Pervasive Myths - set the record straight

[Anonymous]

The dumbest myth perpetuated on this board (by loser parents of kids who didn't get in) is that the University of Richmond is not an elite school.

[Anonymous]

NEU is selective and highly sought after.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is an outdated stereotype or a false narrative that is prevalent online about a college your kid attends? I personally think this exists a lot, places like A2C are an echo chamber of bad info sometimes that then gets shared like it’s gospel.

Great essays can compensate for weak grades

or

Great grades can compensate for weak ECs or Essays

You need to total package (or be a recruited athlete) for top schools today.

Or that a great test score can compensate for any of that.

+100

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:That your kid's top stats (grades, rigor, and scores) will be reconsidered by the committee as part of the AO committee's holistic review; and that those top-tier stats will add a bump to your kid's application.

[reality - the grades/rigor/scores get you to the room, then are never looked at again. It's about everything else]

+100

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:That your kid's top stats (grades, rigor, and scores) will be reconsidered by the committee as part of the AO committee's holistic review; and that those top-tier stats will add a bump to your kid's application.

[reality - the grades/rigor/scores get you to the room, then are never looked at again. It's about everything else]

My understanding has always been that your stats can get you put in a different stack for consideration with different standards. For example, stats above 75% may put you in a pile where 2/3 of those in the stack get offers, while stats below 25% may mean that only 1/20 in that pile get offers (so you'd need some extraordinary factor). Those with hooks end up sorted into different stacks entirely.

Back in the day these were literal stacks. Now they're figurative because everything is virtual.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That your kid's top stats (grades, rigor, and scores) will be reconsidered by the committee as part of the AO committee's holistic review; and that those top-tier stats will add a bump to your kid's application.

[reality - the grades/rigor/scores get you to the room, then are never looked at again. It's about everything else]

My understanding has always been that your stats can get you put in a different stack for consideration with different standards. For example, stats above 75% may put you in a pile where 2/3 of those in the stack get offers, while stats below 25% may mean that only 1/20 in that pile get offers (so you'd need some extraordinary factor). Those with hooks end up sorted into different stacks entirely.

Back in the day these were literal stacks. Now they're figurative because everything is virtual.

Nope. Definitely not.

It’s based on a point system. For example, at Harvard to 33 and a 36 get you the same point. So I want you to extrapolate and think how different these stacks really are. The biggest points actually come in the other categories. You would do best to familiarize yourself with how these things are scored in the modern era.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That your kid's top stats (grades, rigor, and scores) will be reconsidered by the committee as part of the AO committee's holistic review; and that those top-tier stats will add a bump to your kid's application.

[reality - the grades/rigor/scores get you to the room, then are never looked at again. It's about everything else]

My understanding has always been that your stats can get you put in a different stack for consideration with different standards. For example, stats above 75% may put you in a pile where 2/3 of those in the stack get offers, while stats below 25% may mean that only 1/20 in that pile get offers (so you'd need some extraordinary factor). Those with hooks end up sorted into different stacks entirely.

Back in the day these were literal stacks. Now they're figurative because everything is virtual.

True at public schools only. Not at any school in the top 20 with holistic admissions

[Anonymous]

Major, county within the state and even school, and being first gen college student matter more in the acceptance decision than people realize.

Also, the CDS for each college has a wealth of information and I’m surprised at how few people read them.

[Anonymous]

For those of us who grew up in Va in the 80s and 90s, that other than William and Mary and UVA, every other Virginia school is easy to get into. They are not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Major, county within the state and even school, and being first gen college student matter more in the acceptance decision than people realize.

Also, the CDS for each college has a wealth of information and I’m surprised at how few people read them.

Major especially. Huge variation there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That your kid's top stats (grades, rigor, and scores) will be reconsidered by the committee as part of the AO committee's holistic review; and that those top-tier stats will add a bump to your kid's application.

[reality - the grades/rigor/scores get you to the room, then are never looked at again. It's about everything else]

My understanding has always been that your stats can get you put in a different stack for consideration with different standards. For example, stats above 75% may put you in a pile where 2/3 of those in the stack get offers, while stats below 25% may mean that only 1/20 in that pile get offers (so you'd need some extraordinary factor). Those with hooks end up sorted into different stacks entirely.

Back in the day these were literal stacks. Now they're figurative because everything is virtual.

Nope. Definitely not.

It’s based on a point system. For example, at Harvard to 33 and a 36 get you the same point. So I want you to extrapolate and think how different these stacks really are. The biggest points actually come in the other categories. You would do best to familiarize yourself with how these things are scored in the modern era.

Not everything is about the T20.

[Anonymous]

that northeastern gamed the system for rankings

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That your kid's top stats (grades, rigor, and scores) will be reconsidered by the committee as part of the AO committee's holistic review; and that those top-tier stats will add a bump to your kid's application.

[reality - the grades/rigor/scores get you to the room, then are never looked at again. It's about everything else]

My understanding has always been that your stats can get you put in a different stack for consideration with different standards. For example, stats above 75% may put you in a pile where 2/3 of those in the stack get offers, while stats below 25% may mean that only 1/20 in that pile get offers (so you'd need some extraordinary factor). Those with hooks end up sorted into different stacks entirely.

Back in the day these were literal stacks. Now they're figurative because everything is virtual.

Nope. Definitely not.

It’s based on a point system. For example, at Harvard to 33 and a 36 get you the same point. So I want you to extrapolate and think how different these stacks really are. The biggest points actually come in the other categories. You would do best to familiarize yourself with how these things are scored in the modern era.

A quick Google tells me that Harvard has six "piles" or "scores" for academic quality. This really isn't any different from the piles of yore. The cutoffs are different than my example because it's Harvard, but it's the same premise. They weigh academics more strongly than all the other categories, so it is the most important factor.

Academics
This section’s rating system is perhaps the most clear cut:

“1. Summa potential. Genuine scholar; near-perfect scores and grades (in most cases) combined with unusual creativity and possible evidence of original scholarship.

2. Magna potential: Excellent student with superb grades and mid-to high-700 scores (33+ ACT). 3. Cum laude potential: Very good student with excellent grades and mid-600 to low-700 scores (29 to 32 ACT).

4. Adequate preparation. Respectable grades and low-to mid-600 scores (26 to 29 ACT).

5. Marginal potential. Modest grades and 500 score

6. Achievement or motivation marginal or worse.”

As we can see, each rating tier has specific test scores correlated with it. Therefore, applicants should note that there is truly little difference between getting a 33 or a 36 on the ACT, as both results would yield a 2 in the academic rating.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That 3-2 engineering programs offered by SLAC are ever anything but idiotic. Don't do it.

Agree with this. Mine is planning to get a physics degree at a SLAC and then attend a grad school for Engineering. 3/2 takes away the SLAC experience.

+1

Either attend a school with engineering as a major or plan to get your MS/phd in engineering but nobody wants to leave their college after 3 years to go finish their undergrad degree.

[Anonymous]

I didn't know it was a myth so probably shouldn't dignify it with a response, but since someone here seemed obsessed with it earlier, that Duke is racist.

99% sure the idiot who posted that is not even a minority.