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

Parents Forum
61

<p>" 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."</p>

<p>I’m an alum interviweer for Harvard, and have chaired our local alum interviewing committee and have been on a national committee for this.</p>

<p>My experience is that Harvard will arrange second interviews in situtations like the above. Another thing that Harvard will do is to call the student’s GC and recommenders to get further info that will help them assess whether the student shoudl be admitted.</p>

<p>I have had follow-up calls from the admissions officer, so that I know that the interviews are taken into consideration. From what I can figure out, admissions officers make follow up calls to alum interviewers when they are very interested in a student, but the interview report doesn’t support what’s in the application. I imagine that the reverse could be true, too.</p>

<p>I’ve interviewed plenty of students who oozed self confidence and were highly verbal, and who also exaggerated their achievements. Good alum interviweers who also know their communities can tell the difference between activities that look great on paper, but in reality are puffery, and activities that may seem minor on paper, but do represent significant achievements for a person in that community.</p>

<p>For instance, virtually every student who applies to an Ivy in the city where I live has a national rating in a certain academicly-related club. Such an achievement is no big deal in my community. Other activities that could seem minor to people unfamiliar with my community actually are big deals because to do them, the student has to have the passion, confidence and social and other skills to break ground.</p>

62

<p>

Test scores are a relatively weak predictor of freshman year college success, which HS GPA tracks well. It’s not nearly so clear what is a better predictor of overall academic success thoughout undergraduate years, grad school placement/success, etc., which were not the focus of the study I think you’re referring to. I suspect that you would find the GPA/success correlation to be weaker over the long haul. I also suspect that while the number of washouts in the HTLG set would be higher than the HGLT group, the ratio of grad school placements, etc., also might be higher. Accordingly, rational adcoms might well look to the strategic goals of their school to make this assessment. State flagship U? HGLT preference makes perfect sense. Ambitious LAC striving to make a name for the future? HTLG students might be your target. Top 20 private research U? To the extent you depart from the HGHT group, you might pick a few from each.</p>

63

<p>My question about interviewers remains </p>

<p>“Quid custodit ipsos custodes?”</p>

64

<p>kluge, </p>

<p>You raise some good points. I suspect the LGHT kid gets an edge at most places, due to the popularity of SAT score ranges as a factor in school rankings and even prospective student evaluations. One only need to note the number of colleges that offer big boosts to NM finalists regardingless of grades to understand the significance of test scores (albeit indirectly in the case of NM).</p>

<p>Regarding the predictor value beyond first year, hard to say. Certainly the schools that dropped mandatory SATs claim it makes no difference. But they are not the most competitive in the land. </p>

<p>The sad fact is that most colleges know these answers through their institutional research. You do know that they study the impact of their admissions decisions? Too bad the stuff is never published in a way that we lay folks have access to the data. But they DO know what admissions factors are correlated with grades, grad school admissions, fellowships, alum donations, you name it.</p>

65

<p>Do the colleges know the answers from their institutional research? These
can be tricky questions to answer, and a lot of inhouse research is done
sloppily (judging from the “studies” that I’ve seen school districts pay
consultants for). It’s time some data saw the light of day.</p>

66

<p>Does anyone remember a show, I think on PBS, about 5 years ago which followed the applications of four or five kids at UCBerk? There was a young African American man, a relatively wealthy white girl (chubby with blond hair)… anyway, this show talked about why some get in and some don’t. It actually showed some members of the adcom around the table, going over applications. It was fascinating. I’m going to have to see if I can find a title; does anyone know it?</p>

67

<p>geomom, </p>

<p>The colleges do their own insitutional research. This is entirely different from public schools doing “research” which, IMHO, is more political theater.</p>

<p>yes, the questions are tricky, but they have massive datasets. Remember that many of these schools have sample sets of many thousands of individuals.</p>

68

<p>On the whole, I’d like to see studies back up decision making processes,
but I’ll relate a story here that supports the role of intuition:</p>

<p>A few years ago, I took a group ski lesson. I was really excited about
it because I was really motivated to be a better skiier, and at the time,
the cost of the lesson was a real dent in my budget. To be sorted into
groups, we had to walk up a short slope, and then make a few turns
skiing down. Well, I was so excited that I made one turn, and tripped
on the next one. How embarrassing!!! I dusted myself off, hung my head and
skied on down. To my surprise, they put me in the next to top group!</p>

<p>I asked the instructor “I just humiliated myself; why am I in your group?”
He said, “That’s OK, we can tell what kind of skiier you are just by the
way you walk up the hill.”</p>

<p>The point is, maybe, just maybe admissions committees have more good
intuition than we give them credit for. Or maybe they just liked the “passion”
I showed for skiing. :)</p>

69

<p>fencersmother:</p>

<p>I believe the program was “Secrets of the SAT.” It was tied to the book by Nicholas Lehmann. The website had essays, comments on the essays and transcripts, and decisions.</p>

70

<p>A more likely possibility for the show fencersmother referred to is “making the grade”, a Bay Window show produced by KQED. The show was about the application of kids from different socioeconomical background applying to UCB and the decision process. OTOH it was about a white guy and a Filipina girl, so this may not be the right one either.</p>

71

<p>AS to QuiltGuru’s daughter’s classmate and kids of the like- who are solely academic and really are not into other EC’s…</p>

<p>Here is a philosophical question. Kids are implored to ‘be themselves.’ What if being yourself means you are not going to do volunteer work or sports or even music. What if it means that you are just going to do academics.</p>

<p>In talking with heaps of kids who are now in their 2nd and 3rd year of college-- many, many drop their EC’s like a lead balloon the minute they get to school. Isn’t it okay for a kid to never do them to begin with-- if that is being true to themselves.</p>

<p>The only mistake that boy made was that he did not apply to universities in the UK etc which are still numbers driven and where the whole EC movement is just not as signficant. If the boy is interested in school, articulate about what he is learning, a creative thinker-- Why isn’t that enough??</p>

<p>In the deep dark past of college admissions the EC ‘CV’s’ of most of our kids would have been unheard of. We went to college, we did well (or some variation of that if we got our degrees) and we have had decent lives. If a kid is not an EC kid- then I would rather they do what they do and be true to themselves than pick from some menu of things and then drop them the moment the pay off has taken place. The kid just has to be careful about where they apply and then realize that in the moderrn era they are marching to a different drummer. RAther than running from it, they have to make it their ‘thing.’</p>

72

<p>My opinion (and I am not a counselor or college rep)…
ECs, when they are not continued in college, show one thing… that the person is not holed up in a room somewhere studying 24 hours a day; that the person is capable of group interaction; that the person is not walking by you with their head hanging down, looking at the floor, unable to make eye contact. Absent a personal interview, a kid with some ECs has a proven track record of socialness.</p>

<p>I’m not saying that kids with only academics behind them are any of the above- just that having some ECs prove that they are not.</p>

73

<p>Even a kid who is solely academically inclined can stay “themselves” and present a very interesting applicant to elite schools … their academic interest can lead to terrific ECs which can be formal things like Math contests or less formal things like their own research/writing/inventing/programming etc. The schools are looking for compelling interests past the assigned school work … and lots of academic things can pass that test. </p>

<p>One of my friends as an undergrad was a classic lopsided candidate … he was a total math/science geek. Unless his participation in Dungeon and Dragons counted for a lot his whole package was academic with his “EC” being the tinkering he did in his parents basement … granted his tinkering led to a couple patents but he was solely a math/science geek … who demonstrated his passion and skill … and who was accepted at multiple elite schools (many moons ago).</p>

74

<p>anita:</p>

<p>The main EC S2 had was academic–and not all that demanding, either. He explained somewhere on his application that he joined the team so as to be able to stay in touch with his friends, as his taking college classes meant he had few other opportunities to keep in touch. It did not do him any harm at the two schools he applied to.</p>

75

<p>Re Kluge and NMD’s discussion of LGHT kids:</p>

<p>It depends on how much gap there is. I did overhear two admission officers discussing an applicant who had perfect SAT scores but GPA in the B range (I can’t remember whether it was high B or just B). They agreed without much discussion that this was “a slacker and we don’t want slackers; she won’t be able to cope with the workload.” Many colleges do in fact put greater weight on GPAs than scores.</p>

76

<p>"Here is a philosophical question. Kids are implored to ‘be themselves.’ What if being yourself means you are not going to do volunteer work or sports or even music. What if it means that you are just going to do academics.
"</p>

<p>That’s fine. They then are welcome to go to one of the many schools (probably the majority in this country) that would be delighted to have a high scoring, high gpa student who devotes all of their time to academics. Many would give him a large amount of merit aid, too.</p>

<p>There are relatively few schools that wouldn’t welcome such a student with open arms. Those schools happen to be places like HPYS. </p>

<p>“In talking with heaps of kids who are now in their 2nd and 3rd year of college-- many, many drop their EC’s like a lead balloon the minute they get to school. Isn’t it okay for a kid to never do them to begin with-- if that is being true to themselves.”</p>

<p>Sure, it’s perfectly fine for students to be themselves and follow their bliss. In fact, that’s what everyone should do: Be true to themselves and then find colleges that are good fits. If students truly have no interest in ECs, community service, etc., then places like HPYS are not good fits for them.</p>

<p>I know that the following probably will be hard to believe for many people, but H, for instance, has hundreds of student-run organizations, many of which are run at the professiional level because the type of people that Harvard accepts are people who do like to be deeply involved in academics and ECs. Acting like that is the students’ true selves. They do those things for the pure joy of it, not to get course credit, money, a job, etc.</p>

<p>After graduation, they will continue being people deeply involved in their communities while also pursuing their careers and home lives.</p>

<p>I had thought everyone was like this until I taught journalism at a secnod/third tier, and had to force most of the journalism majors to participate in student media, the main way for them to get a job in their field. I was used to seeing students compete to be on the unpaid staff of the Harvard Crimson even though the students had no plans to become journalists. They just thought it was fun to spend 20-30 hours a week putting out a daily newspaper.</p>

<p>As an example of the type of people that Harvard admits: H classes hold their reunions every 5 years. Those reunions are coordinated by volunteers from the class who happily spend hours creating it.</p>

<p>What do the reunions consist of? Classmate-led workshops and seminars on a variety of issues including politics, literature, etc. Entertainment by classmates, some of whom are professional entertainers, some of whom are good amateurs. Reports of a survey of classmates that some social scientist classmates organized, distributed and analyzed. There also are things like a class softball game, family picnic, and opportunities to go to a H sports or theater event. For my 30th reunion, a couple of classmates who were filmmakers produced a documentary film of the class. </p>

<p>The alum don’t get paid for doing these things. They also fit these things around busy careers and family lives. But, they do it because things like that are what make them happy. They were not people who pursued ECs to look good to colleges. They were people who pursued ECs because those were their passions, and they ended up at a place like H because it was a good match for them.</p>

77

<p>Fencermom - Sounds like “Secrets of the Sats” to me, also. At one time, the whole transcript of the show was on PBS’s website.</p>

<p>I think some of the info is outdated, as Berkeley has since changed some of the ways it makes admission decisions.</p>

78

<p>

As I understand it, the SAT was designed and validated only to predict first year grades; **there is NO (-0-) statistical correlation or predictive value of test scores after the first year. </p>

<p>Here is some info relative to your observation about post-first year performance:

Source: SAT I: A Faulty Instrument For Predicting College Success
<a href=“http://www.fairtest.org/facts/satvalidity.html[/url]”>http://www.fairtest.org/facts/satvalidity.html&lt;/a&gt;

Source: Inside Higher Ed: Questioning the Admissions Assumptions
<a href=“http://www.insidehighered.com/layout/set/print/news/2007/06/19/admit[/url]”>http://www.insidehighered.com/layout/set/print/news/2007/06/19/admit&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>So basically the data seems to contradict your suspicion that the the GPA/success correlation would be weaker over the long haul – on the contrary, it is stronger. This makes sense to me because GPA is actually the reflection of student attitude & motivation sustained over time – a kid who is highly motivated to work for good grades from ages 14-18 probably will have that same attitude in college and keep on working as hard as they have to in order to perform well.</p>

79

<p>I found this comment to be interesting:

Food for thought. 70% of the variation in academic success in college is statistically unrelated to either high school grades or test scores. Which leads to the question: why bother?</p>

<p>I also wonder what the statistical correlation of the various factors is to admittance rates to professional schools and ultimate admission to the professions themselves?</p>

<p>Additional interesting things: The authors of the UC study also found that taking AP courses has little or no correlation with collegiate success.</p>

80

<p>Northstarmom: I think you made my point better than I. If students do things “just to look good” adcoms will most likely know this and/or the student won’t be in an environment suited to his style. As Marite made clear, for some kids academics are a passion, almost an EC if you will, and there are excellent institutions that are happy to admit that kind of student (apparently UPenn) and institutions that aren’t (apparently Harvard.) And maybe the student in question is happy at an institution that is happy with the level of engagement he is comfortable with.</p>

<p>I was one of those nerdy students because I never consider anything as enjoyable as reading a book. I was the only 14 year old I knew who had read Dostoevsky, Tolstoy, Melville, Sartre, you get the idea.</p>

<p>I work in higher ed and I am hopeless in committee work, but I teach the unit on chaos theory and fractals no matter who is teaching the postmodern theory course. So I contribute in my way. Pretending I am a committee person to get a job would have been an unfortunate strategy.</p>