Insider Perspectives from a Highly Selective Admissions Office

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^ Just because Vandy and Williams reported lower ranges for their new SATs than for the old SATs and ACTs doesn't mean that the concordances are incorrect. We don't know how many people are in each reported group, and what the composition of each group is. For example, many stronger students may have skipped the new SAT, so that group is weaker than average. Also, many kids submit a variety of tests (new SAT, old SAT, ACT), in which case the colleges use the new SAT only if it is the strongest score according to the concordances.

Many weaker students may have also skipped the new SAT in favor of the old, knowing they had to rely on its large volume of old SAT pre-existing prep materials as a crutch. That would offset any stronger students who made the same choice.

That would require huge numbers of weak students to complete their old SAT testing by January of their junior year and then not bother with the new SAT or ACT. Pretzel logic. It almost sounds like your kid got a low score on the new SAT and you are praying the concordances aren't valid.

You can look at the SAT scores at lots of schools and see that the new SAT skews higher. Here's one example: http://admissions.psu.edu/apply/statistics/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^ Just because Vandy and Williams reported lower ranges for their new SATs than for the old SATs and ACTs doesn't mean that the concordances are incorrect. We don't know how many people are in each reported group, and what the composition of each group is. For example, many stronger students may have skipped the new SAT, so that group is weaker than average. Also, many kids submit a variety of tests (new SAT, old SAT, ACT), in which case the colleges use the new SAT only if it is the strongest score according to the concordances.

Many weaker students may have also skipped the new SAT in favor of the old, knowing they had to rely on its large volume of old SAT pre-existing prep materials as a crutch. That would offset any stronger students who made the same choice.

That would require huge numbers of weak students to complete their old SAT testing by January of their junior year and then not bother with the new SAT or ACT. Pretzel logic. It almost sounds like your kid got a low score on the new SAT and you are praying the concordances aren't valid.

You can look at the SAT scores at lots of schools and see that the new SAT skews higher. Here's one example: http://admissions.psu.edu/apply/statistics/

No, again, that Penn State link sets forth numbers (for students who started attending last summer/fall!) that come directly from the College Board's concordance tables. The website even states: "**The new SAT scores shown here represent conversions of the prior test’s scores to fit the new test’s structure and 1600-point scale."

Only a few schools have reported actual admissions data from the early admissions season for Class of 2021.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm getting confused with this old SAT, new SAT stuff. If your kid is taking the SAT this year does he/she get to choose which they want to take?
If not, what difference does it make?

No. This year's graduating class straddled the old and new SAT. They had the option to take either (in the requisite time frames) and either test score could be submitted (although some colleges require all scores be submitted). My DD took both the old and the new. She scored a 2290 on the old and a 1580 on the new. There are subtle differences to the test which may have made the old and new a better or worse fit for some students. It is all moot now, as this was the last class who had the option to take the old test.

As to the bolded, it is not moot yet for the current juniors who will be trying to decide where to apply next year with their New SAT scores. Hopefully by the fall, schools will report actual middle 50% New SAT scores, but it seems likely that the Common Data Sets will contain a mixture of Old and New scores, with one or the other converted via the tables according to CDS instructions. In other words, the CDS might not be reliable data if it doesn't separate for Old and New.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^ Just because Vandy and Williams reported lower ranges for their new SATs than for the old SATs and ACTs doesn't mean that the concordances are incorrect. We don't know how many people are in each reported group, and what the composition of each group is. For example, many stronger students may have skipped the new SAT, so that group is weaker than average. Also, many kids submit a variety of tests (new SAT, old SAT, ACT), in which case the colleges use the new SAT only if it is the strongest score according to the concordances.

Many weaker students may have also skipped the new SAT in favor of the old, knowing they had to rely on its large volume of old SAT pre-existing prep materials as a crutch. That would offset any stronger students who made the same choice.

That would require huge numbers of weak students to complete their old SAT testing by January of their junior year and then not bother with the new SAT or ACT. Pretzel logic. It almost sounds like your kid got a low score on the new SAT and you are praying the concordances aren't valid.

You can look at the SAT scores at lots of schools and see that the new SAT skews higher. Here's one example: http://admissions.psu.edu/apply/statistics/

No, that data is for the class of 2020. Students taking the new SAT are class of 2021. Keep trying.

[Anonymous]

I have about 40 customers in my small landscape business. 4 of their kids went to or are going to Harvard. The one thing they all have in common. They are very nice kids. I've known most of them since they were 4 or 5, and most are not extraverted. I know it's a small sample, but one of my customers kids who's father and grandfather went to Harvard, and Andover where the kid went, did not get in, he's kinda a dink. I have a brilliant introverted daughter and average extroverted son, pros and cons to both, mostly pros. She is looking for small colleges, not sure he is even going to college, they will both do fine in life, I
m pretty sure of that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yawn. White privileged folks prevail as usual w/ alumni connections and donations.

Of course, if you happen to be white and have parents who never graduated from high school and Dad makes less than $15 per hour with a SAHM, no special interest group cares about you and you are totally screwed....

Totally wrong -- you're a highly coveted "first-gen" student who will get a free ride if you have the credentials to get into HYPS. Doesn't mean it'll be easy -- if you fall in this category, you aren't likely to have had the educational opportunities and developed some of the academic skills that UMC kids have, and you may experience a real cultural schock, struggle financially (or cause your family to), and may not have the support you need at home. But college admissions officers do care about you and you are not totally screwed.

True - it is the kids of these white "First Geners" who are now UMC who are screwed!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^ Just because Vandy and Williams reported lower ranges for their new SATs than for the old SATs and ACTs doesn't mean that the concordances are incorrect. We don't know how many people are in each reported group, and what the composition of each group is. For example, many stronger students may have skipped the new SAT, so that group is weaker than average. Also, many kids submit a variety of tests (new SAT, old SAT, ACT), in which case the colleges use the new SAT only if it is the strongest score according to the concordances.

Many weaker students may have also skipped the new SAT in favor of the old, knowing they had to rely on its large volume of old SAT pre-existing prep materials as a crutch. That would offset any stronger students who made the same choice.

That would require huge numbers of weak students to complete their old SAT testing by January of their junior year and then not bother with the new SAT or ACT. Pretzel logic. It almost sounds like your kid got a low score on the new SAT and you are praying the concordances aren't valid.

You can look at the SAT scores at lots of schools and see that the new SAT skews higher. Here's one example: http://admissions.psu.edu/apply/statistics/

No, again, that Penn State link sets forth numbers (for students who started attending last summer/fall!) that come directly from the College Board's concordance tables. The website even states: "**The new SAT scores shown here represent conversions of the prior test’s scores to fit the new test’s structure and 1600-point scale."

Only a few schools have reported actual admissions data from the early admissions season for Class of 2021.

PP here. You are correct; my apologies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yawn. White privileged folks prevail as usual w/ alumni connections and donations.

Of course, if you happen to be white and have parents who never graduated from high school and Dad makes less than $15 per hour with a SAHM, no special interest group cares about you and you are totally screwed....

Totally wrong -- you're a highly coveted "first-gen" student who will get a free ride if you have the credentials to get into HYPS. Doesn't mean it'll be easy -- if you fall in this category, you aren't likely to have had the educational opportunities and developed some of the academic skills that UMC kids have, and you may experience a real cultural schock, struggle financially (or cause your family to), and may not have the support you need at home. But college admissions officers do care about you and you are not totally screwed.

True - it is the kids of these white "First Geners" who are now UMC who are screwed!

Well (I'm the PP you're agreeing with and a quasi-first gen myself), not exactly screwed. My UMC kid has directly benefited from the upward mobility that Harvard educations gave her parents. Harvard was a life-changing experience for me, but it'd be more of the same for DC -- she was born into that transformed life. Doesn't it make more sense to give access to the kids for whom Harvard will make the most difference vs. kids who start out with so many advantages that they're going to do well whether they go to Harvard or not? I get why legacy preferences exist (($$$)), but I wish they didn't.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
You can look at the SAT scores at lots of schools and see that the new SAT skews higher. Here's one example: http://admissions.psu.edu/apply/statistics/

No, again, that Penn State link sets forth numbers (for students who started attending last summer/fall!) that come directly from the College Board's concordance tables. The website even states: "**The new SAT scores shown here represent conversions of the prior test’s scores to fit the new test’s structure and 1600-point scale."

Only a few schools have reported actual admissions data from the early admissions season for Class of 2021.

PP here. You are correct; my apologies.

Thank you. Perhaps your linked website raises an important point, whether state schools are using the concordance tables (many seem to have planned ahead to use the concordance tables, at least) and what effect that will have, particularly for automatic merit award cutoffs at some schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm getting confused with this old SAT, new SAT stuff. If your kid is taking the SAT this year does he/she get to choose which they want to take?
If not, what difference does it make?

No. This year's graduating class straddled the old and new SAT. They had the option to take either (in the requisite time frames) and either test score could be submitted (although some colleges require all scores be submitted). My DD took both the old and the new. She scored a 2290 on the old and a 1580 on the new. There are subtle differences to the test which may have made the old and new a better or worse fit for some students. It is all moot now, as this was the last class who had the option to take the old test.

As to the bolded, it is not moot yet for the current juniors who will be trying to decide where to apply next year with their New SAT scores. Hopefully by the fall, schools will report actual middle 50% New SAT scores, but it seems likely that the Common Data Sets will contain a mixture of Old and New scores, with one or the other converted via the tables according to CDS instructions. In other words, the CDS might not be reliable data if it doesn't separate for Old and New.

It is moot in that this year's graduating class is the only one to get to chose which test score to submit.

[Anonymous]

OP, thank you for taking the time to post this Q&A, it has been extremely informative. I'm wondering what advice would you give to the parents of a kid who has extremely strong academic credentials, but does not show a demonstrated passion? My daughter is in 7th grade, and from how she is doing so far, I would expect she would be near valedictorian and have very high SAT scores. However, she is interested in everything. She is equally strong in STEM as she is in humanities/social sciences. When asked what she wants to do as a career, she'll say she doesn't know, so many things are interesting to her. Her activities are all over the place - soccer, theater, art, computers. I can easily see where she will be the dreaded "well-rounded" applicant who doesn't stand out to admission offers. And we can't be comforted by the notion that she will be accepted to a strong school somewhere as long as she casts her net wide enough. Our budget only allows for instate colleges. So basically if she doesn't get into the two top schools, she will have to settle for a school that is academically far beneath what she theoretically "should" be able to attend. From a purely strategic perspective, should we try to encourage her to "specialize" in a certain area, so she will stand a greater chance of standing out to the admission officers?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was having similar thoughts to the PP who posted above about her kids not being very outgoing or quirky or at the popular kids lunch table. My daughter is very shy. She won't be running for president of student council or the president / leader of every club she belongs to, etc. Are the admissions officers thinking about getting a mix of students who are not really type A about those kinds of things? All the people I've known who got into highly selective schools (e.g. Princeton, Stanford, Harvard) were the president of everything, really outgoing and confident leader types. My child isn't like that. She is confident about her academic abilities, but she isn't a take-charge leader personality. I'm curious about what the admissions officers at selective schools think of those kinds of kids. OP if you are still responding, what do you think? (And I should clarify that I'm not stressing that she won't get into HYP or her life is over. I want her to find a good fit for her personality and interests, but I am just curious about selective schools in general.)

My kid's like yours and is happy at UChicago. Harvard and Stanford are pretty extroverted/networky/ambitious/can-do kinds of places and value that spirit even among their nerdy kids. Princeton's nerds are often quieter. Chicago's are talkative and friendly (albeit shy initially) but tend to be do-my-own thing types rather than would-be leaders/organizers. Different elite schools are looking for different things (and/or making different bets on what kind of people will be powerful).

Geesh - Way to stereotype.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^ Just because Vandy and Williams reported lower ranges for their new SATs than for the old SATs and ACTs doesn't mean that the concordances are incorrect. We don't know how many people are in each reported group, and what the composition of each group is. For example, many stronger students may have skipped the new SAT, so that group is weaker than average. Also, many kids submit a variety of tests (new SAT, old SAT, ACT), in which case the colleges use the new SAT only if it is the strongest score according to the concordances.

Many weaker students may have also skipped the new SAT in favor of the old, knowing they had to rely on its large volume of old SAT pre-existing prep materials as a crutch. That would offset any stronger students who made the same choice.

That would require huge numbers of weak students to complete their old SAT testing by January of their junior year and then not bother with the new SAT or ACT. Pretzel logic. It almost sounds like your kid got a low score on the new SAT and you are praying the concordances aren't valid.

You can look at the SAT scores at lots of schools and see that the new SAT skews higher. Here's one example: http://admissions.psu.edu/apply/statistics/

No, that data is for the class of 2020. Students taking the new SAT are class of 2021. Keep trying.

You might want to see someone for your OCD...give it a rest already.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^ Just because Vandy and Williams reported lower ranges for their new SATs than for the old SATs and ACTs doesn't mean that the concordances are incorrect. We don't know how many people are in each reported group, and what the composition of each group is. For example, many stronger students may have skipped the new SAT, so that group is weaker than average. Also, many kids submit a variety of tests (new SAT, old SAT, ACT), in which case the colleges use the new SAT only if it is the strongest score according to the concordances.

Many weaker students may have also skipped the new SAT in favor of the old, knowing they had to rely on its large volume of old SAT pre-existing prep materials as a crutch. That would offset any stronger students who made the same choice.

That would require huge numbers of weak students to complete their old SAT testing by January of their junior year and then not bother with the new SAT or ACT. Pretzel logic. It almost sounds like your kid got a low score on the new SAT and you are praying the concordances aren't valid.

You can look at the SAT scores at lots of schools and see that the new SAT skews higher. Here's one example: http://admissions.psu.edu/apply/statistics/

No, that data is for the class of 2020. Students taking the new SAT are class of 2021. Keep trying.

You might want to see someone for your OCD...give it a rest already.

Totally agree. What difference does his make seriously?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^ Just because Vandy and Williams reported lower ranges for their new SATs than for the old SATs and ACTs doesn't mean that the concordances are incorrect. We don't know how many people are in each reported group, and what the composition of each group is. For example, many stronger students may have skipped the new SAT, so that group is weaker than average. Also, many kids submit a variety of tests (new SAT, old SAT, ACT), in which case the colleges use the new SAT only if it is the strongest score according to the concordances.

Many weaker students may have also skipped the new SAT in favor of the old, knowing they had to rely on its large volume of old SAT pre-existing prep materials as a crutch. That would offset any stronger students who made the same choice.

That would require huge numbers of weak students to complete their old SAT testing by January of their junior year and then not bother with the new SAT or ACT. Pretzel logic. It almost sounds like your kid got a low score on the new SAT and you are praying the concordances aren't valid.

You can look at the SAT scores at lots of schools and see that the new SAT skews higher. Here's one example: http://admissions.psu.edu/apply/statistics/

No, that data is for the class of 2020. Students taking the new SAT are class of 2021. Keep trying.

You might want to see someone for your OCD...give it a rest already.

Totally agree. What difference does his make seriously?

Sucks to be wrong, doesn't it?