The difference between a 2350 and a 2400 is so miunte (maybe a couple math questions) that the rest of the apps would have to be nearly identical in quality to make that a signfiicant distinction.</p>
<p>I grant that according to some historical data (whcih I have come to accept), SAT scores even at very tiny levels of differerntiation, have been a statistically significant metric. Therefore, in general, absent any obvious hook I think it is safe to say that if an adcom admits an applicant with lower test scores and grades, they may believe that applicant demonstrates some characteristic they need to round out their class, but they may also see something superior in that applicants overall application meritiing admission. Discussing hypotheticals is much easier with specific exmaples, which we do not have. </p>
<p>I will say that jumping to the conclusion that a decision which goes against the test score ranking is the result of some internecine turf war is possible but a little farfetched IMO.</p>
<p>@calmom
“Misjudging a “safety” is a problem, because when a parent or kid takes a school for granted, they are less likely to focus the attention needed on the application that may be the difference between acceptance and waitlist. (My guess is that most yield-protecting decisions are waitlists rather than outright rejection, with the ad com figuring that if the kid really wants to come, he’ll call).”</p>
<p>I agree with this now that we have gone through the process (my S was waitlisted at one of his safety schools). We were very surprised but your point of a college wanting to protect its yield numbers makes sense. I had also assumed that his essays played an important part here.</p>
<p>Perhaps. But that recent NPR piece on admissions at Amherst showed that the admins would table a decision if there didn’t appear to be a consensus. That led me to conclude that perhaps internal factors could outweigh the metrics of any given individual, especially since the stated goal is not necessarily to admit the best students, but to build a balanced class overall.</p>
<p>The big problem with the SAT/ACT tests are they are simply too easy to distinguish among the candidates to top schools. This leads to the situation where one needs to prove exceptional academic ability by participating in state and national competitions; unfortunately, participation in such activities is first and foremost a function of money; also many such competitions are team efforts, so if you’re the only truly exceptional one at your school, you can’t carry a whole team just by yourself. A higher-scaled ACT/SAT that everyone would take could help separate the bright hard-workers from the truly gifted.</p>
<p>"Misjudging a “safety” is a problem, because when a parent or kid takes a school for granted, they are less likely to focus the attention needed on the application that may be the difference between acceptance and waitlist. (My guess is that most yield-protecting decisions are waitlists rather than outright rejection, with the ad com figuring that if the kid really wants to come, he’ll call). "</p>
<p>That happened to us - DD was applying to 3 reaches and 6 matches (with one true safety in reserve with a much later app deadline). DD somehow got the idea that Tulane, which I considered a match, at best a low match, was a safety, and wrote a really weak essay (which I never saw). They rejected her. Something similar if less dramatic happened with Lafayette (which we had shown love to by visiting) It may have had to do with DD talking in her essay about wanting to be an architect - when the closest thing Lafayette had to that was an arch studies minor (I didnt see that essay either ). They WLed her.</p>
<p>My S had the same experience with Lafayette. We considered it a safety and actually expected a merit offer as well. I did not see my S’s essay and assume it was written hastily. He was waitlisted (and accepted with merit at 2 of his other 3 safeties).</p>
). They WLed her.</p>