<p>
</p>
<p>The first part of this statement, the formal logic part, is correct. The Jian Li case is an inappropriate extrapolation of the second half of the statement, the contrapositive (not B=not A). It only deals with what happens with unqualified students (they are not admitted). It does not deal with all categories of non-admitted students (who may be qualified).</p>
<p>I found the Academic Index pretty useless in figuring out how my S would appear to adcoms. It did not cover the components of his profile that would be most impressive to adcoms. The Counselor-matic was even worse, having spaces for sports but not for academic competitions and the like.It did not return a single college on my S’s eventual list.</p>
<p>I should clarify my post 280: Certain items in the academic accomplishments category can of course be quantified: Scores on nat’l tests (not SAT’s; specialty, optional tests); final place within an academic competition in which you placed, grades or scored evaluations in special off-campus high school academic programs such as at colleges, art schools, etc. Academic prizes of various kinds, as well. It’s just that some academic accomplishments don’t have a numerical value officially placed on them. Yet, I don’t think that is a hindrance necessarily to the ones making those decisions. When I read the Results Threads on CC, I am rarely surprised (after the complete postings). However, I’ll repeat that I’m really glad I don’t have to decide who DOESN"T get admitted, since I’m sure there are plenty of equally weighted (quantitatively & qualitatively) apps to the ones eventually given offers.</p>
<p>Yes, I agree with you, marite, on the AI part.</p>
<p>The AI is obviously less than exhaustive, even in terms of academic criteria but I do think its purpose is to attempt to define a minimum Q for Ivy League athletes. Does anyone know the minimum AI’s accepted at various ivy league colleges? It would be interesting data.</p>
<p>Here’s what MH says (I’ll just start with the whole excerpt, not because I mean for the first sentence to be included in answering your question.)</p>
<p>“Please understand that the AI is just a statistical tool it does not take into account a students essays, teacher recommendations, outside achievements or awards. It merely chronicles the objective side of the equation, namely high school rank in class and standardized test scores. In short, the AI is a formula that combines the averages of student test scores (both SAT Is and SAT IIs) and high school rank in class (represented by an Ivy League invention, the converted rank score or CRS). The AI is represented on a scale of 1-240, with 240 being the highest. The approximate average of Ivy applicants is around 200 while the average AI of accepted students is closer to the 211 range.” (That’s from her webpage.)</p>
<p>(Note that the scale used to be on a 9-point range, with 7-9’s in the ballpark for Ivy League admission, according to her earlier book.)</p>
<p>I also note that MH’s mention of AI neglecting “outside achievements & awards” is an important fact, because that would include those of the strictly academic variety, in addition to those in performing arts, competitive debate, etc.</p>
<p>This is quite the amusing thread–and by amusing I mean pugilistic.
I’ll throw in my two cents (thoughts) anyway.</p>
<p>I believe that the rejection letters from many top tiers now say something like we regret to inform you…we received an overwhelming number of applications from a pool of highly qualified …blah blah blah. This statement tells the rejected applicant that they, too, were qualified, but essentially there was no room at the inn. This, of course, leads the rejected applicant to ask "why me?’ Or, "why not me?‘’ It’s a lot of navel-gazing for a question that has no answer, because it is highly subjective and arbitrary.</p>
<p>I’ve read a few pieces by former Ivy admissions counselors who describe the reading process and the assigning of a numeric index to an app. Again, very arbitrary in some instances. An index for straight numeric stats such as GPA and SAT are preset, but essays and EC’s are subjective. Anecdotal evidence suggests that some counselors may put an app through based on a “gut” reaction, or simply reject it off hand because there is something about the applicant that they just don’t like. Some apps may be auto admits by pure virtue of a certain AI, and some may be put in the pile for discussion by the AdCom which should not “qualify” based on the AI, as well. Random. Humanities majors and Engineering students are two different animals with two different sets of standards. Not surprising–stats count far more heavily for Engineers and they don’t need language skills. (At MIT, it is common knowledge that English is a joke–that’s not what they’re there for.)</p>
<p>FYI: from personal experience with admissions at our HS, HYP only take Intel and NMS finalists with very high stats. Scholar athletes go to LAC’s such as Williams. Our school is full of those–with VERY high stats. Not many stereotypical dumb jocks at our school, so I’d think twice about assuming all athletes are underqualified. Our Vals/Sals, more often than not, attend Cornell or UPenn and are usually premed–very high stats, but HYP and their ilk will only offer admission once every few years and only with Intel/NMSF status. I suppose this may indicate that certain HS’s and colleges have certain pre-established synergistic relationships. Or, it could just indicate that a particular HS turns out a particular type of applicant that may be attractive to certain schools based upon profiles and educational philosophies. In any event, this is the way it’s been at our HS for as long as I can remember, and I don’t foresee a new pattern emerging any time soon as long as the players maintain the status quo. </p>
<p>What I believe this ultimately shows, assuming you accept that what these rogue counselors say is truthful, is that there is no answer to the question put forth by the OP. There is no uniform standard, and really, how could there be? (Do you feel lucky, punk? Well, do you?) Qualified is purely in the eye of the beholder (the AdCom), as is beauty. Sorry, IMHO, logic has no place here. (Though it’s good, clean, intellectual fun to posit…)</p>
<p>BTW, I fully expect to learn that my two cents has been devalued, and that I will soon be 3 cents in the hole–this is CC, after all. Ok, so let me have it…</p>
<p>“FYI: from personal experience with admissions at our HS, HYP only take Intel and NMS finalists with very high stats.”</p>
<p>Possibly may be true at your HS because often one can make predictions based on what kind of students have been admitted from a particular h.s.</p>
<p>Where I live, I have seen NM finalists rejected in favor of NM commended students with outstanding ECs and students who weren’t NM commended or finalists, but had outstanding ECs and/or were URMs. I also have seen at least one URM who was a NM finalist – something that is very rare for URMs – rejected by H though the student got into another top Ivy. The students that H took that year from my area where an Asian-American female with excellent, though not regional or national level ECs, and a legacy white male with a very unusual EC that demonstrated excellent leadership skills. I think that both of the accepted students were NM finalists, too.</p>
<p>As collegealum314 points out, some users have misunderstood my post. Nevertheless, I thank Marite for showing that my example is not appropriate, but I disagree that the statement “there are more qualified applicants than available spaces” is a relevant response.</p>
<p>I agreed with prior users’ posts that showed the thinking of some parents here to be, “If A is accepted, then A is qualified.” The only statement that is guaranteed to be equivalent to that is “If A is not qualified, then A is not accepted.”</p>
<p>Northstarmom replied, “Not true at all because there are more qualified applicants than spaces.” Yes, there are more qualified applicants than spaces, but what does that have to do with either my statements? That kind of response is similar to the following conversation:</p>
<p>A: I think Naim Suleymanoglu is the best weightlifter ever because he clean and jerked three times his bodyweight.</p>
<p>B: Not true at all because Pyrros Dimas won more Olympic medals than Suleymanoglu.</p>
<p>What B said about Dimas is true, but it is not relevant in any way to A’s claim about Suleymanoglu, which is also true.</p>
<p>So, Marite, I think all you had to say in your post 272 was, “No one has claimed that Jian Li was not qualified.” Your repeating Northstarmom’s thoughts was unnecessary and your “Got it?” was just plain pugilistic.</p>
<p>(I thank both my dad and my math team coaches for beating the idea of the contrapositive into my head. After I learned it, I never again missed those questions on tests. Doesn’t mean I’m able to pick the best examples to prove my point, though. Still need more work on that.)</p>
<p>Yes, I see. Kind of reinforces what I said about patterns and randomness and subjectivity. Akin to estimating ratings for a television program based on prior viewership.</p>
<p>fabrizio:
Yes, my post demonstrated my irritation. But that’s because the same point has been made again and again and again, especially in this particular thread which now runs to 290 posts. What does the Jian Li example show? To you, that Princeton discriminates against power scorers on extra-academic grounds. Equally, the Jian Li case can be used to illustrate that there is a place at HYPS for power scorers.</p>
<p>To follow up on Calmom’s excellent framework (and discussion) I think it is possible to estimate the answer to the OP’s question, or, as Calmom put it, the “minimum Q” below which no amount of X will justify admission to a selective school - albeit with an acknowledged margin of error. (A $200M donation may be enough “X” for anyone. I discussed this with my daughter who took me to task for failing to do my part in the application process 
)</p>
<p>My estimate is this: Using purely numerical data, the minimum Q for a selective American college at this point appears to be the following (in their estimation):</p>
<p>More than one SAT score below 500, or combined SAT scores below 1800 (ACT below 26), and
HS GPA below 3.5/lower than 15th percentile rank at the applicant’s school.</p>
<p>That appears to be the floor, close enough. Below that, it doesn’t matter how good a linebacker or flautist you are - you ain’t gettin’ in. And yes - it’s a pretty low bar. But it looks as though students near each of those numbers are admitted, meaning the adcoms must think they are at least minimally qualified to do the work; but it seems unlikely that applicants who fall below both standards would be considered as able to succeed in that academic environment. Obviously, the closer you get to that floor, the larger the “X” factor has to be.</p>
<p>…and to be “qualified” to run for President of the U.S. you must not be foreign-born. But good luck being a serious candidate with more than your family’s votes if you are counting on that basic qualification to get you to the Ivy League of the Nomination and Election. Yes, miracles happen. However, even Ross Perot discovered that it takes more than hard work & good fortune to get elected – that those advantages & assets could not compensate for the Political Index which he did not have. </p>
<p>I guess for some people this is an interesting topic, but for me it is ‘academic’ in the sense of hypothetical & conceptual, with little relevance to practical reality. I’m still not sure what the point is: to imply that there must be a signfiicant subset of serious contenders who really are just barely “qualifed” in the most obvious & primary sense?</p>
<p>I wasn’t a linebacker or a flautist and did not have a daddy with $200millions to spare. I did not take the SAT, but I suspect I might not have made the minimal Q. And I struggled in my freshman year because of my limited English. But I graduated with honors and was admitted into a top Ph.D. program.</p>
<p>All this to say that not all “unqualified” students (students with low Qs) are admitted because of their rich daddies or their prowess on the football fields.
And that’s precisely why colleges are wary of posting minimum Qs.</p>
<p>But Marite - was that in 2007?</p>
<p>I’ve stayed away from this thread for a while. Too contentious and too little content. It’s taken a great turn, imo. I, too, like the Calmom Equation and think the fine-tunings that others have made to it constitute a real answer to the OP question. And one that works for those who really want a formula and those who think there can’t be one.</p>
<p>I also think that the discussion has highlighted that some who are “less qualified” on the Q scale do get admitted, but that there is a valid reason for that. “Less qualified” is still qualified, of course.</p>
<p>Of course, it wasn’t. And I know I was an exception even then. But that’s the point of colleges not wanting to publicly set a minimum Q. There are going to be exceptions. And the exceptions sometimes end up in front of the blackboard, still speaking with a foreign accent and in broken English.</p>
<p>"But that’s the point of colleges not wanting to publicly set a minimum Q. "</p>
<p>Yes! 
And the point is/but the point is (LOL) – however one wants to state it – you were NOT being admitted, marite, because of the non-Q factor (lineback, flautist, & I love it when people still say & spell flautist). The admissions committee found a way to “quantify” your academic potential which was concretely evident on some measures. It was understood that your Q factor was strong, and that’s what got you in.</p>
<p>(Putting it in the context of my words, you more than “just barely qualified in the most obvious & primary sense.”)</p>
<p>epiphany:</p>
<p>I get your point. I was afraid that the discussion was limited to American-style quantifiable data. If we can use Chinese or German or Australian grades, then that’s fine.
By the way, when my S did a semester abroad in Australia, one prof announced at the end of the class that the students had done very well–but the top scores were firmly in the B range.</p>
<p>…and I suspect that if you had access to and taken the SATs back then, Marite, you would have scored above whatever the equivalent of today’s 1800 would have been, non? And however they were able to discern that fact, they did. You’re not really an exception, Marite. Your “Q” was well above the minimum, it’s just that the means of determining “Q” were different back then.</p>
<p>“Your “Q” was well above the minimum, it’s just that the means of determining “Q” were different back then.”</p>
<p>Definitely agree with that.</p>