<p>Only if the SAT had been administered in French and I had been familiar with multiple choice. I bombed the GRE. Thank goodness the admission committee was unfazed.</p>
<p>BAfromBC,</p>
<p>I like your attitude.</p>
<p>The notion of using class rank of less than top %15 as a definition of not qualified is very problematic. Less and less schools actually rank students in a way that the statistic can be calculated (note the footnote in USNWR). For those that do rank the top 15% at a school with average SAT scores of 1400 is very different from the top 15% at a school with average SAT scores of 900 (1600 scale),</p>
<p>I looked up Caltech website. Apparently 43% of its admitted students were unranked.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, and that is why the TX 10% solution is so problematic as is over-reliance on GPA.</p>
<p>I thought the class rank suggestion was to use the bottom 15% as the definition of “unqualified”. There are plenty of schools – boarding schools, top NYC privates – where students outside the top 15% get admitted to very selective colleges on a regular basis, and I am sure that not all of the athletes, musicians, and artists in the Ivy League were in the top 15% of their high school classes. That’s way too high a “qualification” minimum.</p>
<p>Wow, I find myself agreeing with JHS and Marite. But I don’t think Kluge was suggesting the bottom 15% since he equated it with a 3.5 GPA and I’d be surprised if any HS gave a 3.5 GPA to students in the bottom 15%.</p>
<p>I think Kluge came up with that based on reported rank for enrolled students, possibly in response to CDS data I posted which showed 95%+ of students at elite colleges being in the top 10% of their class. I actually think that class rank should be read in combination with GPA & I am sure the elite colleges do so. </p>
<p>The “rank” may actually be part of the X factor rather than Q, except to the extent that rank is used to give context to the GPA. </p>
<p>When students are admitted primarily on academic factors, the elite colleges clearly prefer highly ranked students - the want to admit the strongest students from any given schools. When the X factors are other than academic – such as with athletic recruiting - then rank may not be as important, because in that case the college may be looking for the strongest basketball player rather than the strongest student.</p>
<p>I think I’ll start a thread on the issue of class ranks.</p>
<p>I wasn’t trying to state a hard and fast rule - simply noting points below which top schools don’t seem to go. A student could be below the top 15% at his or her high school and be admitted - but not if he or she also scored below 1800 on the SAT, for example. Similarly an admittee might score below 1800 if they are their school’s valedictorian. (In either case they’d need a lot of Calmom’s “X” factor, of course.) I suspect that outstanding performance on either HS GPA/rank or test scores would meet the “Q” factor, as would simply good performance on both. As an example:</p>
<p>1700 SAT, valedictorian: meets Q
2300 SAT, third decile class rank: meets Q
1800 SAT, 88th % class rank: meets Q (barely)
1700 SAT, third decile class rank - “unqualified” </p>
<p>Again, remembering that this is within the framework of the OP: the point at which an applicant is deemed “unqualified” for admission, despite whatever “hook” (or “X” factor) he or she might have. And I’m sure some adjustments are made for different high schools. Obviously, most students with “Q” will still not be admitted, due to lack of sufficient “X”. “X” could be great academic qualification; recruited athlete status, legacy, or whatever.</p>
<p>From a New Yorker article, see pages 3 and 4. (The rest of it is familiar to many of us who have read about the history of admissions & all the commentary regarding that on CC over several years. Not interested in getting into long rants about Jews & Asians & WASPs.) But I found the specific comments on success-after-college a relevant reminder about the “why” of college admissions to Elites. </p>
<p><a href=“http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2005/10/10/051010crat_atlarge[/url]”>Getting In | The New Yorker;
<p>One Selection:</p>
<p>"The Ivy League schools justified their emphasis on character and personality, however, by arguing that they were searching for the students who would have the greatest success after college. They were looking for leaders, and leadership, the officials of the Ivy League believed, was not a simple matter of academic brilliance. Should our goal be to select a student body with the highest possible proportions of high-ranking students, or should it be to select, within a reasonably high range of academic ability, a student body with a certain variety of talents, qualities, attitudes, and backgrounds? Wilbur Bender asked. To him, the answer was obvious. If you let in only the brilliant, then you produced bookworms and bench scientists: you ended up as socially irrelevant as the University of Chicago (an institution Harvard officials looked upon and shuddered). Above a reasonably good level of mental ability, above that indicated by a 550-600 level of S.A.T. score, Bender went on, the only thing that matters in terms of future impact on, or contribution to, society is the degree of personal inner force an individual has.</p>
<p>[An illuminating discussion follows about the disappointing results of selecting students in an academy strictly on the basis of score/rank qualifications]</p>
<p>[and further]
“Male athletes, despite their lower S.A.T. scores and grades, and despite the fact that many of them are members of minorities and come from lower socioeconomic backgrounds than other students, turn out to earn a lot more than their peers. Apparently, athletes are far more likely to go into the high-paying financial-services sector, where they succeed because of their personality and psychological makeup.” </p>
<p>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~</p>
<p>So who’s “unqualified”? </p>
<p>Students below the mental ability indicated (550-600) and/or not likely to have much positive impact on society.</p>
<p>{I may also post this on the “Top Scorers” Thread}</p>
<p>(Article is really from almost 2 yrs. ago, but timely nevertheless relevant to the discussion.)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Epiphany , it doesn’t matter how many times we say it. They are still not going to get it. When you base your entire sense of self-worth (or the worth of your kid) on academic stats you can’t bear to let go of those stats or their “importance”. If they did let go they might dissapear from their own mirror. And the schools know that. ;)</p>
<p>Parents. They (the kids) have to have something else to bring to the party or they won’t be invited. (Except of course for that rare as hen’s teeth academic wow. )</p>
<p>I happen to agree with your assessment, cur, but I just wanted to cite the article, since both recently & several pages back on this thread, there was discussion of minimum acceptable score ranges for an Elite. And here we have it from The Lion’s mouth.
:)</p>
<p>Oh, I liked the article. Thanks for posting it. I like reading how right I am. ;)</p>
<p>Interesting how those who posted the above article chose to ignore the cited research within the article of Kruegar and Dale. Their research concludes that those students who got into the "elite college and chose to attend a “less selective” institution did equally as well. </p>
<p>But, in 2007, it is a bit shocking that so many who consider themselves intelligent and educated would have no problem with the discriminatory practices described in the article. I would think it a bit embarrassing to say I “agreed” with such or “liked” such.</p>
<p>Reflectivemom, I’m quite sure that Curmudgeon & Epiphany like the article because it does a wonderful job of covering holistic admissions & demonstrating how that idea has evolved over time. It’s a very witty article, IMHO. And isn’t admission to anything that has limited openings by definition discriminatory? Just find out what type of discrimination (and thus elevation of something else) fits your value system & use that to pick your best fit colleges.</p>
<p>and I think it’s rather more embarrassing to engage in superfluous attacks against posters who are providing material relevant to specific questions asked on a thread: such as acceptable score ranges to be considered 'qualified." There has been much speculation about this on this thread, with guesses offered. Yet often guesses are dismissed or criticized for being just that, while preferences are stated for citations and verification from officials who are not merely cc parents/students.</p>
<p>I provided a citation & selections from that citation.</p>
<p>I “choose to ignore” what is not specific to the previous mainstream discussions on this thread.</p>
<p>(Interesting on how “some” posters --wink,wink – “choose to focus” on aspects of the article which are not specific to the topic of ranges & determination of qualifications.)</p>
<p>It is a bit shocking that in 2007, those who consider themselves superior to other posters would engage in ad hominem attacks as their preferred style of contribution to this discussion forum.</p>
<p>(I’m intelligent, I’m educated: it’s not a matter of “considering myself” such. That includes being intelligent enough not to speak to issues that are less directly related to the topic being posted about.)</p>
<p>Finally, and this is only maybe the 9th time I’ve said this on CC, including recently: Interpreting, quoting, explaining an admissions policy is separate from agreement or nonagreement with that policy. I “agree” with curmudgeon, marite, momwaitingfornew, calmom, northstarmom, many others on their similar understandings of what the stated priorities are for admissions consideration at Elite U’s. That has nothing to do with whether I support those policies or not. I do support one feature of Elite college admissions, namely holistic review. on the grounds that such a thorough, overall evaluation of all factors for admission does favor any student who has promise, including those who “only” have academic promise. The only people who need to be concerned about not getting in “strictly” on scores are those students (or parents of) who have nothing to offer the world except scores. Hopefully, that is not many people. Most high-scoring individuals have more than that to offer an Elite U and society in general, or certainly will by the time it’s their turn to apply to college.</p>
<p>From epiphany’s post #310 (quoting an article in the New Yorker -
This is anecdotal/rumor only, but my daughter’s impression is the athletes at her school (football players, etc) essentially all have jobs waiting for them in Wall Street brokerage firms lined up by their coaches. That is probably an overstatement, but the point is that networking is probably the single most important determinant of who gets the best jobs, and athletes probably have the benefit of strong networks forged by all of that team spirit part of athletics. </p>
<p>The point is, the studies don’t really take that into account. It may have nothing to do with “leadership” and everything to do with “who you know”.</p>
<p>I couldn’t verify that last comment, or refute it either, calmom. Again, I was just quoting a Harvard Admissions Director. (The article referenced more than one, actually.) I believe his comments were in relation to known history of graduated athletes, not to scientific “studies.” He seemed to believe that personality factors (not necessarily leadership) were key, but I’ll buy networking as a superior method for connecting with jobs – at least initially. Nevertheless, networking wouldn’t necessarily keep the employee employed & earning; it would be the performance, once there, that would do that, naturally, a performance that could be affected by personality factors, or at least the Director seemed to feel that way.:)</p>
<p>The overriding focus on earning potential is very striking in the interview/ariticle. Has my husband and me seriously questioning whether the “values” of such schools are consistent with our own. Very sad, very disillusioning. Aggression seems to beat intellect at such places. Perhaps this model will sustain the endowments but over time one really has to question whether the world will go on holding their graduates in high esteem. University of Chicago makes them shudder. Hmmm . . . think we’ll put that one at the top of our list.</p>