<p>Of 14 kids who applied to at least 3 out of the six schools, only two were not accepted at any of the schools to which they applied. Four kids applied to two, and only one of them was rejected at both. Three of six who applied to only one school were accepted. 9 of 24 were accepted everywhere they applied, and 6 were rejected or waitlisted everywhere they applied. 10 of 18 who applied to more than one of the schools were either accepted everywhere or not accepted everywhere, which is a pretty high degree of consistency.</p>
<p>And flipping it around, it looks like the colleges (other than Cal Tech) each accepted about half of the top scorers who applied, which is completely consistent. Overall, they took about 10% of applicants, but 50% of these applicants.</p>
<p>So . . . the biased-sample, unscientific CC data base is consistent with the hypotheses that (1) high scores are a big, big boost, but not definitive, (2) there’s enough consistency among the different admissions committees to suggest that there may be something in the rest of the applications that reasonable people are responding to in similar ways, although the outcomes can clearly differ, and (3) on the whole, top scorers get accepted at the top schools, although an individual top scorer can’t count on getting into a particular school. Only 1/6 of those who applied to at least two of the schools failed to get accepted (and it’s still 1/6 if you look at people who applied to four schools). </p>
<p>That sounds right. I’m not losing sleep over this. I feel bad for my son, though, who got to be one of the 1/6ers. But he’s thrilled to be somewhere he liked more than 2/3rds of the schools on this list, so all’s well.</p>
<p>The student with the W/D/R/W/–/-- result has self-reported in other threads that the admitted students had more amazing extracurricular achievements than he/she had. That student still got into quite a competitive college.</p>
<p>Be careful of calling self-reporting “data”. The first student
on the list, alittlebit, has some big inconsistencies between
posted stats and the prose in his forum posts. I haven’t
looked closely at the others, but I would be hesitant to draw
conclusions from the things students say. </p>
<p>Too bad the people with the data - the colleges - aren’t putting it
out there in a helpful, unspun way.</p>
<p>I appreciate your research on this. Just going on 9th grade ACT and sophomore PSAT, my child appears to be capable of perfect scores and so as her parent I’m curious as to how valuable they are. And please, no lectures warning me not to fixate on the SAT!! My kids do lots of other stuff, too!!! But your findings seem consistent with my own more macro take which just looked at top 25 percentiles of admitted kids at these institutions, which must be largely top scorers. There’s only about 2,000 such students in that group and more than 2,000 spots at these colleges. So in my more crude fashion I kind of reached the same conclusion. Also, I agree with geomom about the reliability of student posters. There may be a bit of exhibitionism going on. Sometimes I think posters claiming amazing accomplishments might be engaging in some sort of cathartic stress reducer by typing out a mythical ideal set of stats, creating an alter ego persona of sorts.</p>
<p>I’m not defending the focus on early test scores, but I will say that I think it’s human nature (or maybe mom-nature) to focus on areas where our kids stand out. I used to be pretty dismissive about athletes, probably because my kids are really average in that arena. But I’ve learned to value the time and committment of kids who perform at a high level of a sport. Not defending mammall, just understanding a little.</p>
<p>Just a note of caution: The schools tend to give top-25% data for math and critical reasoning separately. There may be only about 2,000 kids with 800s on both, but there are a lot more kids with an 800 on one or the other of them. Only a portion of the students in a college’s top 25% on math will also be in that college’s top 25% on critical reasoning. So the population of applicants eligible to wind up in a college’s top quartile for any test is probably pretty big.</p>
<p>On the other hand, I think kids with high test scores are probably more likely than other kids to get multiple acceptances to competitive institutions. They can only attend one college, but they may get accepted at several, and thus a particular college’s yield on those kids is probably much lower than its yield on the kids it accepts with lower test scores, who are less likely to have a range of equally attractive options. This leads me to believe that the population of ACCEPTED students (on which the colleges do not provide data) is probably more skewed to those with high test scores than the population of ENROLLED students.</p>
<p>Re interviews: danas discussion of the Hernandez book and Dartmouth: DS applied early to Dartmouth and had a fabulous interview with alumni interviewer. Interviewer made it clear that he wanted to see him at Dartmouth. DS was deferred, than rejected, whereas UChicago, Brown, Amherst and Williams all accepted him. Interviewer called heart broken, but was mollified by S’s attendance at Williams which had been his own first choice. Of the schools S was accepted at only Brown offered an interview. So, Hernandez seems spot on about Dartmouth and importance of interviews. So, all boosts did not good at Dartmouth: ED, great interview. Adcom only deferred 25% of ED applicants; most who aren’t accepted are rejected, unlit many elites. I’m not sure what the factor was in rejection (obviously) but as JHS said, “All’s well.”</p>
<p>sjmom2329: I appreciate your usual kindness. I think she is also so bowled over by this achievement at such a young age. I can understand this too.</p>
<p>But Epiphany, we have already pointed out, by the SET data, that there IS a correlation between early high scorers and high scores/high GPAs (and usually terrific ECs too) as late high schoolers.</p>
<p>I don’t think Mammall is fixated. Her child has performed unusually, at a young age. There is every possibility that this particular child will continue to excel.</p>
<p>^ geomom #903: Youre right, these should be called postings and not data. I didnt look at other postings by these students. The stats post by alittlebit might not be reliablebut its useful as a stand-in for the (real) students who were admitted everywhere.</p>
<p>^ JHS #901: On your hypotheses, (1) agreed and (3) agreed. On (2), agreed that there is some consistency in the outcomes. But schools that admit 35-50% of the 2400 scorers are not all admitting the same 35-50%. For example–assuming that the posts are reliable–compare the outcomes
A/W/A/W/–/-- vs. R/A/A/A/R/A
and
–/–R/R/A/-- vs. --/–/W/A/R
We agree that applying to multiple schools in this group boosts the odds of acceptance by at least one of them. Also, a student with multiple admits from HYPSM+C obviously has something beyond top scores and good luck. But given the mixed outcomes, I still believe that a student might wind up as one of the 1/6ers due to bad luck with this particular group of schoolsnot meaning bad luck overall, since I also think that a top scorer can obtain an excellent education at many other universities, where the outcomes are more predictable.</p>
<p>Mammall: I understand what you are saying completely, and I also understand how nice it is to dream about the future when you have good basis for hope.</p>
<p>I just get annoyed with people who seem to think standardized tests should be the be-all and end-all of admissions. They are imperfect, and they are still valuable for all their flaws. Colleges clearly think they are important and useful. I strongly suspect they are probably the single variable with the most predictive value on admissions results, even though all the elite schools imply otherwise. Superhigh test scores are a great advantage for an applicant, just not a guarantee.</p>
<p>I’ll repeat a great line from a senior Yale admission staffer: “How important are SAT’s? We pay less attention to them than you think, and more than we are willing to admit.”</p>
<p>QuantMech:
No, of course the schools that are admitting 50% of the 2400 scorers aren’t all admitting the same 50%. But it looks like there IS consistency on about half the kids – i.e., half the kids got the same result, accepted or not, at every school in this group to which they applied. That result could be random for people who only applied to two schools, but for people who applied to three or more, that doesn’t seem random (but for obvious problems with sample size and data reliability). So what I’m saying is that the indication is that there is some non-random factor at work here, even if it doesn’t produce consistent results for everybody.</p>
<p>Mammall: I think perhaps you wonder if achieving these scores so early in a career will be a boost compared with HS juniors and seniors achieving these results. I think it has to be because it is an achievement that sets your daughter apart and gives her individuality. Of course, the adcom would want this perception supported by the rest of the application; I’m assuming that it will be. I think your daughter will have a fine outcome, but as the wonderful data and number crunching of JHS and QuantMech demonstrates, just not a predictable outcome.</p>
<p>The one boy in DS’s class who I was sure would be accepted to his ED school was a cellist who had also won the “Rising Composer” award three times. He became a Davidson Scholar for his music achievement ($50,000 scholarship for six top kids in the country in different areas) and had a glowing, personal letter of recommendation from Yzkak Perlman (as well as 10+ years studying with him at both Julliard pre-college and his own extremely selective summer program). In addition he was fourth in his class academically and a NM semi-finalist. Even he was nervous about his early acceptance to HYP. I was convinced he would be accepted and told him, “If they’re not going to accept you, who will they accept?” And of course, he was, and I was very happy for him. He’s a very accomplished young man and fun to talk to as well.</p>
<p>These comments do not apply to the students who soloed with the Chicago Symphony Orchestra at age fourteen, or who participated in RSI and were recognized for giving one of the top five research presentations, or who made an Olympiad teamrather to those with strong, but not overwhelming ECs.</p>
<p>^ sjmom2329: I second your opinion. Many admissions representatives will have a clear understanding of the time commitment for excellence in the extra-curriculars in which they or their friends have participated. For me, too, it took time to develop the same appreciation for other areas. Add the fact that many of the admissions representatives are just out of college. Throw in the wide range of possible extra-curriculars, and the possibility for stereotyping (say violin, oboe, tuba or field-hockey, lacrosse, curling or ballet, hip-hop, lyrical or sculpture, water colors, photography). Students are probably lucky when there is a match of interests and experience with the admissions representative for their area.</p>
<p>Some bad luck elements: a student writes about a serious literary work or figure the admissions representative happens to dislike. Or to take a real case: A year or two ago, a Stanford admissions rep mentioned a funny essay by a student who described hating her dog. This was good luck, because the admissions rep said that the essay pushed the student over the top, into the admitted group. But the same essay might have gone to a person who had just lost a dog, raising the possibility (at least) of a different reaction. Ive read essays that apparently worked, although I disliked them, as well as essays that apparently didnt work, even though I liked them.</p>
<p>Definitely there are non-random factors operating–I don’t think otherwise.</p>
<p>Also, you’re right, the number of students who posted replicated admits or replicated D/W/R outcomes (in the HYPSM+C group) exceeds the number with variable outcomes. Still, we seem to have a slightly different take on the postings.</p>
<p>Acknowledging that there are so few postings and that some may not be genuine, so it’s a mistake to mince them too far, still I make it:</p>
<p>More than one app, accepted everywhere: 7*
Single app, accepted: 3
More than one app, D/W/R everywhere: 3
Single app, D/W/R: 3
Different outcomes in different places: 8 </p>
<p>The 7 in the first group (*) include one who was R at Brown and W at Wash U, and one who didn’t post the S outcome.</p>
<p>I draw the conclusion that there was probably a random element operating for some of the “1/6ers.”</p>
<p>Allmusic (post 909): My point exactly. Precisely why I do not understand the continual need to protest something before it happens. If it will naturally unfold that a high scorer will be a high classroom performer, where’s the anxiety? If “there is every possibility that her children will continue to excel,” why is it necessary to prioritize scores, and/or to be consumed with their supposed “importance”, significance, however one wants to put it. And why is there a concern about the supposed inclusion of e.c.'s, when she admits that her children “do lots of stuff”?</p>
<p>Hindsight is 20/20. I wish I knew then just how critical a factor geographical diversity is in admissions. The other important factor is the total number of applicants from your HS to the target institution.</p>
<p>My S went to a top-tier prep school in the NE. From a class of 300 kids, despite being a top scorer with high GPA, applying to Ivys meant that nearly 30+ top kids from the same school with similar stellar GPAs and Stats would be competing with him at the very same schools! </p>
<p>Had I suppressed my maternal instincts, I would have allowed him to apply to Berkeley Stanford, and perhaps Northwestern, where he did NOT apply. Fewer kids from his school applied to these schools. He would have had a far better chance of getting in at these schools… but hindsight is indeed 20/20.</p>
<p>Parents should encourage kids to apply to schools which are geographically far apart.</p>
<p>Hear. Hear. Most of the stories we read in April here on CC about train wrecks (students not being admitted to ANY college) are stories of northeastern kids who apply only to northeastern colleges of national renown. That’s not a smart application strategy. </p>
<p>I know a man, about a half generation younger than I am, who says his mother REQUIRED that he apply solely to colleges more than 500 miles from home. (He lived in the South.) He applied to Harvard, Princeton, and Stanford. He got into all of them, and attended Princeton. He got rich on Wall Street and now runs a charitable organization. Nice. What I learn from his example is that a young person can grow a lot by going AWAY to college, and I encourage my son to have the same application strategy he had. </p>
<p>Best wishes to your son. Thanks for sharing your advice.</p>
<p>This is good advice. What say you wise ones on the number of applications to send out? Daughter’s guidance conselor says limit it to 8 but given the extreme competition we’re thinking twice that number.</p>
<p>Not twice, but 10 would be fine and more manageable.</p>
<p>I’d suggest 3 reaches, 4 matches and 3 safeties, unless there is one safety that is a true safety both in terms of fit and finances. Then a student can increase the number of reaches and matches.</p>