College Acceptance/Matriculation Stats: NCS/STA, Holton/Landon

Anonymous
I have been spending way too much time pondering the college admissions process lately. And I have to agree with some of the other posters here regarding the private high schools driving a good portion of the process. I don't know that it is as nefarious as implied, I think it is more realistic. Last night I was looking at some of the Ivy stats (just for kicks, my DD doesn't have a prayer of getting in despite the fact that I am an alum of one - well technically she has no chance because she won't apply). In one guide the schools list the middle 50% of their SAT scores. Several of the top schools have the middle 50% range on both verbal and math as 700-800. So that means that the top 25% are all at 800. That's really pretty extraordinary and certainly supports the notion that there are plenty of kids with 800s for them to choose from so they are looking for additional factors.
Anonymous
The Ivies do not feel guilty about anything. Where is the data to support Ivy guilt? It's a business? It's not about guilt. Affluent whites and AAs in society are not the ultimate movers and shakers! The're not the next inventors, patent winners, creative geniuses who will make the next great break throughs in our society or academia. Universities understand this. They have deep databases to draw on to make these inferences. As long as there are deep pockets to fund their enterprises, and alumni are kept reasonably happy, they will always think outside the box regarding applicants of equal merit (low bar 2400 SAT test scores!). Wouldn't you?
Anonymous
11:13 -- very well articulated post. BTW -- you can never spend enough time thinking about college admissions. You just have to find the best place for your child and apply to the best schools where they have a reasonable chance of being accepted. Your SAT analysis was correct -- the top 25% of Ivy applicants generally have perfect or near perfect SATs, grades, APs, etc. It's very difficult for these academic superstars to stand out...that's why they need to also be great athletes (great enough to be recruited) or savvy enough to start their own busineses/foundations or be first generation bound college applicants.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:PP -- 15:12 -- Unless one's kids are at an exclusive private school -- one couldn't imagine what the "college selection" process is like. It's too hard to explain in one posting and I'm not saying the system or thinking is logical -- but the college counsellors are trying to "save spots" for their preferred students. Ivies will only take 2-4 kids max from most any private high school (those would actually be great numbers). So, if a "non-preferred" student gets a spot -- the counsellors and parents of the "preferred kids" think their spot has been stolen by this "non-preferred" kid. Trust me, you'll get it if your children do attend upscall private schools. If they go public -- you'll have other worries!


As an NCS parent going through the college process I do not think the college guidance folks see it as preferred v. non- preferred. I think they look at it like this for example: Cornell takes between 2-4 girls each year. Lucy has perfect SATs, a 4.0 GPA, lacrosse captain and won the national science fair two years in a row all while setting up her own non - profit that raised $13,000 so a village in Haiti could build a school. Lucy is going to get into Harvard or Yale "for sure" so I want to discourage her from apply to Cornell and "taking away the spot" of the girl who only has the 3.7 GPA and is a national merit finalist and plays concert violin with the WSO. It about keeping the best options open for the most kids. My daughter who has her heart set on Tufts came home crying because one of the "top" girls wants to apply there as a "Safety" and will most like take one spot in the "ncs quota". Is this "top girl" going to go to Tufts, prolly not, would it be nice if she didnt apply there, yes, because then Tufts would probably accept one more NCS girl, would it be my daughter... who knows.


Anonymous
PP -- exactly!
Anonymous
I'm the PP who responded to the 14:18 poster. That poster's bitterness came across loud and clear to me, and moreover, her logic was inconsistent. She claims that only legacies, athletes and minorities stand a chance of getting in to the Ivy League, but then notes that her daughter, who's a double Ivy legacy, was rejected. Kind of undercuts her point, wouldn't you say? I'm really tired of dealing with people who assuage their own bitterness by claiming that more successful people who are not like them had some unfair advantage. As a very succesful minority with very succesful friends, I see it all the time: one friend's AA son got early admission at an Ivy, and the resentment from other parents was palpable. Never mind that the kid had stellar grades, was on the football team, and was fluent in Japanese (and his parents were graduates of the school!). No, he had taken their spot! I generally try and ignore such stupid attitudes, but sometimes it really rankles.
Anonymous
Really, you don't know anything about her daughter. Maybe she had a 5.0 and 1600 SATs too. We just don't know. You judged her pretty unfairly, in my view.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
As an NCS parent going through the college process I do not think the college guidance folks see it as preferred v. non- preferred. I think they look at it like this for example: Cornell takes between 2-4 girls each year. Lucy has perfect SATs, a 4.0 GPA, lacrosse captain and won the national science fair two years in a row all while setting up her own non - profit that raised $13,000 so a village in Haiti could build a school. Lucy is going to get into Harvard or Yale "for sure" so I want to discourage her from apply to Cornell and "taking away the spot" of the girl who only has the 3.7 GPA and is a national merit finalist and plays concert violin with the WSO. It about keeping the best options open for the most kids. My daughter who has her heart set on Tufts came home crying because one of the "top" girls wants to apply there as a "Safety" and will most like take one spot in the "ncs quota". Is this "top girl" going to go to Tufts, prolly not, would it be nice if she didnt apply there, yes, because then Tufts would probably accept one more NCS girl, would it be my daughter... who knows.


Is this really how it works? Wouldn't Tufts have plenty of experience with "top" students turning them down to go to Harvard. As a result, why would they ignore someone who fits their profile and who they could get just so that they can be a safety school for someone on their way to a higher ranked university? Wouldn't they have different pools of applicants, just as the applicants have the schools they are hoping for, and safety schools?

How far do schools go in "discouraging" applications to colleges they deem unsuitable for the applicant?
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
As an NCS parent going through the college process I do not think the college guidance folks see it as preferred v. non- preferred. I think they look at it like this for example: Cornell takes between 2-4 girls each year. Lucy has perfect SATs, a 4.0 GPA, lacrosse captain and won the national science fair two years in a row all while setting up her own non - profit that raised $13,000 so a village in Haiti could build a school. Lucy is going to get into Harvard or Yale "for sure" so I want to discourage her from apply to Cornell and "taking away the spot" of the girl who only has the 3.7 GPA and is a national merit finalist and plays concert violin with the WSO. It about keeping the best options open for the most kids. My daughter who has her heart set on Tufts came home crying because one of the "top" girls wants to apply there as a "Safety" and will most like take one spot in the "ncs quota". Is this "top girl" going to go to Tufts, prolly not, would it be nice if she didnt apply there, yes, because then Tufts would probably accept one more NCS girl, would it be my daughter... who knows.


Is this really how it works? Wouldn't Tufts have plenty of experience with "top" students turning them down to go to Harvard. As a result, why would they ignore someone who fits their profile and who they could get just so that they can be a safety school for someone on their way to a higher ranked university? Wouldn't they have different pools of applicants, just as the applicants have the schools they are hoping for, and safety schools?

How far do schools go in "discouraging" applications to colleges they deem unsuitable for the applicant?


To answer your first question, would Tufts ignore this type of candidate - I think the answer is that they know they are not the first choice yet those candidates bring up their admission stats like average GPA and SAT scores so I doubt they ignore them. Also, some schools will offer scholarships to super-qualified students as a way to get them to matriculate. THis is not to bash Tufts, my sister went their and it's a good school, but obviously is not as competitive as Harvard.

As an anecdote, the smartest girl at my private NYC school applied regular admissions to H, Y, P and Brown knowing all along she wanted to go to Yale, which was very annoying to a lot of people, me included (!). She got into all 4, went to Yale.
Anonymous
Isn't the problem that there are too many Lucies? I.e. the majority of kids at top DC privates are very solid academically, have high SATs, and also have good extracurriculars. (I'm going to discount the foundation starters, because that seems like an outlier, but each school has lots of sports teams with lots of captains.) So then the guidance counselors are put in the position of playing "God" to determine which of these 12 Lucies gets the shot at Harvard vs. Cornell.
Anonymous
What's so annoying about her strategy? I would never counsel my innocent child to put all her eggs in one basket and apply to one school? Like investing...things happen...and times can change in a hurry. And if Yale decided at the last minute not to take my child there is no court of law to cry to. She should have a choice. Don't you think she earned it.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:Really, you don't know anything about her daughter. Maybe she had a 5.0 and 1600 SATs too. We just don't know. You judged her pretty unfairly, in my view.


She actually said in her post that her kid had top grades and SAT scores. If 16:16 is AA and is as successful as she keeps saying, then her kid is admissions gold and she must be aware of this. So it seems pretty harsh to rub the other mom's nose in it, by offering the other mom's "loser" kid a job.

I think there are two legitimate sides to this, and both can and should be argued (nicely). Loser Mom has a kid with top grades and SAT scores who looks boring -- this is a demonstrable, statistical reality for vanilla kids, but Asian kids have it even worse. Loser mom also mentioned sports, let's not forget. Plus, the very definition of affirmative action is that minority kids get advantages over caucasian kids to right the history of George Bushes - without this advantage, what's the point? However, if I was the AA mom I'd be rankled that my own stellar kid earned his slot on his own (although I wouldn't be nasty to the statistically-disadvantaged vanilla kids).
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:I have been spending way too much time pondering the college admissions process lately. And I have to agree with some of the other posters here regarding the private high schools driving a good portion of the process. I don't know that it is as nefarious as implied, I think it is more realistic. Last night I was looking at some of the Ivy stats (just for kicks, my DD doesn't have a prayer of getting in despite the fact that I am an alum of one - well technically she has no chance because she won't apply). In one guide the schools list the middle 50% of their SAT scores. Several of the top schools have the middle 50% range on both verbal and math as 700-800. So that means that the top 25% are all at 800. That's really pretty extraordinary and certainly supports the notion that there are plenty of kids with 800s for them to choose from so they are looking for additional factors.


Depends on the distribution. If the tail drops off quickly, the top 25% could all be in the 750s. Still hard to make, but not quite as impossible.
Anonymous
That's the problem with your myopic analysis. You define affirmative action as some new and distinct and unfair benefit to an AA but neglect the generations of gentleman C (D) entries into Ivy Leagues by the likes of Bush and Kerry (not anomalies, but the rule not the exception) who rode affirmative action from Andover/ St Paul's to Yale and Harvard Business. Many entrants to the Ivies, not so long ago, fell into this category. In fact, I went to a school in NE where almost 95% of single graduating classes of boys alternated ademissions to Yale , Harvard or both depending on the flavor for the year! In fact, my they got to choose their rooms before the other Ivy plebian matriculants!
Anonymous
I certainly wouldn't neglect the years of Bushes and Kerries! I'm not a fan of the first and can see the unfairness of the second.

But I think it's equally myopic to deny that somebody's little white girl is at a disadvantage today. And worse to mock her. You can talk about George Bush till the end of time, but it doesn't change the fact that Asian and other kids face statistical disadvantages today -- because that's the whole point.

So my point is, it's equally wrong to today's Asian or white kid, just as it was wrong to mock yesterday's Jewish or AA kid.

And I say this as a strong supporter of affirmative action. In fact, I think your position actually hurts affirmative action, if your position is really "George Bush got an advantage, so my payback is to mock your kid."
Forum Index » Private & Independent Schools
Go to: