<p>Here’s WaitingForGodot’s SATs: 760 CR 790 Math 800 Writing</p>
<p>Here’s MIT’s data on class admitted in 2009:
Middle 50% score range of admitted students:</p>
<p>SAT Reasoning Test - Critical Reading [670, 770]<br>
SAT Reasoning Test - Math [730, 800]<br>
SAT Reasoning Test - Writing [670, 770]<br>
ACT Composite [32, 35]<br>
SAT Subject Test - Math [740, 800]<br>
SAT Subject Test - Science [720, 800] </p>
<p>Where does WaitingForGodot sit just looking at SATs?</p>
<p>Critical Reading: near top of the mid-50%; not in the top 25%
Math: unclear; must have been a lot of 800s apply
Writing: top 25%</p>
<p>So, yes WFG had amazing stats.</p>
<p>Yet, there are so many others who apparently - just looking at SATs - were just as qualified, or more so.</p>
<p>Thats the reality of Ivies and Ivy-like admissions these days: boatloads of highly qualified applicants chasing very few slots, from one of the largest high school graduating classes ever. More a lottery than not . . . even for the highly qualified.</p>
<p>Not really. Let’s just go by stats. Assume they have a 10% acceptance rate. </p>
<p>That means for reading he was about 25th percentile for the ACCEPTED STUDENTS. That means for the OVERALL APPLICANT POOL, he was around the top 2.5%. I’d say that isn’t MANY other qualified students. That should have put him in rather safely.</p>
<p>Kei-o-lei – if you want to respond to what I’m saying, please appreciate the points I am making for what they are, and do not “assume” – look back at what I posted carefully and you’ll realize how off topic what you wrote was. I am quite certain what I mean by “merit” would be seen favorably by almost anyone reasonable, and it certainly isn’t so simplistic as to be measured by grades and scores only. </p>
<p>In fact, judging by how you just judged WaitingforGodot’s stats, you’re considering the SAT for marginal differences in points, as if percentiles at that point mean anything. I think grades and test scores are a great baseline thing, but what one should look for is evidence of exceptional passion and potential for accomplishment *within the scope of the given university * based on all the applicant has done over 4 years. Essays should be straightforward, but considered as an important statement by the applicant as to what he/she plans to do in school – and his/her credentials should back up what goes in the essays. Teacher recommendations can be further evidence as to the credentials – if specific and articulate, that is. </p>
<p>I repeat: this thread indicates AOs treat applications almost like they’re people, looking to see what this “person” would be like to be in a classroom with, and this, as I have discussed, really seems to contribute to unwanted apparent randomness in the process, and in the end judging someone’s personality accurately based on 500 word essays, as LogicWarrior said, doesn’t seem logical at all.</p>
<p>If there was never a merit-based system, then our admissions system has been hurting for longer than I thought. From what was indicated to me by someone around to see it, however, 15 years ago while admissions was still holistic, this mania that “there are more qualified applicants than we know what to do with and so select roses out of the garden whimsically” wasn’t so bad. This may be, however, just because things weren’t quite as competitive in that day. Nevertheless, the way we’re handling the new competitive era has plenty of problems.</p>
<p>I really hate these threads. Stop whining, stop freaking out, everybody just chill lol.</p>
<p>This reminds me of a show I was watching in which a certified genius (MENSA all that) was rejected from Stanford. He goes, “I guess being a genius isn’t good enough anymore…”</p>
<p>The fact that these people see their rejections as ‘unfair’ is probably really indicative of their personalities/sense of entitlement to anything they want because of test scores/GPA/rank/EC’s. It’s a crapshoot for everybody! All of these people are going to get into great schools so just stopppp with these idiotic, pampered, ‘o woe is me Harvard should be begging me to come there’ attitudes…</p>
do not “assume” – look back at what I posted carefully
judging by how you just judged WaitingforGodot’s stats, you’re considering the SAT for marginal differences in points
this thread indicates AOs treat applications almost like they’re people . . . seems to contribute to unwanted apparent randomness in the process</p>
<h2>4) 15 years ago while admissions was still holistic, this mania that “there are more qualified applicants than we know what to do with and so select roses out of the garden whimsically” wasn’t so bad</h2>
<p>1) Point taken; your analysis is more robust than what I implied. My mistake.</p>
<p>2) My intent was limited to pointing out that by SATs alone WFG wasn’t a stunnningly exceptional applicant.</p>
<p>3) Your expression “apparent randonmness” is spot on; if one does not acknowledge the institutional imperatives used by schools - or does not consider them valid - the process appears quite random. There is another explanantion: as the differentiation between the large number of highly qualified applicants becomes less matter of signficiant differences in GPA, SAT scores, rigor of classes, ECs and other personal attributes, who get offered slots becomes driven much more by institutions’ imperatives than by applicants’ intrinsic merit. Since that is out of our control, we are much more anxious about it.</p>
<p>4) You’re right, but a more likely explanantion is this: more brand conscious behavior + more of a national market + colleges treating parents like consumers + largest high school graduating classes + increased parental anxiety that we need to do “everything we can” for our kids = ungodly competition for “the best” schools = feels more like a lottery, doesn’t it?</p>
<p>Kei – thanks for looking back at what I wrote. </p>
<p>To (2) – Sure, and I guess I’d also say nobody can be stunningly exceptional based on SATs alone. A 2400 is something, but the SAT is just a highly generic test after all. </p>
<p>To (3) – definitely, that is precisely what I mean to say causes the unwanted anxiety. The thing is, I think trends today are backwards, because I happen to believe strongly that getting into college should neither be a reward for hard work nor just a mark that an admissions officer found a place for you in his/her vision of the ideal entering class. Rather, I believe someone should be admitted, say to UChicago, because of both a mature statement by the applicant as to what (s)he would accomplish there, along with considerable credentials backing this up. It simply doesn’t make sense to me to have it any other way, and I’m inclined to think this is not exactly a disputable point. Sure, schools can do whatever they want, but I think an “anything they say goes” attitude is quite dismissive. You (Kei) seem not to have that outlook of course.</p>
<p>Though, for instance Jayay90 does, it appears. Why? Possibly for the same reason many others do:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>But does this mean that if, say it were clear the applicant WaitingforGodot were a highly, highly accomplished physics student (just for instance), that he should not reasonably hope to attend one of his schools of choice to study physics? Instead, must we just dismiss such concerns entirely and hope that such an applicant gets into some good school, which may or may not even be the right fit in terms of his talents?</p>
<p>If we look at “fit” for schools almost exclusively in terms of talent, I think the need for many of what I’d call more frivolous factors in the current applications would be dissolved. And really that’s what I see an AO’s primary role to be: discovering excellence of fit of a student for a school in terms of the opportunities it provides.</p>
<p>“his reminds me of a show I was watching in which a certified genius (MENSA all that) was rejected from Stanford. He goes, “I guess being a genius isn’t good enough anymore…””</p>
<p>LOL! Most people who apply to such colleges probably would qualify for Mensa.</p>
<p>“there was never a merit-based system, then our admissions system has been hurting for longer than I thought. From what was indicated to me by someone around to see it, however, 15 years ago while admissions was still holistic, this mania that “there are more qualified applicants than we know what to do with and so select roses out of the garden whimsically” wasn’t so bad.”</p>
<p>There never was a purely merit-based system in this country, and I’ve repeatedly posted this. How could there have ever been a completely merit-based admission system when no matter how well qualified applicants were, they couldn’t be accepted if they weren’t of the right social class and religion, weren’t white and nonJewish, and weren’t male? The current system is more based on merit than it if has been.</p>
<p>As for the competitiveness now – that’s because for each of the last several years, there have been more students applying to American colleges than ever before in U.S. history. That’s because of the size of the cohort of college-age students, and because obtaining a college education is increasingly viewed as a necessity in our country. </p>
<p>“That means for reading he was about 25th percentile for the ACCEPTED STUDENTS. That means for the OVERALL APPLICANT POOL, he was around the top 2.5%. I’d say that isn’t MANY other qualified students. That should have put him in rather safely.”</p>
<p>That would only be the case if admissions were based only on one’s stats, which is not the case, and for U.S. universities to maintain their uniqueness and quality will not ever be the case. In foreign countries, extracurriculars aren’t viewed as important for students of any kind. In the U.S., membership and leadership in extracurricular activities is considered very important, and that is reflected in the admissions practice of many top colleges.</p>
<p>I’m sorry to hear it wasn’t merit-based earlier. If there was such discrimination, then that certainly doesn’t count as merit-based to me. However, Northstarmom, was this the case 10-15 years ago? I was under the impression the blatant discrimination you speak of was closer to the time you were applying to college, and that was much longer ago, is it not? </p>
<p>What I feel like is that the discriminatory practices got better over time, and today’s rather different set of problems were introduced as things got more competitive, and mainly, as Northstarmom says, the applicant pools increased in size considerably.</p>
<p>@mathboy: Most of the people, at least from my experience, that apply to HYPSM (all of them of course, and all the other ivies along with them) are just doing it because they think they ‘belong’ there. It’s a ‘i’m “at the top” so I should be with others “at the top”’ thing. It has nothing to do with ‘fit’. There are many, many non-Ivy schools with competitive or even BETTER facilities for specific majors. These people mostly want the ‘name’, the bragging rights, their ‘entitlement’. </p>
<p>If people applied to schools based on academic quality for their interests, the Ivies wouldn’t be such a big deal.
I think everyone who thinks they have a shot and really desire to go to an Ivy League school should apply. But, if they get rejected, just move on. Life isn’t always fair and if you really can’t STAND going to Duke (<em>shudders at the thought!</em>) then you can just transfer.</p>
<p>Jayay90 – as is clear from what I write, I don’t at all sympathize with people who want bragging rights or to feel they are “on top” by getting 100% acceptances to the Ivy Leagues. I am a college student who’s very happy with where he is, but nevertheless very unhappy with some of the trends going around. I am more than aware that being “at top” in high school doesn’t mean being “at top” in college. The question, is, figuring those who’re going to be “at top” in college and admitting them to the schools with the best resources with good consistency.</p>
<p>That is, it is to the benefit of our education system overall to admit classes of students based on their ability to achieve in the respective environments – i.e. what I call “fit”. It’s not like everyone goes on to graduate school, and one’s undergraduate school is an important starting point even for future graduate students. I do not think we have as much room as it’s being made to seem to assemble a class full of so and so diversity level, so and so personalities, and other interests.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Perhaps not – I mean, maybe if you’re looking to be an engineer, you’re more likely to look at schools like MIT, Michigan, Berkeley, Caltech, and such. But at the same time, a lot of the HYPSM schools are very good at many specific things, but not all of them admit a vast, vast majority of their applicants based mainly on talent and goals – the essays one is asked to write, if a huge consideration, certainly indicate this, because they’re far from directly related to the applicant’s goals for the given school.</p>
<p>There may be other good places for these “many specific things” – that’s great, but it isn’t a good reason to support the current admissions practices, it only says there’s still hope left for some of those rejected from many of these schools.</p>
<p>Further, as LogicWarrior states, and as I’ve read many times on the MIT threads, one good reason a talented math/science/engineering candidate would want to go to MIT is the large concentration of talented individuals to be around. I know that having met some of the most talented people I did meet has probably been the singular biggest cause for my growth in college. Being around motivated people has an intrinsic charm. There are many places with motivated people, but some institutes have a reputation for having an especially high concentration, and it only makes sense to me that these do admissions based on talent and talent only, weeding out only those with chronic flaws (e.g. being prone to theft, violence) which would otherwise hurt the school’s student population.</p>
<p>“The question, is, figuring those who’re going to be “at top” in college and admitting them to the schools with the best resources with good consistency.”</p>
<p>The top colleges have retention rates that tend to be from 90% to 98%, so it seems that by your standards, their selection methods are working. Since it’s not possible for everyone at a college to be at the top of the class, retention rates are probably the best way to figure out if people are taking advantage of the opportunity to attend those colleges.</p>
<p>"If people applied to schools based on academic quality for their interests, the Ivies wouldn’t be such a big deal. "</p>
<p>The top colleges aren’t designed to be vocational schools. Those colleges expect and rejoice in the fact that many students who attend them change their prospective majors once they get there. That’s the beauty of liberal arts curricula.</p>
<p>Once in college, the students are exposed to subjects that they may not have been exposed to before, and consequently they may end up majoring in different things and planning on different careers than they had considered when in high school.</p>
<p>They’re top colleges with a great reputation. Students are more likely to stay because a degree from there carries more prestige, not necessarily because of fit.</p>
<p>@ mathboy: well, then, what exactly defines ‘talent’? If you are talking about test scores, contests, world-wide renown, etc. then you have to realize that by ‘talent and talent only’ you mean those put at the best advantage (culturally, socioeconomically) to achieve these ‘talents’. Those people being primarily white people and asians.
‘Talent’ isn’t 100% nature, it’s your environment, it’s your school, your culture, everything. So if you are fine with an almost completely homogeneous class then, by all means, colleges should admit by this elusive ‘talent’.</p>
<p>Logicwarrior: I understand what you’re saying but not getting into MIT doesn’t mean you don’t ‘fit’ anywhere else. And I’m sure there are plenty of people who are ‘smart and work hard’ at non-HYPSM schools. It’s not like MIT has every smart person, every hard-worker. In fact, at slightly lower-tier schools you could probably find a good population of ‘smart, hardworking’ students who got rejected from Ivies just like this hypothetical applicant!</p>
<p>Northstarmom: That’s very true, but a lot of applicants do have very specific interests. I’m just saying people should broaden their horizons.</p>
<p>Well, retention rates are slightly more modest a measure than what I was thinking. Obviously within a school like Princeton, there will be those at the top and those less so, and that is fine. It is hard to predict exactly what people would do in college once they get there, but I like the idea of judging them almost exclusively based on accomplishment, and would be completely happy with our process if all the “soft” factors were aimed only at measuring this. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, you basically get what I mean by talent. If you’re an athlete, it means performance indicative of potential. If you’re into math and science, it means evidence from teachers and your essays, along with what you’ve done over 4 years that you’re truly passionate about these, very accomplished, and best poised to take advantage of the university you’re considering attending. </p>
<p>It is a reality that not all people have it equal in the admissions process. That an Asian family raised its daughter to study hard from an early age is certainly a cultural advantage. That a white parent had the money to send its kids to a very top class private high school is also an advantage today – realistically, a school like MIT actually takes many students from certain very good schools. It is clear to an applicant without these privileges that (s)he needs to go out of his/her way to impress schools. If such an applicant were very motivated – for instance, self-studied for 13 AP exams using cheap books and got 5’s across the board, despite coming from a very ordinary school, which, say, didn’t offer any AP classes, I would take another look at this individual, find out from the essays what (s)he wants to accomplish in school, and go from there. I happen to know someone with very little going for him financially who made it through college and into a top grad school, and he is very sharp and talented. And here we’re talking grad schools, which consider almost no personal circumstances! He worked to support himself, went to community college first, all sorts of things. </p>
<p>There will be some diversity even with a completely talent-based admissions process. And as for personal factors, I really don’t think many of us honestly believe a 500 word essay can tell enough about your personality – people are usually more complex than that. In the end, the burden is on the applicants to develop their talents and make them heard. It simply is not logical to reject someone who demonstrates tons of interest in something and achieves a lot at it in high school, and plans to pursue this something in college, in favor of those who give a favorable response to some personal essay question. As I’ve said, I know of examples where people are exceptionally bright or talented at something, and their abilities shone despite their having not the greatest circumstances to work with, and these I am very open to considering carefully. I think it’s very dangerous to attempt to achieve diversity forcefully, though, without exceptional-talent-identification as the ultimate guiding parameter.</p>
<p>Further, who said the class would be homogeneous? I think you are underestimating how different people actually are. Just because two people are white doesn’t mean they’re anything alike. Just because two people write about literature in their essays, say both about James Joyce, doesn’t mean they’re alike – that’s a 500 word snapshot only. What we can control is that we get a class with several diverse essay responses – what people are like on the inside only comes out if you talk to them and find out more about them. I imagine your intent is good, but the idea that a class full of people talented in various things and admitted solely for their talents would be homogeneous seems crazy! Homogeneous in a slight sense maybe, but I think you’d get lots of very different people with different personalities and likings anyway – just, that wouldn’t be the actual basis of admitting them.</p>
<p>Exactly, if you want interesting and diverse students to come then put in programs that will make them want to come, don’t just try to hand-pick a student body on minimal information.</p>
<p>mathboy: By homogeneous I mean racially, culturally. Sure there will be a variety of white and asian people. But that’s not really diverse is it?
And I’m not saying essays should have a lot of weight at all. I’m saying that this ‘talent’ that you talk about is not a fair way to admit. It’s not like they are taking people with truly sub-par scores simply for the sake of ‘diversity’. But, just working with numbers, not location, race, the essay, anything else, these people might not be the strongest applicants in the pool. You say they could ‘self-study 13 AP’s’. You realize those cost money. More than $80 a test. Some families simply can not afford that. What you are talking about is not talent. Sure, it starts with talent,natural intelligence/skill, but you are talking about what talent and money and other advantages can achieve. That’s not a fair way to admit. Colleges aren’t stupid. They know this and thus use multiple factors in admissions. It is because ‘talent’ isn’t something that is always shown with numbers and expensive awards that they do what they do.
If you don’t value true diversity, economic, racial, social, and cultural or understand that talent can’t be measured by just scores and awards, this may be a senseless discussion.</p>
<p>Logicwarrior: I don’t think it has anything to do with their not being programs for a diverse student body. It’s not like racial/economic minorities aren’t applying to these schools. It’s that looking at numbers alone, they might not be as competitive. Not completely out of their league, but just not as competitive.</p>