Brown University posts on its website that 94% of its student body rank in the top 10% of their senior class. So if the student is in the top 12% but has perfect ACT scores, his chances of admission to Brown are less than for a student in the top 10% with imperfect ACT scores. Most students I know are in denial about their own ranking because they assume that “since my school doesn’t rank,” Brown won’t care. But rank has always been important to elite U’s, and when push comes to shove, grades are more important than test scores (for most of the top 20-25 schools).
High schools that insist they “don’t rank,” don’t disclose the ranks and/or don’t publicly recognize/award rank. But for many public universities, it’s a liability “not to rank.” Example: UC’s ELC. Believe me, schools that claim they don’t rank miraculously find a way to do so when they need, in early September, to report to UC which student’s are in the top 9% of the senior class. In addition, most high schools rely anywhere from somewhat to exclusively on ranking in order to select Vals and Sals. Furthermore, the great majority of high schools use a decile system at the very least.
While various admissions committees regard rank unevenly, the point I’m making is that this is only one example of widespread denial of facts which elite u’s do post on their websites. Despite the accusations about how “subjective” committees are, students and their parents are far more subjective about honestly evaluating their student’s chances for a top school. That is, although most colleges, including elites, evaluate in some holistic fashion, basics matter. An ACT score or a Siemens competition is not going to make the committee forget about the fact that the student is not within the top decile of his class. And rather than berate the colleges for “opacity,” how about berating the school’s guidance counseling office if they refuse to be transparent and disclose at least to the family what the student’s decile rank is?
Again, there is so much more that goes into admission decisions than numbers and ranks, but when an Elite posts information on its website that a family chooses to ignore or dismiss, don’t blame the college.
Meanwhile, with all the family focus on stats, all the confusion (and outrage) that someone with lower stats got an admit, you miss the rest of the app, what the kid has been doing or not, over 3.5 years.
One example. You get kids who so engaged in their interests (relevant to college and not isolated,) who go past the hs box, get out there and do, engage. Small or large efforts, doesn’t need to be glitzy. You can look at their ok but not stellar scores and say, “But this is the kind of kid we want to invest in.” That is so very different than founding a club. Or the count of vol hours, any old vol hours. Or how much money you raised. Or publishing a paper.
(Hmmm, is this an example of how people can have misconceptions about a college’s admission policy because they did not read what the college publicly stated on its web site?)
@ucbalumnus
I’m aware of all of that. I know that the schools , submit the top 15%, not the top 9%, and that UC adjusts from there.
In addition, UC honors ties, by the way. And I know all of this in great detail because my own daughter was ELC when it was 4%, not 9%. For UC to be able to calculate the 9% among the 15%, the high school needs to know the rank. Therefore, there is a rank. I just didn’t want to go into technical details because this thread is not about UC, even though you like to make every CC thread about UC. This thread is about Elite private universities.
My point is not about the technical processes of ELC selection at a public university whose admissions processes are relatively transparent. It’s about (topic of thread) elements necessary to be at least competitive for private universities which supposedly have some “secret” information hidden away. One of those elements is the student’s rank within the high school class, measured, by the way, within the school’s own profile, which in turn makes it very important that the school administration accurately report the details of that profile to the colleges.
“It’s ironic that you use MIT as an example - they are among the most transparent Admissions Offices out there,”
They’ve been this way for a while, even in the early 80s, their admissions brochure had acceptance rates by SAT scores, very informative (I never applied but a few of my hs classmates did). They can be more transparent because they have little to hide compared to a place like Harvard, no legacy, little or no athletes, not influenced by power and connections. MIT gets very few fluff applications.
This is true, @theloniusmonk , but there are still plenty of students who apply inappropriately to MIT – even if their applications are not “fluff.” Students and parents emotionally “filter” quite a bit of information that is published.
“It’s superficial, counterintuitive, and a misunderstanding of holistic, to try to claim stats alone can improve chances.”
Agree there, only wealth can improve chances at a place like Harvard.
“Despite the accusations about how “subjective” committees are,”
There’s nothing wrong with being subjective, adcoms are human, they make mistakes, and they have biases, most of them unconscious as the latest research has shown. They don’t know why they rejected another Asian that plays the violin really well, or another superb white female from upstate NY, they just do.
I think you missed my point about subjectivity, @theloniusmonk . While I do agree with you that the process is ultimately subjective, even more subjective are the perceptions of applicant families (about their own students), and it is that very subjectivity which causes so much overlooking (and later criticism) of elite universities who do in fact post objective criteria on their websites. And that is much more at the heart of communication and knowledge than the generalized accusations of opacity.
A) you guys really overestimate what high school guidance counselors do at most public schools; most of their effort is scheduling classes, submitting the minimal required docs on common app in time, and dealing with problem kids. typically 400-500 kids per counselor. (at privates they tend to have separate counselors for curricula and college apps; and they tend to have 100-200 kids too). Neither of my kids was ever scheduled to discuss “appropriate” colleges to apply to nor was this known to be offered at the school
B) holistic is used by admissions as a legal defense to take the 1400 SAT athlete while denying 1600 white/asian kids. (To clarify I am not opposed to this! it should just be transparent, rather than word of mouth.) Delusional parents/kids think it means if my kid has a 1400 they have a chance (they don’t). Rejection rates by test score that have sporadically been published but not by all would go a long way to driving down applications. But again, colleges want as many apps as possible so they do everything to drive it that direction.
It’s frustrating what people take as gospel and what they ignore. The media is not your resource.
And in all the years of my involvement, I’ve never heard an adcom discuss USNews or that ranking. It may occur, but many on CC think it’s a driving concern.
The sort of kids where there’s a yield concern are those so nearly perfect that you wonder. That’s not a Tufts syndrome.
Btw, it’s not the GC’s job to solve this for you. If you’re really tippy top material, you should be capable of doing your part.
Holistic is not a legal defense. It’s a way of looking for students who merit a spot. And of course a 1400 has a shot. Just what do you think the range is?
You could do that under current educational provisions in the tax code. But as I stated, the public support for nonprofit status is based on the concept that the nonprofit receives a tax benefit or other subsidy because it provides a public service that benefits everyone equally or specifically serves the underprivileged. Some of the code relating to educational institutions originated when the public didn’t have the understanding (and most still don’t) that at least some of these educational institutions aren’t providing an overall public good, but instead exist primarily to a benefit to a very small segment of wealthy and connected insiders.
Tax laws are revised at both a federal and state level regularly to respond to new information, to promote or discourage behavior, to shape or reward.
Just as many state and local authorities are rewriting regs to remove the tax exempt status (both property taxes and certain UBI taxes) for colleges’ huge revenue making properties as they realize that those are essentially private business being improperly subsidized by the taxpayers, if the American public at large were made aware of the substantial number of admissions slots at some selective colleges that are awarded based on non-educational criteria to insiders, wealthy and connected people, there would be huge pressure to examine if these are truly educational institutions that serve the greater public good or are instead entities that primarily serve privileged insiders, just admitting a few of the non-connected best and brightest to maintain their reputations.
No, because the original Tufts issue was about perceived status. It’s a great school, but wasn’t H, Y, or B. Not this overarching concern with yield that CC folks claim.
If you really want college x, you need to show it. Not by claiming love, but in how you show your knowledge of the school and your match, now and going forward into the next 4 years. That’s not about acceptance rates or your future networking or pride.
“One example. You get kids who so engaged in their interests (relevant to college and not isolated,) who go past the hs box, get out there and do, engage. Small or large efforts, doesn’t need to be glitzy. You can look at their ok but not stellar scores and say, “But this is the kind of kid we want to invest in.” That is so very different than founding a club. Or the count of vol hours, any old vol hours. Or how much money you raised. Or publishing a paper.”
This is another stereotype that gets perpetuated. That the ok stats kid has engaged and exhibited some higher order thinking but the higher stats kids couldn’t do this.
Anyway this is not validated by the actual facts of admissions, there are very few of these ok stats, engaged kids at colleges, there are a lot more high stats, engaged kids at colleges, that’s what colleges really want. Take Princeton, 25% of its class is below 1430, say 500 students to make math a little easier, if you think a 1300 is an ok score, then maybe you have 50 of these ok stats but engaged types of students. And you have about 1400 high stats kids in the class of 2000, that probably only studied in high school. What a boring campus Princeton is!
“OK stats” is a relative term. In our area the anger seems to bubble up when the kid ranked 18 with a 1510 gets in and the kid ranked 3 with a 1580 doesn’t. Sometimes its legacy, occasionally URM, but often you are looking at unhooked kids. That is what holistic allows. It allows the school to take the 1510 with “something special” over the average excellent 1580.
If the 1400 doesn’t, he doesn’t get in. The stereotype is that lackluster kids get in via pull or diversity wants. I’m telling you my experience, that being high(er)stats isn’t a direct line to a great app package.
Yes, it’s harder for a 1300 kid when right next to him are higher scores and equal engagement. Depends on his area, major and more. But 650/650 isn’t a rejection stamp.
Other than issues of recruited athletes, any kid could present well. But it’s not a direct correlation with stats. You’d have to see what the vast pool of applicants does offer or not, to get an idea how “same old” a lot are. By thier own hand, by their own choices over 3+ years, they don’t present their potential. But Idon;t think this answers the big question in posters’ minds: just what is “it?”
Thank you, milee30, as you just proved my point. The rest of your post is your opinion of what the law should be, not what is today.
Sorry but outside of the cc bubble and perhaps the NYT, there is no pressure and no groudswell to change the law as it only affects maybe 1% of high schoolers. The other 99% are happy to go to their instate public or not-tippy top private.
On a public policy basis, I am much more concerned the affordability and access to the instate publics.