<p>Don’t these various figures tell us that (more or less, on the back of the envelope), that about 60% of MIT’s applicants have math SATs about 700, and 40% have SATs between 600 and 700? (I’m discounting those with SATs below 600, since we can’t back calculate how many of them there are.)</p>
<p>MIT’s figures are the exact rates, but for the combination of US and international applicants. This understates the SAT effect because as you increase SAT you raise both the rate of US admission, and the representation of internationals, who are admitted at a quarter of the US rate. </p>
<p>My figures are estimated rates, derived from MIT’s table and from its overall admission rates for US and international applicants (not broken down by SAT), of what the SAT-based rates look like for the US domestic applicants. If you further disaggregate the table by gender and minority status as well as nationality, the SAT effects should increase within each category.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s interesting. Of course, one interesting thing is that rising from 88% percentile to 100% Harvard’s admit rate only goes from 10% to 20%. Still only a 1/5 chance even with perfect SATs.</p>
<p>And Princeton apparently has a donut hole due to strategic admissions.</p>
<p>Still, an interesting report.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Not true. In fact, I said in post# 730:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>There is something causal of high performance and outstanding achievements, which we can’t pinpoint yet, but the presence of which is reflected better by extremely high SAT scores than by most other metrics. I think this is what siserune was saying earlier.</p>
<p>Re: great EC’s. I think there are at least three ways to make someone “stand out” here, and I believe we can incorporate this to the model.</p>
<ol>
<li> Being extremely good at something well known, often demonstrated with winning first place in national or international competitions, or achieving professional recognition.</li>
<li> Outstanding achievements in a rare activity, often demonstrated with creative works that are unquestionably top quality.</li>
<li> Outstanding achievements in multiple activities that are in different and unrelated fields.</li>
</ol>
<p>marite, it does seem we are regressing back to a HYPSM focus, which I hope to quickly get out of. The recent arguments against the model have been fueled by MIT’s recent admissions results. I think we all agree “Ivy-caliber” defines a group of high caliber kids, a small subset of which have what it takes to be admitted to HYPSM.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So how I do account for the (non-hooked, non-athlete / URM) acceptances to Ivies among kids that I personally know, who truly and really, are just bright well-rounded kids? Who may have unique activities and interests, but not “outstanding achievements” in them? Who may not have won a single award outside of their school community – who AREN"t #1 in the state / nation in their areas? Really and truly, these are BWRK’s.</p>
<p>PG, I think we may need to define BWRK more clearly. I suspect we may have a wider range of opinions on this than even the definition of Ivy-caliber.</p>
<p>The above list was primarily meant to address HYPSM level admissions, as a response to earlier postings on the recent MIT admissions results. The list is certainly applicable to other Ivies+, but I agree with you that many admits do not have any of the three. Then again, EC’s are just a part of the total package. </p>
<p>I think the model is useful in encouraging those who otherwise would not apply to Ivies+ because they are too conscious of one or two weaknesses in their stats. As long as they have something interesting and strong elsewhere, they may still have chances. I’m sure you remember the nay sayers in our 3.6 thread. Just because the GPA is on the low side of Ivies+, it doesn’t mean you have to give up on them!</p>
<p>Pizzagirl, in 805 are you referring to a single/few Ivies? PCP, at least earlier, was referring to the across-the-board-qualified, likely-admit candidate to all-applied-to Ivies. In general, the unhooked BWRK would not be in the latter category.</p>
<p>No, I’m not referring to “across-the-board-qualified, likely-admit candidate to all-applied-to-Ivies.” Then again, in my neck of the woods, kids don’t choose “the Ivies” – they choose the top schools that are of interest to them, which may include a few Ivies but may also include other top schools. </p>
<p>In other words, they look at (say) the top 20 or top 30 list and they make their selections of which a few will naturally be Ivies – the fact that some of those schools happen to be in the Ivy League doesn’t really play into it, they are just some among top schools. </p>
<p>As opposed to what I think goes out in other areas of the country, which is “let’s select the Ivies, and then fill in with a couple of other top schools, but the Ivies are the goal.”</p>
<p>Put another way, for smart kids out here, wanting to go to Cornell or Penn or Dartmouth isn’t any different from wanting to go to Duke or JHU or whatever. There isn’t the magical OMG-it’s-an-Ivy flash. The Iviness doesn’t drive the selection as much, IMO.</p>
<p>But in any case. I never said nor do I think that BWRK’s are “auto admits” to top schools. But what I’m saying is … I see kids on CC who have stats and achievements out the wazoo, who are Intel winners, USAMO winners, whatever, #1 in state or in nation in xyz contest, and they are rejected. And I see kids IRL who are not-straight-A, not-2400, not-15-AP’s, not contest winners … but just BRWK who act in the school play and run for student council and help little old ladies across the street … and some of them hit the lottery and get into those schools. Which tells me that it’s a lot more about who sounds just like an interesting kid that you’d like to get to know and have on your campus, versus the “perfect” CC candidate.</p>
<p>PG, I don’t think either I or PCP was referring to such a scattershot application syndrome, focused on 8+ specific schools. He was, and I am, referring to a recognizable level of achievement and ability which would qualify the candidate no matter which Elite U’s were in the preferred list of appropriate-fit schools. </p>
<p>I agree with you, though, on the “top-of-everything” examples you mention on CC, a “type” of which often gets rejected everywhere, but that’s not because of a list they apply to, but because even for one of those schools, they lack one or more of the genuine qualities which are sought by the entire list. I think that was your point and not one I argue with. Stats are not synonymous with passion or with character, or even with a genuine love of academics, all of which the Elites like to see.</p>
<p>He’s looking for the candidate who has both the quantitative and qualitative that such Elites seek. My contention is that the latter cannot be converted into the former (and thus predicted and ranked), even though it is definitely recognizable, can be observed and verbalized. His effort is to quantify it.</p>
<p>He was, and I am, referring to a recognizable level of achievement and ability which would qualify the candidate no matter which Elite U’s were in the preferred list of appropriate-fit schools. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>We agree fully on this then. Which is why I react so viscerally to the “2300, +10 if you get 2350, +10 if you get 2400.” Because the top schools themselves don’t think that 2350’s are, in and of themselves, “more deserving” of admittance. It’s just part of an overall impressionistic picture. Which is why some overprepped kids don’t get in and some unhooked BWRK’s too. There is an element of crapshoot to this that I don’t see what is so difficult about understanding.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>A few months ago, I read a CC post comparing highly-selective college admissions to a theatre director casting the high school musical. I’ve found it a great and insightful analogy. In the musical, there are featured performers as well as ensemble members rounding out the cast. The top actor auditioning may not be cast despite his talent, because he’s half a foot shorter than the female lead. The best singer may be an alto instead of the soprano the director needs. A concert pianist can’t get into the orchestra for the show because the music director has a solid keyboard player but needs someone on the drum set. I’ve been told by someone who has strong alumni interviewer ties to Harvard admissions that there’s no way to know who’s at the the “top” of the waitlist, because if a tenor backs out of an admissions decision, the Admissions office will select another tenor to replace him, a debater gets replaced by a debater, etc.</p>
<p>Post 810:
I don’t agree with the term “crapshoot,” and never have. That implies far more randomness (to me) than I think is called for. I do think there is randomness, but that is more limited to truly out-of-control elements such as geography and other elements of personal data which can coalesce to "dis"qualify otherwise mega-qualified candidates (who have the non-quantifiable aspects, too). Such candidates might, and do, get accepted to particular Elites but not others, based on diversified applicant pools to the various Elites, and the desire for optimum balance in selected freshman classes, at each of those Elites.</p>
<p>I do, however, think the predictability of the mega-qualified pool is limited to those who know the candidate rather well, and to those to whom the candidate has succeeded in sharing the nonquantifiable elements. I could happily post my own list, in contradistinction to PCP’s variegated list, but it doesn’t seem that’s desired, and it would be just as open to criticism as anyone else’s list. (Not a science, it’s an art.) :)</p>
<p>its impossible to build a model for admissions…btw I don’t know if you guys understand it but colleges are NOT looking for a well-rounded student…they are looking for a well rounded-CLASS…strong GPA and SAT’s are all required now, what makes a difference is ec’s, essays, awards…although being a well-rounded student hardly hurts you at all…if you are compared to some olympic champion that spends his/her life on her target sport…then you are nothing…colleges want to diversify their class not to just accept students that all look the same…many students have the strong academics, SAT’s, essays, awards, sports, clubs, leadership, community service but not many students have one spike that let’s you stand above everybody else…whether this spike is in leadership or science research, you should aim for something in depth instead of cover a shallow amount of important aspects for your application</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Crapshoot, to me, doesn’t imply “go ahead with your 2.5 GPA and apply to Harvard, what the heck, they might select you.” It means that as with any process in which humans are involved, what strikes an adcom one day might not strike them the next day, or what strikes the adcom who reads for Indiana might not strike the adcom who reads for Missouri. Or how well your oboe-playing app reads after 3 other oboe player apps were just admitted is different from how well your oboe-playing app reads when it’s the first one up. That’s all. </p>
<p>All the CC superstars who sadly get deferrals though? They all look to me, frankly, to be the same. There’s only so much 2300+ SAT’s, multiple AP’s of 4 and 5, science Olympiads and 1 varsity sport that someone can read without their eyes glazing over. And I think sometimes the BWRK gets chosen to “cleanse the palate,” for lack of a better term.</p>
<p>E20120CY, I think most, if not all, of us, get that, and always have. In general, BWRK’s who are not also high-achieving in that well-roundedness, are not necessarily at the top of the list for Ivies. </p>
<p>PG, I don’t necessarily agree with your description of the oboe situation. Most of that is not chance, as there will probably be other factors, relevant to other areas of achievement and/or the major/program most likely to be selected, and/or being from the same school/region, that would and do reduce the attractiveness of Oboe applicant numbers 2 and 3, not the fact in itself that those two were not “first up.”</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>But that IS chance, from the point of view of the applicant / student. He can’t control that there are 3 other oboe players from his region. He can’t control that his app was #10 in the pile being reviewed on Thursday rather than #2.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Agreed, 100%. Also, I think the BWRK may come off as far more genuine. I’ve never known how much of the information posted on CC by students is real or made up for purposes of the board – but those super-achievers all give the sense of kids simply did whatever they thought would most impress colleges. So there might be a lot of eye-rolling among the ad coms looking through some of the apps – especially if the praise, and self-praise, is laid on too thickly.</p>
<p>PG, I know we keep using “the oboe player” as a poster child example of circumstantial influence in admissions, and I agree sometimes an oboe player is just the missing piece in the puzzle; however, my guess is such situations are the exceptions, not the norm. I would expect no more than a small percentage of students get in this way.</p>
<p>Re: the third oboe player disadvantage. Each app goes through multiple independent readers for each of the Ivies+. Readers are most likely not reading the apps in the same order and they don’t make final decisions on the fly. The third oboe player may be the first oboe player to the next reader! From what I understand, the readers mark up the apps and pass them along to the next reader. Each app has a summary of “scores” from all the readers when it goes before the committee for discussion/vote. With this kind of work flow, unless you have an extremely unscrupulous reader, it is not easy for the third oboe player to be decisively disadvantaged in the process.</p>
<p>The way PCP just described is in fact the way it does happen, as least as I have read similarly.</p>
<p>What the applicant cannot control is who he or she is competing against, including the vagaries of region, school, personal origin, and predicted academic interests in college. But generally it’s not as “random” or whimsical as the sequence in which your application is read.</p>
<p>PCP, you are right as to the multiple readings, but that just adds a layer of complexity to the same process. The oboe analogy has always been oversimplistic – but the point is that with multiple readings over time, the applicant needs to be lucky enough to be the first oboe player that each successive reader sees.</p>
<p>Actually, while the process differs at most colleges, my impression is that it can be a one-strike or two-strike out process. That is, if reader #1 scores the app as a definite “no” – it may never get to reader #2. So to stay in the game, the applicant needs to be at least a “maybe” with each successive reader. </p>
<p>I also don’t think it is nearly as simple as a particular quality, like oboe-playing. I think its more subjective than that – but at the same time the readers know what is valued by their college and what isn’t. The point is, reader #1 has to find something appealing in the application, and reader #2 also needs to find something appealing – that “something” doesn’t need to be the same for each reader. But in each instance, it isn’t going to help if the applicant looks too much like other applicants the reader has already seen.</p>
<p>While the order in which oboists’ applications are received and considered by each reader my be somewhat random, the chances of being the first oboist correspond with the overall number of oboists in the application pool.</p>
<p>I know of a student at a top Ivy who played bagpipes, competitively. I don’t know what his other star qualities may be, but I’ll bet that there weren’t many other competitive bagpipe players in the applicant pool. I also doubt that the Ivy school cares very much whether they have any bagpipe players in a given class – but certainly the bagpipes probably helped the kid’s application stand out from the others. </p>
<p>The problem with trying to assign a quantitative analysis is that, once the “no way” candidates are weeded out – there remains a large pool of exceptionally well qualified students to choose from, and in the end it becomes largely a gut level, subjective, emotional decision. And in that context, in a given case it might be much better to be a person who is pretty good at something very unusual, as opposed to being remarkably good at something common.</p>