<p>Well, let me be more specific. I know several people who were ranked in the top 50 of graduating seniors in math who were rejected by all or nearly all top 5 schools in favor of people who were good students but had loads of community service. And the former group had a lot of other activities; one was equally good as a musician. </p>
<p>I think there is a philosophy that over a certain academic threshhold, it’s all the same to the ivy league. The admissions rhetoric reflects this. At known or respected private schools, that GPA threshhold is lower than at a random public school. Perhaps, for example, a 3.5/4.0 at Exeter is considered equivalent to a 4.0 at a public school.</p>
<p>There probably are a handful of students who give less to the community. Those would be the 200-300 or so “brilliant scholars” that Dean Fitzsimmons said they looked for back in 2009. I don’t believe for a second that Harvard isn’t still looking for them - along with the 200-300 super stellar activity kids. The other 1500 or so they admit are mere mortals.</p>
<p>Now we aren’t talking Ivies, but my younger son got into a number of top 20 colleges with B’s in calculus BC and Physics C and Latin. He was not selling himself as a science guy, though Science Olympiad was also one of his activities (with medals at the state level.)</p>
<p>I see we overlap what we agree on. But that 3.5 from Exeter is competing against his own Exeter peers with better- plus all the opportunities the BS craft for their kids.<br>
The threshold usually noted usually refers to SAT scores. Actual grades, especially from a competitive hs, reflect actual effort and success. A different metric. Can you imagine an adcom commenting, “but she had a B in 11th?” It happens.</p>
<p>I remember reading an article in the NY Times several years ago claiming that colleges would prefer the student who participated in the school orchestra over the one who won the state music award and was not involved in music in his own school. The explanation was that they prefer the student who will add to the campus life.</p>
<ol>
<li><p>What of the student who has a 1+ hour commute each way on public transit, family can’t afford/don’t have a car, and finds it more convenient to juggle an after-school/weekend job near home with outside ECs closer to home than in HS?</p></li>
<li><p>What if the HS campus culture/social scene is such that it’s highly toxic for a given student/group of students due to narrow-minded cliquishness of the dominant social group(s) or presence of high crime on campus? For some, HS is four miserable years in a prison like environment before they are liberated at graduation and have more chances of choosing a more congenial environment for work, college, or vocational school. </p></li>
<li><p>Did the adcoms consider the strong possibility that at most private elite colleges like the ones they are likely to work for, the first two won’t be as likely because students will be expecting/mandated to live on campus and more importantly, are able to choose the colleges better fitting for themselves than their local high school(s)?</p></li>
</ol>
Below the GPA percentages, they state that 99.76% of applicants submitted high school GPA.</p>
<p>
Stanford’s CDS lists similar percentages in different GPA ranges as Harvard. For example, 91.5% above 3.75 in Harvard’s 2011-12 CDS vs 91.2% in Stanford’s 2011-12 CDS. 0.7% were below 3.25 at Harvard vs 0.8% at Stanford. Stanford has notably fewer submitting GPA than Harvard, which may relate to Stanford instructing students to not specify GPA (they say list a GPA of “0.0”) when the HS does not use a standard 4.0 system, as is common for international applicants.</p>
<p>This does not mean it’s impossible for unhooked students to be accepted with more than a few Bs. There are several valid reasons for lower GPAs, including attending a HS with more challenging grading than most, as was mentioned above. It’s also possible to show you can handle the college’s coursework in other ways besides having a near perfect HS GPA. For example, I was admitted unhooked to Stanford, MIT, and ivies several years ago with a HS GPA of slightly under 3.5 and a 1300 M+V SAT. I had a 4.0 GPA in university courses taken out of HS, including classes in several different types of fields (math, science, and social science), so it was expected that I could handle the coursework in spite of the lower HS GPA. Many of the other lower GPA admits I’ve seen in the decision threads followed a similar pattern, with a strong upward trend, such as doing poorly in freshman year, but having a solid junior + start of senior year, including strong grades in college prep classes.</p>
<p>cobrat, we know colleges make all sorts of allowances for inner city kids and consider jobs as a very valuable EC. Most students can find some non-toxic activities in a high school, and even if they can’t there is the rest of the larger community. That’s why we have holistic admissions - so that committees can judge the candidates worthiness based on the communities they come from. </p>
<p>And yes, of course a lower GPA is probably fine from a place like Exeter or Andover - but it’s not fine for your average suburban high school. I’m not saying the transcript has to be only A’s, but those B’s should be limited, perhaps in a single subject, and preferably early on in high school.</p>
<p>A little bit of a digression, but I think it’s relevant-
I read in someone’s book (can’t remember who to credit) something that made a lot of sense to me. It was the concept of being “alike but different.” The idea is that schools like to see kids with great talent in a specific area (what we used to call “pointy” applicants), but who are also involved enough in the school to signal that they were sociable, involved, emotionally healthy students. IOW, the application from the kid who’s done amazing academic work in physics but who has no ECs in his school may be more of a gamble for the admissions committee that the same applicant who’s on the student council or captain of the ultimate frisbee team, as these additional activities signal that he’s liked and respected by his peers.</p>
<p>This is not to say that this is what schools are looking for. I think trying to read the tea leaves is futile, and I’m suspicious of grand pronouncements about what will get kids into highly selective schools. The advice I give is not to worry about looking like an interesting person but concentrate instead on doing the things that will make you an interesting person. This is unlikely to result from following a list compiled by a consultant.</p>
<p>I feel sorry for the kids who spend years in resume building only to be disappointed in their college results. When I hear kids or their parents who upon receiving a rejection wail that they wasted all that time spent on cultivating leadership activities I want to take them back in time and tell the student to do what he or she loves. That way the time spent on activities will never be wasted and the student may have set down the road toward a lifelong interest.</p>
<p>It must be obvious by now that I get a little cringe when people say, do what you love- as if tippy top adcoms primarily care about your own self satisfaction. At 17. I do think some of it changes when we take it down a notch. But when H gets 35,000 apps, anyone really think they are looking for some mythical finished product? The hypothetical, A/B student who is so happy with her life and choices may not be the best choice for a school with a highly competitive academic environment, a hugely broader range of learning opps and steps, and well prepped peers open to exploring and who understand much of what brings success in life is about knowing it takes more than doing what you love or what you prefer.</p>
<p>Just as certain APs (when available) are needed for certain majors, so are certain ways of thinking, recognizing and expanding. Yes, some of that may fall into resume building. </p>
<p>All right, I admit that “do what you love” might be a bit overly broad, particularly if what you love is playing World of Warcraft in your basement. :)</p>
<p>My point is more that kids should pursue worthwhile activities that excite them, and take them to the highest level possible, not follow some recipe for success and then complain when their souffle falls flat. I can just see some parent telling their child they need to play high school soccer and quit club or join NHS instead of continuing to work at the outside volunteer job they truly enjoy because someone on the internet (no disrespect meant to the OP, who’s just offering information) said colleges are looking for engagement in the students’ schools.</p>
<p>There are basically three overlapping business models for a college:</p>
<p>Tuition: offer a valuable service to students and take money from them in return.</p>
<p>Public funding: convince the public (legislators, companies, “Famous Person” Foundations) that the school is benefiting the public; encourage them to invest in the public good.</p>
<p>Alumni donations: design the college experience in order to make graduates likely to (a) make a lot of money (by admitting academic high-achievers and educating them well) and (b) donate it back (by admitting community-oriented applicants and instilling in them a sense of pride for their future alma mater).</p>
<p>Rely on tuition and you end up with the University of Phoenix. Rely on public funding and you end up with all sorts of nasty problems, especially understaffed faculty. An alumni network seems to be the one thing that sets the Harvards apart from the Directional State Universities.</p>
<p>Both my kids loved playing computer games. One of my older son’s activities was helping with the programming for a mod for Civilization 4. It was written up in Gaming Magazine - so on to the resume it went. Who knew that all those hours playing an online game, might actually be semi-productive?! Anyway I agree with both Sue22 and lookingforward that kids should do what they love, but with a weather eye at least on what looks good too. That means if computer programming is your thing, you don’t just teacher yourself from MIT’s Open Sourcewear, you also look for opportunities to use your skills in real life. And I’m also convinced that even very modest activities can sound a lot more interesting if you are a good writer! I don’t mean you lie or exaggerate either.</p>
<p>I have a feeling that there’s some truth here that is getting exaggerated and misinterpreted.</p>
<p>I think it would indeed be unusual, barring extenuating circumstances, for a student not to have ANY involvement in activities through their high school, and can see how that might be a little bit of a red flag. I mean, for a bright kid, between Science Olympiad, math team, literary magazine, school newspaper, not to mention athletics and the arts, there would be something a little weird about not having been engaged in any activities within your own school community, even if you had also done a smattering of outside volunteer work and sang in your church choir. </p>
<p>Short of that, though, I can’t really imagine that colleges are giving significantly more brownie points for the school musical than for community theater, let alone that they would hold it against you that your major EC was competitive figure skating, something that was not offered through the school. Involvement in school activities is far LESS impressive than plenty of other things one could do outside the school - but I do think there is probably a general expectation that students will have done something within the walls of their HS as well.</p>
<p>Alumni donations and active alumni aren’t limited solely to elite private colleges. One only needs to see the levels of alumni loyalty to many public flagships and some public magnets/suburban high schools. </p>
<p>Also, many overseas public universities like National Taiwan U have loyal alumni networks whose alums maintain strong loyalty ties and donate generously even though their admissions aren’t holistic in any way and admissions are solely by whether one met or exceeded the cut-off score. </p>
<p>Their alumni associations and fund-raising efforts are just as strong and effective as what I’ve seen from the more active and effective elite college alumni associations and their fund raising campaigns. Got to see plenty of this not only among NTU alums in the NE area, but also with older relatives who are NTU alums. </p>
<p>I know it’s not the way colleges are thinking nowadays, but I do feel nostalgic for the days when smart kids were allowed to develop interests at their own pace, maybe work on a rotten novel for months on end, create art for the sake of creating it, act without being the lead, play tennis because they like it even though they suck. Maybe it’s because I grew up reading voraciously without anything to show an adcom for it, good books but mostly bad books (I read the entire oeuvres of Agatha Christie and Georgette Heyer in high school! Who’ll give me credit for that?). I know that the “best” schools are looking for high-performers who lead and high-energy extroverts and problem-solvers and all that, but I think we should spare a thought for the quiet, reflective types who take time to develop. I said this once before, and got slapped down by a Harvard grad who said such people were welcome to go to other schools than Harvard, and perhaps she was right–I didn’t go to Harvard–but at this point all the schools for smart kids seem to be taking that tack. Where do smart introverts belong? Where is the room for people who want to spend time outdoors, without leading hikes for underprivileged children? Are those people simply not qualified in today’s college market? Do they have no worth, if they haven’t blossomed by 17?</p>
<p>My son had no ECs at his high school. In fact, he had no ECs at all. But he did have jobs, starting halfway through his freshman year. I don’t know whether this would have counted against him if he had applied to top schools. But as it happened, he didn’t do that. He chose our state university.</p>
<p>What percentage of students graduated in the top 10% of their class? I don’t remember Harvard ever breaking 90%? It was more like 85% in the past.</p>
<p>And I’m surprised Harvard even gives averages. Colleges love to give medians or 25%-75% ranges because they discount the lower tail. </p>