<p>Like others, I also have seen the exceptional stat on the top of the graph who is rejected, despite a small cluster of others with similar or not quite as high stats. I think that there are some significant stretches, wild guesses, & rationalizations on this thread – as to the typical pattern, or possible pattern, of such rejects.</p>
<p>The reason I say that is that some of us have made a practice of investigating this. It’s more possible to do so when the school is quite small, the students’ profiles, personalities, preferences, etc. are quite well known, & there is much sharing of info going on. Very often this investigation includes directly questioning those applicants before or after admissions decisions.</p>
<p>Here are the only patterns I have found:
1- unimpressive e.c.'s, and/or very few of them
2- nonchallenging courses. (In our school, it is virtually not possible to “skip courses” that a rigorously selective college would require, so I’m surprised to see several statements about this on this thread. But naturally it’s possible to take no or few courses with an Honors or AP designation if the student chooses not to, or doesn’t qualify.)
3= <strong>the most common stated reason of all</strong> – inattention to the application, unenthusiasm about it, lack of focus as to statement of purpose, or cockiness. (“I blew it off.”)</p>
<p>Unless one or all of the above 3 are true, I have not seen any student get admitted to some Ivies & not others, from our school, ever. What I have seen, though, & often, is Ivy-admits (include cross-Ivy-admits) wait-listed over & over, year after year, by the high-profile LAC’s. Typically, such Ivy-admits can only get in to a highly rated LAC if that student is a legacy at the LAC. That has been the consistent history from our school. </p>
<p>On the low end – the irregular admit with a lower data point on the graph, over “higher” rejects – it has indeed been true that this is a hooked applicant. In the cases I have investigated those have never been “just” legacies. In one case it was legacy + big donor; in all the other cases it was athletic recruit and/or URM.</p>
<p>And as to the comment about mental illness & behavior issues, I have never known one such student at our school (and there have been several with “issues”) whose academic performance was not affected by an untreated or unaddressed situation, ever. They have never been at the top of any graph.</p>
<p>There are still many students & many parents who just do not see how important the <em>focus</em> and the <em>fit</em> are, on the application: how that is articulated, how that is backed up by the student’s record, how it is reflected even in the essay, etc. I don’t care how these three are often grouped together: Harvard is not Yale is not Princeton. It is possible to “belong” at all 3 of them, but less frequent that the application to each makes that clear. Not to mention Columbia, Penn, et al.</p>