Frankly, I think we have a massive undersupply of detailed rejection reports. I get it, who really wants to go tell a bunch of people about a rejection AND all the things you hoped would get you admitted but didn’t end up working. But those are the cases that can actually be illuminating, and perhaps of some comfort.
3 Likes
I always like to reflect on the UK system in contexts like this, where the academic (A-Level) requirements for admission to various courses at various universities are actually published, and then on top of that entities like The Guardian are tracking average UCAS “entry tariffs” as well, a comprehensive rating you can calculate for yourself. Unis are not actually bound to ranking by entry tariff, but you can tell if your academic qualifications and/our entry tariff are in a reasonable range for each specific course.
All this is really only possible because their system is so much more standardized, and they admit by course (what we would call major). Still, it makes it possible for them to do things like limit the UCAS to five applications. That would never work in the US system (not as it stands) because many applicants don’t have the information they need to narrow it down that far. But it does work for at least most UK applicants, because really they do.
1 Like
The ACT is preferable in our district/region because it’s offered for free during school hours.
1 Like
A few other things help enable the UK method:
- The UK population is much smaller relative to the size of the universities.
- More advanced-level work (A-levels) is expected for university-bound students, and the grading is standardized by standardized final exams.
Both of the above make it less likely that a UK university or major is overflowing with applicants whose entry tariff is at the ceiling of the usual admission criteria. The Guardian University Guide 2024 – the rankings | University guide | The Guardian lists average entry tariffs, which can be calculated at https://www.ucas.com/ucas/tariff-calculator . Since A-level A* = 56 and A-level A = 48, four A-level A* grades would be 224, and four A-level A grades would be 192. It is not like the UK universities are flooded with applicants with four A* grades and have to choose between them.
2 Likes
Hi, I find these answers all a bit discouraging. My kids would maybe fall into what is being referred to “average excellent”. They both took a high rigor curriculum, got some B’s - GPA below 3.9 UW, and applied TO. They are unhooked, need FA, and both arts kids, not STEM or athletes. After reading experiences, I was very worried that they would not have a lot of success with “top” schools, and they both had good safeties.
When my oldest was applying, her college counselor told her that her profile was great and she could apply anywhere. She was a leader at school, a strong writer, and had great recommendations. She had a fairly short list, no iveys, and ended up with great success, and a full merit scholarship to a “top” school.
My youngest was very stressed, with a GPA slightly lower than my oldest, they were sure they would not experience the same success with applications. They were a strong leader in Theater, and had a social justice internship, less overall leadership than my oldest, but also a very strong writer and engaged student with strong recommendations. They also had a relatively short list of schools, balanced with reach and “safer” options
They were offered a full ride merit scholarship at their top choice “safer school”, and were admitted to their top choice “reach” school, a “top” LAC that meets full need.
I think that this very narrow definition of “high stats” does discourage qualified students from applying to schools they might do well at, for fear of rejection. Our experience was that when our kids chose schools that were good fits for them, they were successful applicants. Maybe this experience is not universal - but it definitely happens. I think that there are lots of kids getting into these schools that are not “perfect” students, but just interesting kids who will get involved in the campus community and be successful. I think that kids need to be realistic about their stats, their overall applications and their finances, but should be encouraged to take some risks for schools that are a match for what they want
6 Likes
As mentioned in prior posts, GPA and test scores are only part of the picture. They’re not everything or even the main thing. So no one should feel discouraged if they’re within range for a school they like.
But this thread is asking “what do you consider high stats?”, and hence the responses.
1 Like
I hear you, and am glad you responded with that - it is true! I also think that the application process can be very stressful for some kids and they start feeling like they are not enough, and that they will be defined by their grades/scores, when there is so much emphasis on having top stats. I think “high stats” are any stats high enough to get into the schools you want to go to.
I don’t think kids should be discouraged from applying to some reaches, but they should have realistic expectations. Your kids sound interesting and accomplished and it isn’t surprising they were successful in landing at some great schools. Obviously, something in their applications resonated with the AO’s at their schools.
I would say those are adequate stats. “High” would depend on how they compare to the stats of other admitted students.
Of course, what’s high stats for one school may not be high stats for another (for example, at a low selectivity school vs a T50). But when I’m asked who’s a high stats student, I think of students whose stats are high everywhere (with the acknowledgement, as above, that at many schools that’s no guarantee of admission).
I might have been a little too eager to share information like what I can see at our HS, because I agree there is at least a substantial risk some kids would see that as discouraging.
But my real intention is the opposite. Our HS sends a lot of kids to very selective colleges, they have all sorts of advantages in that process, and I think it is entirely appropriate for these colleges to expect very high test scores as well. If they didn’t, we’d presumably send even more kids to these colleges, and I don’t really think that is what these colleges (or our kids) actually need.
But that is only one private school, which is not one of the most famous few, but is definitely on the higher end when it comes to providing resources for college admissions.
And we in fact KNOW these colleges are enrolling plenty of students outside the ranges I gave–we can see that in their CDS filings. And I am quite sure that is true in part because they would not apply the same high test standards to applicants from every school.
So yes, hopefully what people really take from this sort of detailed discussion is not some form of, “You need X+, and if you don’t have X+ you are screwed.” Instead, hopefully they take from it an understanding that X is a variable, it depends on context, and therefore there is actually no practical point to hearing exactly what X was at our high school, if in fact you don’t go to our high school. It is only relevant to help illustrate how this is contextual.
I’d also toss in that different people have different senses of what count as “top” schools, and we should be encouraging more of that!
Like, some people limit that notion to colleges which have little or no merit, and do not include LACs, and sometimes only the ones on the coasts, and so on.
This is artificially limiting, both explicitly and by implication, the sort of value a kid can get out of a strong profile, including but not limited to when they have a really high test score. Because merit is great! LACs can be great for some people! Some people refuse to believe it, but going to college off the coasts can be great!
So yes, if you define “top colleges” really narrowly, that may then, at least after accounting for context, dictate a similarly narrow definition of “high stats”.
But quite appropriately, a wider sense of what can count as a top college admissions outcome will then dictate a wider range of possible “high stats”.
1 Like
I appreciated what you shared and it certainly helped me see how my student’s hs is evaluated.
I guess you would need to define “top” school in addition to high stats. Most top schools don’t award any merit scholarships. There are notable exceptions like Duke or Vanderbilt or a couple of others, but a lot of people may question if it’s really a highly selective school if they offer merit.
I don’t think this thread is intended to encourage or discourage kids who would not be considered “high stats” from applying. It’s intended to come to a common understanding of what high stats means.
GPA and test scores are very important pieces of the application, but they are not the only pieces. High stats kids are going to get denied from some schools, and kids whose stats aren’t as high will get accepted at the most selective because their stats will be good enough and their other factors will carry them.
Also, arts applicants are often treated a bit differently. Even schools like Carnegie Mellon, where the arts students also have very high grades/test scores, the admissions office will tell you that the audition is the single most important factor. This is one of the few college admissions situations where the academics matter but aren’t the primary driver for admissions.
I have a kid who attends a college that’s consistently ranked among the top 25. She was a very strong applicant, but I never would have called her a high stats kid. She still applied to that school, but did so in the context of understanding that not being high stats would impact her chances. She had very good grades, great ECs, and national recognition, but we developed a college list that was more conservative than if she had had another 100 points on her SAT. It didn’t dissuade her from applying to the school she now attends, but it did cause us to be really thoughtful about where else she applied.
2 Likes
Colleges which practice holistic admissions really do practice holistic admissions. Even though HS seniors (and sometimes their parents and guidance counselors) believe that the 4.0 with the 1580 is going to get in over the 3.7 with the 1500, it doesn’t work that way.
Stats are one piece of the puzzle. For many U’s, they are the ONLY piece of the puzzle. Apply with X and Y on your transcript, make sure you’re address is correct, you’re in. But for the highly rejectives-- who could quite literally fill their seats with the tippy top statistics kids- it’s only one piece of the puzzle.
At my own kids HS back in the day- there was always some outrage over the kid who got into Dartmouth but rejected from Brandeis, or a kid accepted to BU but rejected from Muhlenberg. As if somehow the adcom’s get together for a drunken bacchanal at a Holiday Inn one weekend and trade applications like they are playing cards. The colleges take who they want to take. Period full stop. And if those acceptances don’t fall into the neat boxes the kids have constructed-- oh well.
6 Likes
C’mon, it was a motel 6 …
1 Like
Hi! I am using “top” as it is usually used on CC (my kid with merit is at Vandy) - typically rated in the top 20 or 25 schools in the nation. Also, great point about Arts applicants - mine are not arts majors (but my younger did audition and consider BFA- it is an entirely different experience)