Although “How to Lie with Statistics” came out when I was in high school, I have to say that a correlation coefficient of 0.81 would be pretty convincing to me. I have seen much weaker correlations in Ph.D. theses that were attempting to explain a physical phenomenon, and were passed.
Sure. there are committee discussions. That is probably why the correlation is not 1.00.
Once again I will say this post wasn’t about the elites only. It wasn’t really about one school or a group of schools. It was about the entire process from start to finish.
There are many ways the overall process could be improved. And in my opinion it would help everyone that is in the process, the students, parents and schools.
Look, I’m not interested in debating ED statistics. If you want to go for an 8% ED acceptance rate at Harvard because it’s 4x the RD acceptance rate, go for it. Godspeed.
Personally, I wouldn’t doubt it if some of the really resilient/mentally healthy kids are being overlooked by top schools because their parents aren’t freaking out about college admissions and trying to micromanage their lives from elementary school to high school graduation in order to present the best package for an admissions office. So, these independent kids are doing their own college applications instead of paying a few thousand bucks for someone to “guide” them through the process. And, as @lookingforward previously stated, they are inevitably shooting themselves in the foot because, guess what - they are kids. Oh well.
Mr. Fitzsimmons never had any children, which helps explain a lot of things.
Yes, looking forward, there is “more” to it than that. And exactly what more there is, and how it is used, is the subject of class action law suits these days. There is no reason to just assume the “more” some colleges are using is rational, relevant, or even legal. Blind trust in institutions disappeared quite a while ago,though colleges seem reluctant to accept that.
I am an alumni volunteer for my school and when we have “Admitted Students Reception” then it is like , yes, yes, how the tables have turned. Instead of “please take me” it is “why should I go to your school”.
I think it should also be acknowledged that sometimes kids get “overlooked” because their applications aren’t as good a fit as other applicants.
Sometimes it has nothing to do with the parents “freaking out” or a paid consultant. Most often a kid at a highly competitive school is rejected because a better candidate applied and got accepted in their place. I know this is blasphemous…
This isn’t a popular sentiment on CC… which makes sense when schools are rejecting 19 of 20 applicants. We all want to rationalize and smooth our personal experiences. Let’s please resist however the urge to suggest that kids that get in are somehow less resilient or less worthy based on parental or financial intervention. Perhaps they just did a better job preparing, researching, showing initiative and leadership and ultimately presenting themselves in applications.
This doesn’t suggest the kids who got rejected are anything short of amazing. Unfortunately in this rarified world decisions are made based in large part on merit and fit and sometimes great kids are beat out by other great kids. Sort of like the real world.
The never ending carousel of excuses for disappointing responses never seems to stop at personal accountability.
I’ve seen lots and lots of kids over the years, applying to colleges. Many of them want Harvard, …because it’s Harvard. It’s not always the parents or just the parents creating the panache.
If the stats supported that analysis, I would be happy, @Nocreativity1.Unfortunately, many of the colleges themselves explicity state there is no discernable difference between those accepted and the next thousand or two thousand applicants, or even more. Moreover, most CC posters have observed anomalous results within their own schools or experience. So while there are likely qualitative differences between the admitted students, taken as a group, compared to those denied, as a group, the individual variation within those groups is problematic.
What stats would support that amongst 20 very very qualified candidates, 1 candidate was a better institutional fit than the other 19?
I think parents have a role in calibrating and setting expectations. In my kids school with a graduating class of 1000 students, guidance counselors are so busy, that they don’t have the time to guide kids individually. But, they make it mandatory that each student applies to at least one large in state schools. Thankful that they do that because I know a couple of really top kids that just applied to HYPMS type places and didn’t get into any one of the schools.
I think that often top students sometimes ask the wrong question. They should be asking what do I want my education to do for me and where do I want it to take me. The college becomes the means not the end. Of course many top tier universities will fit the bill but it’s not necessary to attend them to achieve your goals. If a student chooses wisely they should be happy with any of their choices. By approaching your college selection with where you go to college being your goal you are more apt to be disappointed with the results with the accompanying resentment and self doubt that goes with it. When one gets hurt by an institution I guess it is natural to feel a little schadenfreude if you hear things have gone poorly for the school. It changes nothing for the student and the harbored resentment probably isn’t healthy.
@beebee3 “What stats would support that amongst 20 very very qualified candidates, 1 candidate was a better institutional fit than the other 19?”
You are actually proving the point…it is not about stats. Perfect scores, grades etc aren’t what differentiates at this level.
Great LOR or “the top student I have had a in my 20 year career”. Strong essay or one that an AO will remember amongst the hundreds next year. Community charity work or national leader. Class Val or national science award. Started a local tutoring business vs created an online business with revenue exceeding $100,000.
I can go on…
It is consistency of purpose throughout the application, an awareness of the specifics the school has to offer and intangible qualities that the student can highlight by example. The stats are just a gateway to this type of review.
On CC people look at their kid as deserving (and they are) for all the hard work and achievement. Unfortunately when competing in a larger pool filled with similar kids some stand out more than others.
Unfortunately most applicants enter the process justifiably uninformed with unrealistic expectations. If your kid has always been at the very top locally the reasonable assumption is “if not my kid who”. Similar to the assumption of “there are no discernible differences” comment. The differences are slight and nuanced but those are the basis on which decisions are made. They may not be perfect but please don’t suggest those that get in did so as a result of crazy parents or spending money on counselors. It’s insulting and untrue.
Posters on CC not infrequently assume that the only comparison group that others have to offer is the local group, so that they are looking at a student who “has always been at the very top locally.”
There are multiple posters on CC who have a much broader range of comparison than that, are not that easily impressed, and yet have observed anomalous admissions outcomes at the top universities, and not for their own children.
The really interesting cases come from applicants who are waitlisted when the RD round decisions come out, then (miraculously, inexplicably, ?) get in off the wait list, and whose subsequent record can be tracked, not only with regard to academic achievement at the university that waitlisted them initially, but also with regard to “fit,” community involvement, and resilience–and accomplishments beyond undergrad. It just shows that sometimes the “nuances” are mis-read or mis-attributed.
I am not claiming that this is common, just that it does occur.
@Nocreativity1 that was my point 
@beebee3 Apologies… Ironic for me to be ranting about nuance and miss that yours was a response?
Harvard would be the first to admit that it could have accepted the next 2000 applicants rejected with no difference in qualifications or fit, or even institutional need.
@roycroftmom And yet, there are only so many spots available at Harvard which necessitates making a cut on number of acceptances well before they reach the limit of qualified candidates. Which is the point so many have tried to make over and over again.
Harvard could make a couple of classes each year with the number of highly qualified candidates they have applying for the known number of spots available each year. They make the cuts holistically because they have too many amazing candidates to do it solely by rack and stack…and rack and stack doesn’t promote the mission of Harvard Admissions.
@Nocreativity1, I can tell you with 100% confidence that a student can be a finalist for three of the top science awards in the country (along with all the accompanying stats and other interesting, untraditional ECs) and not get into an Ivy. Was true ten years ago, is still true now. And the Ivys would have been right in rejecting that person, as there were other schools that were a much better fit.
I came to the same conclusion about one of my sons and LACs. As much as he liked them, the schools saw something in his essays that made them think it was not a good fit and was waitlisted/rejected at all of them. In retrospect, they were absolutely right.
OTOH, I believe that essays, tailored for each school and given considerable time and effort, can be the dealmaker.
We are lucky (despite the whining about how our educational system is broken and how horrible college admissions has become). I have yet to hear of a qualified kid rejected from Yale who wanted to study history who ended up studying recreation management at Southern CT State. Or a qualified kid rejected from Harvard to major in math who ended up studying Travel and Tourism at Framingham State.
The kid rejected from Harvard who ends up at CMU? The kid rejected from Yale who has to “slum it” at Northwestern or Georgetown or UVA? Hard to get riled up about those outcomes.
Show me the kid who had the stats for one of the single digit schools who ends up rerouting their professional aspirations due to the rejection? There are dozens and dozens of places where a kid can study whatever it is they wanted to study. This is a big country.