Quantifying holistic admission (at Williams)

Keilexandra
Wed, 03 Mar 2010 20:37:42 +0000

Source: A Williams econ student’s senior thesis turned working paper. Coauthored by the then-President of the College, Morton Schapiro, and presumably his advisor in the Economics department. The paper is an analysis of matriculation chances, but I found the bits below more relevant for non-technical discussion. It is the most detail I’ve seen on how one particular elite college “quantifies” holistic assessment. The various named attributes are also interesting.
http://www.ephblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/w15772.pdf



Around 60% of the admitted students in the data set had academic ratings of one or two. Roughly 75% of the admitted students had non-academic ratings of two or three.



I’ve heard somewhere or another that 100% (or close to it) of AR1 legacies are admitted to Williams.



While the academic reader ratings are somewhat subjective, they are strongly influenced by the following guidelines. [NB. I’ve added line breaks to make this footnote more readable.]
Academic 1: at top or close to top of HS class / A record / exceptional academic program / 1520 – 1600 composite SAT I score;
Academic 2: top 5% of HS class / mostly A record / extremely demanding academic program / 1450 – 1520 composite SAT I score;
Academic 3: top 10% of HS class / many A grades / very demanding academic program / 1390 – 1450 composite SAT I score;
Academic 4: top 15% of HS class / A – B record / very demanding academic program / 1310 – 1400 composite SAT I score;
Academic 5: top 20% of HS class / B record / demanding academic program / 1260 – 1320 composite SAT I score;
Academic 6: top 20% of HS class / B record / average academic program / 1210 – 1280 composite SAT I score;
Academic 7: top 25% of HS class / mostly B record / less than demanding program / 1140 – 1220 composite SAT I score;
Academic 8: top 33% of HS class / mostly B record or below / concern about academic program / 1000 – 1180 composite SAT I score;
Academic 9: everyone else.





While the non-academic reader ratings are somewhat subjective, they are strongly influenced by the following guidelines. [NB. My line breaks.]
Non-academic 1: at least two activities / at least 3 consecutive years of involvement in one activity / top regional or national standing in an activity / student exhibits a rare level of leadership and engagement;
Non-academic 2: at least two activities / at least 3 consecutive years of involvement in one activity / top local standing in two activities / student exhibits high-level work in differeing activities;
Non-Academic 3: at least two activities / at least 3 consecutive years of involvement in one activity / top local standing in one activity / student exhibits high-level work in one area and long-term commitment to activities;
Non-Academic 4: at least two activities / at least 2 consecutive years of involvement in one activity / moderate level of achievement in two activities / the student participates in a few activities for less than two years;
Non-Acemic [sic] 5: everyone else.





Recorded and assigned by the admissions office, the attributes proxy for qualities that are in some way desirable to the Williams community. This analysis uses the following attributes: alumni grandparent, alumni other, alumni parent, alumni sibling, studio art, development or future fundraising potential, dance, institutional connection, intellectual vitality, local, music, politically active, religious, research science, economically disadvantaged, social service, theater, top athlete, tier 2 athlete, and tier 3 athlete. Strong candidates have many attributes—they are well rounded—or are especially talented with regard to a specific attribute.





The intellectual vitality attribute is given to an applicant that demonstrates “extraordinary academic depth / talent as usually revealed in the recommendations” or a student who admissions officers believe will be “a classroom catalyst who would have a significant impact in labs or class discussion.”5 Recommendation letters with phrases such as “the smartest kid I have taught in 30 years” or “learns for the sake of learning” or “goes above and beyond expectations” or “drives the conversation in the classroom” or “challenges peers to more deeply engage the material” commonly lead to a student being given the intellectual vitality tag. Of the 2,901 admitted students in the data set, 27% received the intellectual vitality attribute.



After factoring in hooked slots, I would guess that a great majority of “academic admits” are tagged with intellectual vitality.

The data on matriculation chances themselves are fodder enough for a future thread.