Discriminatory College Advising @ Big 3

[Anonymous]

I think SAT and ACT scores matter more, but grades and overall high school performance matter most. At St.Albans in past years, lots of the Ivy admits were merely "commended."

[Anonymous]

Agreed. For example, the SAT tests a fairly simple understanding of algebra-level math, which is far from the more conceptual studies of calculus and linear algebra that many advanced high school students take. The grades that the students receive in these classes are much better indicators of ability to succeed in more advanced areas of study. The standardized tests are more useful at calibrating the school itself, and validating or disproving the student's grade performance and teacher recommendations. At the very upper end of the register (you define) you will find some correlation between acceptance rate and scores, but it is not as strong as you might think.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think people are too quick to use National Merit as a shorthand for smart kids. At our school, the NMSFs are not uniformly the smartest kids in the school and as a result don't all go to Ivies. Increasingly it is more about your high school record than the result of one test.

I think NMSF and SAT and grades are all good, but imperfect, indicators of which kids are smart. I suppose it's possible for some dumb kid to get lucky and guess correct on enough test questions to boost his score, or possible for some smart kid to get distracted and screw up her PSAT score. But those same errors can creep into school grades. We all know of examples where an average kid who was teacher's pet got an undeservedly high grade, or where a class rebel got unfairly low grades from teachers. No measure is perfect. And thinking back to my own high school experience, it generally was the smartest kids who scored best on the standardized tests. Some were slackers with middling grades, but they were the people we all considered the brightest. Not saying those tests are perfect by any means, but they're pretty effective.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think people are too quick to use National Merit as a shorthand for smart kids. At our school, the NMSFs are not uniformly the smartest kids in the school and as a result don't all go to Ivies. Increasingly it is more about your high school record than the result of one test.

I think NMSF and SAT and grades are all good, but imperfect, indicators of which kids are smart. I suppose it's possible for some dumb kid to get lucky and guess correct on enough test questions to boost his score, or possible for some smart kid to get distracted and screw up her PSAT score. But those same errors can creep into school grades. We all know of examples where an average kid who was teacher's pet got an undeservedly high grade, or where a class rebel got unfairly low grades from teachers. No measure is perfect. And thinking back to my own high school experience, it generally was the smartest kids who scored best on the standardized tests. Some were slackers with middling grades, but they were the people we all considered the brightest. Not saying those tests are perfect by any means, but they're pretty effective.

Your general point may be right, but within the tight band that the PP is talking about (10 or 150 points on a PSAT or 100 to 150 point equivalent on an SAT) a single test taken on any given Saturday is not a good measure of who is "smartest".

[Anonymous]

I meant to say 10 to 15 points on PSAT, which is roughly the delta between avg. NMSF and commended scholar and less than one Standard Error.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My child was at a big 3 and was told "no ivy" was a possibility, despite 3 800s and a grade point average of over 3.9. She was a HYP legacy as well!! They said because she wasn't an athlete, even though she had been captain of a team she formed herself and did outside of school. I was pretty outraged but just kept on with it. The counselor objected when she signed up for 5 Ap tests junior year. When she got all 5s, the counselor was more interested. She had many other activities and an extra language as well. I came up with some special programs that some of the ivies had that she would be great in and the counselor became more interested. Sometimes I think its a matter of helping the counselor market your child. In your case, being Latino will help hugely and I think you should be very nice to the counselor and keep asking, nicely, for what you want. Why does your child want to go to those specific schools? Give the counselor a few reasons. Look at the professors- have your child read some of their books. And when your child gets in, they will remember your persistence always!! And do not worry about your child fitting in- those universities are huge and there is no in crowd- just many many groups and your child will belong to several I am sure. And yes, my child did get where she wanted to go. The counselor was a big supporter in the end. My child was quiet as well. One thing the counselor said was " Columbia told me not to send any quiet students there" !! Insane!!

This is shocking. Truly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think people are too quick to use National Merit as a shorthand for smart kids. At our school, the NMSFs are not uniformly the smartest kids in the school and as a result don't all go to Ivies. Increasingly it is more about your high school record than the result of one test.

NMSF has virtually nothing to do with acceptance at highly selective schools. It's simply a measure of how your PSAT score compares to PSAT scores of others kids in your state. Colleges never see your PSAT score, they evaluate applicants based on SAT I and II, and ACT, scores.

There are schools that give very lucrative merit scholarships to NMSF, because they are trying to improve their academic reputation and want to be able to boast about all the NMSFs they enroll (as well as benefit from the boost their SAT averages will get). But not the highly selective ones.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think people are too quick to use National Merit as a shorthand for smart kids. At our school, the NMSFs are not uniformly the smartest kids in the school and as a result don't all go to Ivies. Increasingly it is more about your high school record than the result of one test.

I think NMSF and SAT and grades are all good, but imperfect, indicators of which kids are smart. I suppose it's possible for some dumb kid to get lucky and guess correct on enough test questions to boost his score, or possible for some smart kid to get distracted and screw up her PSAT score. But those same errors can creep into school grades. We all know of examples where an average kid who was teacher's pet got an undeservedly high grade, or where a class rebel got unfairly low grades from teachers. No measure is perfect. And thinking back to my own high school experience, it generally was the smartest kids who scored best on the standardized tests. Some were slackers with middling grades, but they were the people we all considered the brightest. Not saying those tests are perfect by any means, but they're pretty effective.

Your general point may be right, but within the tight band that the PP is talking about (10 or 150 points on a PSAT or 100 to 150 point equivalent on an SAT) a single test taken on any given Saturday is not a good measure of who is "smartest".

My experience is that, with the benefit of test prep, a number of those "commended" students actuallly end up with very high SAT scores by application time (which is what colleges use). For example, I've seen more than a few kids qualify for the Presidential Scholarship competition (based on SATs) even though they were just in the commended range for NMSF. Throw in the fact that a lot of these families are sophisticated enough to have the kid try both the ACT and SAT to see which format they have the highest scores on, and there are a good number of independent school kids with very high board scores -- a higher number than you'd think if you just looked at NMSF totals.

Definitely agree that it's not all score-based -- far from it. BUT it's an easy way for very selective colleges to eliminate somebody from the mix, and I believe sometimes that happens. (And of course the kid with average grades and perfect scores is actually sending up a huge red flag to colleges.)

[Anonymous]

Wow. That's really scary to think that a student would be eliminated from consideration from a PSAT score. My DS missed the DC cutoff by one point! Our school tells kids not to obsess over the PSAT because the SAT is what matters, but maybe it makes more sense to prep for the PSAT if that's the test that will eliminate you.

[Anonymous]

There should be a way to communicate PSAT scores to colleges so they can distinguish between a high commended student and a low commended student.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Wow. That's really scary to think that a student would be eliminated from consideration from a PSAT score. My DS missed the DC cutoff by one point! Our school tells kids not to obsess over the PSAT because the SAT is what matters, but maybe it makes more sense to prep for the PSAT if that's the test that will eliminate you.

They won't be "eliminated from consideration" or hurt by the PSAT scores. Schools ask for the ACT or SAT. NMSF only makes a difference if it is a school that is actively trying to recruit Finalists (and that's not the case with the traditional highly selective schools). Your school is correct in its assessment to target the SAT/ACT for prep.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In my experience, Sidwell does a good job of placing legacies and athletes. The top students who do not fit into either of those categories find it challenging to get into Ivies.

1. Top students in GENERAL find it challenging to get into Ivies.
2. Let's say Sidwell has 12 - 15% of the class who are National Merit Semifinalists; so, 13 - 18 kids depending on the year. Harvard or Yale isn't taking all 15 kids. And their transcripts won't all be identical -- there will be more of a range than people might think. And the recommendations from teachers won't all be the same. And some of those 15 will have a hook -- athlete, legacy, or underrepresented minority.
This is the college world today. Drew Gilpin Faust could take the job of college counselor in her retirement and Harvard still won't take 15 kids from Sidwell. They are trying to build a national and international class and geography in this area is a limiting factor

Sidwell only had 6 national merit semi-finalists this year - the lowest number in my memory. With early decision and early admission (single choice) the 12-15 kids in your example have probably spread out their choices among the top schools. For the RD rounds, that's when you are likely to see the top 15% of the class possibly all trying for the same handful of schools. You are correct that there are only so many kids that they will take from an individual school. My DC is a senior at Sidwell and waiting for next week to see if the early choice works out. No legacy and not a recruitable athlete, but very competitive none-the-less. It's going to be a loooong week!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In my experience, Sidwell does a good job of placing legacies and athletes. The top students who do not fit into either of those categories find it challenging to get into Ivies.

1. Top students in GENERAL find it challenging to get into Ivies.
2. Let's say Sidwell has 12 - 15% of the class who are National Merit Semifinalists; so, 13 - 18 kids depending on the year. Harvard or Yale isn't taking all 15 kids. And their transcripts won't all be identical -- there will be more of a range than people might think. And the recommendations from teachers won't all be the same. And some of those 15 will have a hook -- athlete, legacy, or underrepresented minority.
This is the college world today. Drew Gilpin Faust could take the job of college counselor in her retirement and Harvard still won't take 15 kids from Sidwell. They are trying to build a national and international class and geography in this area is a limiting factor

Sidwell only had 6 national merit semi-finalists this year - the lowest number in my memory. With early decision and early admission (single choice) the 12-15 kids in your example have probably spread out their choices among the top schools. For the RD rounds, that's when you are likely to see the top 15% of the class possibly all trying for the same handful of schools. You are correct that there are only so many kids that they will take from an individual school. My DC is a senior at Sidwell and waiting for next week to see if the early choice works out. No legacy and not a recruitable athlete, but very competitive none-the-less. It's going to be a loooong week!!

Good luck -- this IS a long week, and tough on kid and family alike. Hope your child gets the school of his/her choice!

[Anonymous]

I think Sidwell does fine for its students without hooks- A few years ago they had a girl without any hooks, and not a Sidwell donor at all, go to Stanford. Very smart hardworking but thats all.

[Anonymous]

I do think a lot of private school college counseling offices will steer less-wealthy kids to lesser schools. I'm not sure why, but perhaps it is so those kids can get some merit aid money. Every year at our school I see average but wealthy kids cruise into the Ivies (regardless of legacy status) while the counseling offices steer equally good students without wealth to lower ranked schools. I tend to believe it all works out because the Ivies are not what they used to be if they put so much emphasis on wealth and studies show that the real entrepreneurs are likely to emerge from less privileged environments. (The head of the a major private equity fund was just on the radio discussing that fact.) Still, I wish we were beyond this in 2014.