possible courses and housing than trying to find out what made him tick. He got admitted to Stanford without an interview or even visiting the campus.</p>
<p>Quiltguru: Many thanks. That confirms my suspicions about this young man’s profile. It is very hard for bright students to realize how many other bright students there are, and how many are applying to the same places!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>While it is true that an interview MIGHT provide a chance to shine, it is important to remember that interviewers are NOT trained adcoms, and that the importance of the interview varies considerably among the schools. Stanford, for instance, is still not requiring nor offering an interview. Of course, neither does Stanford toss a football in the Ivy League! </p>
<p>At many schools, the alumni interviews do not factor for much --if any-- in the admission equation, as the role of the interview is seen mostly as a recruiting device and something that makes the alumni happy. </p>
<p>Happy alumni represent happy donors!</p>
<p>Yes, 3togo, I forgot to add recommendations. Too many bright high schoolers fail to establish a bond with their favorite teachers – and thus end up with standard recommendations instead of enlightening ones.</p>
<p>Okay, okay! I amend my two chances: essays and recommendations.</p>
<p>The Ivies seem to have different takes on alumni interviews. My alma mater seems to value them less, while my husband’s graduate school Ivy seems to value them about the same.</p>