GPA Necessary For HYPSM At Big 3

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:i've made this point before, but if that's the case it just doesn't mesh with the fact that there are many girls who land at these schools who are unhooked and likely have sub-3.95 GPAs.

This is not based on SCOIR reality. To get into a top 30 school you needed a 3.9+ this year, mostly a 3.95. SCOIR does't lie.

Why the ultra high standards? A few years ago NCS was sending 3.5-3.7 girls to BC, Wake, and other schools in that caliber

This year BC required a 3.99/36 from NCS. Everyone else was rejected (8 girls with GPAs in the 3.5 to 3.87 range).
I don't know what happened but many other schools were the same. All Ivies were 3.97+, UVA 3.95+, etc.
If you're not in the top 15 girls in the class and getting straight As your options were very limited.
Does anyone know what happened?

Why does this only seem to be the case with NCS students in this area?
I know of many (more than 10) unhooked students at GDS and Sidwell who were admitted to schools like BC and UVA (and similar T30ish caliber) with GPAs in the 3.75 to 3.90 range. What gives?!?

One caveat: a few were first deferred, then admitted RD, or admitted off the waitlist (I know of 2 from UVA where the latter was the case).

I don’t know any inside GPA information about specific girls in NCS class of ‘24 (and wouldn't share it on a public forum), but I think it is important to point out that NCS college counselors remove SCOIR data for all “hooked” applicants. So maybe there are a few 3.75 girls getting into BC or UVA that are hooked in some way. Not all applicants are included in the SCOIR data.

So the poster above is giving misleading info on NCS. Girls with a GPA above 3.5 and below a 3.99 did not apply, except for a couple of students who applied RD.The girls who applied ED and were not accepted had a 3.5 or below. In the last Common Data Set that BC released, 8,800 more girls applied than boys. Girls in the 3.7 -3.8 range need to apply ED1 or ED2 for admission. That is not exclusive to NCS girls.

I honestly don't understand the hysteria.

This makes sense. Of the UVA applicants, no girls got in with under a 3.95 (12 denials) but none of the denials applied ED (they applied EA). Does UVA really care about ED as well? Do you think a 3.8+ who applied ED (vs EA) would have had a different outcome?

ED is binding, EA isn’t. Schools protecting their yield will choose an ED applicant over one who is EA.

Yes. We all know this. The question is how does UVA view this?

UVA admissions office states that there is no admissions advantage in applying ED over EA. However, another factor is that NCS Scoir does not indicate if students are Virginia residents, which actually does make a difference in admissions. The lack of AP classes seems to be the main disadvantage for NCS girls applying to UVA.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:i've made this point before, but if that's the case it just doesn't mesh with the fact that there are many girls who land at these schools who are unhooked and likely have sub-3.95 GPAs.

This is not based on SCOIR reality. To get into a top 30 school you needed a 3.9+ this year, mostly a 3.95. SCOIR does't lie.

Why the ultra high standards? A few years ago NCS was sending 3.5-3.7 girls to BC, Wake, and other schools in that caliber

This year BC required a 3.99/36 from NCS. Everyone else was rejected (8 girls with GPAs in the 3.5 to 3.87 range).
I don't know what happened but many other schools were the same. All Ivies were 3.97+, UVA 3.95+, etc.
If you're not in the top 15 girls in the class and getting straight As your options were very limited.
Does anyone know what happened?

Why does this only seem to be the case with NCS students in this area?
I know of many (more than 10) unhooked students at GDS and Sidwell who were admitted to schools like BC and UVA (and similar T30ish caliber) with GPAs in the 3.75 to 3.90 range. What gives?!?

One caveat: a few were first deferred, then admitted RD, or admitted off the waitlist (I know of 2 from UVA where the latter was the case).

I don’t know any inside GPA information about specific girls in NCS class of ‘24 (and wouldn't share it on a public forum), but I think it is important to point out that NCS college counselors remove SCOIR data for all “hooked” applicants. So maybe there are a few 3.75 girls getting into BC or UVA that are hooked in some way. Not all applicants are included in the SCOIR data.

So the poster above is giving misleading info on NCS. Girls with a GPA above 3.5 and below a 3.99 did not apply, except for a couple of students who applied RD.The girls who applied ED and were not accepted had a 3.5 or below. In the last Common Data Set that BC released, 8,800 more girls applied than boys. Girls in the 3.7 -3.8 range need to apply ED1 or ED2 for admission. That is not exclusive to NCS girls.

I honestly don't understand the hysteria.

This makes sense. Of the UVA applicants, no girls got in with under a 3.95 (12 denials) but none of the denials applied ED (they applied EA). Does UVA really care about ED as well? Do you think a 3.8+ who applied ED (vs EA) would have had a different outcome?

ED is binding, EA isn’t. Schools protecting their yield will choose an ED applicant over one who is EA.

And yet, school was deferring unhooked very high stats ED applicants to RD.

Bottom line seems to be apply ED to a school that gives a big advantage to ED over RD. Since there are more applications in RD imagine that skews some of the numbers.

[Anonymous]

The kids who applied ED and were deferred had better success in RD round than kids who applied to same schools only RD.

College counseling office said that this was a trend they hadn’t seen before this year… at least not at the same level.

[Anonymous]

My question is how does one achieve a 3.95+ at NCS without a year of remote grading. It’s a known fact that some teachers are easier than others so takes a lot of luck. And what are your options in the 3.3-3.5 range?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My question is how does one achieve a 3.95+ at NCS without a year of remote grading. It’s a known fact that some teachers are easier than others so takes a lot of luck. And what are your options in the 3.3-3.5 range?

Honestly, I don't know how. 3.3-3.5 this year was places like Syracuse and Denison.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My question is how does one achieve a 3.95+ at NCS without a year of remote grading. It’s a known fact that some teachers are easier than others so takes a lot of luck. And what are your options in the 3.3-3.5 range?

Not every student doing well has drawn the "easier" teachers, or has gone abroad. There are just numerous very bright, hardworking girls in the class of '24.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My question is how does one achieve a 3.95+ at NCS without a year of remote grading. It’s a known fact that some teachers are easier than others so takes a lot of luck. And what are your options in the 3.3-3.5 range?

Honestly, I don't know how. 3.3-3.5 this year was places like Syracuse and Denison.

Grinnell
Kenyon
Northeastern
Colby
Clemson
NYU
Toronto
A shot at Michigan & Georgetown

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My question is how does one achieve a 3.95+ at NCS without a year of remote grading. It’s a known fact that some teachers are easier than others so takes a lot of luck. And what are your options in the 3.3-3.5 range?

Honestly, I don't know how. 3.3-3.5 this year was places like Syracuse and Denison.

Grinnell
Kenyon
Northeastern
Colby
Clemson
NYU
Toronto
A shot at Michigan & Georgetown

Heartbreaking.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My question is how does one achieve a 3.95+ at NCS without a year of remote grading. It’s a known fact that some teachers are easier than others so takes a lot of luck. And what are your options in the 3.3-3.5 range?

Honestly, I don't know how. 3.3-3.5 this year was places like Syracuse and Denison.

Grinnell
Kenyon
Northeastern
Colby
Clemson
NYU
Toronto
A shot at Michigan & Georgetown

Heartbreaking.

Oh, the humanity!

[Anonymous]

I am fascinated by the idea that there is some huge # of unhooked NCS girls. Really?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am fascinated by the idea that there is some huge # of unhooked NCS girls. Really?

Believe it or not most are UMC without major connections and not being recruited for athletics

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am fascinated by the idea that there is some huge # of unhooked NCS girls. Really?

Believe it or not most are UMC without major connections and not being recruited for athletics

Right but legacy?

[Anonymous]

URM is a hook.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am fascinated by the idea that there is some huge # of unhooked NCS girls. Really?

Believe it or not most are UMC without major connections and not being recruited for athletics

Right but legacy?

Most are not legacy and legacy has still been requiring top grades from
NCS. Of the Ivy admits, only 1 this year was legacy with under a 3.95.

[Anonymous]

I just find it odd that in a class of what like 70(?) girls, you can have this dataset that excludes athletes, legacies, and URMs and then have it NOT be inflated with 3.95+. Maybe I misread this thread in terms of who is in your SCOIR dataset. I mean, don’t those groups cover a very significant portion of the class? And then by excluding them you are left with how many kids? Say ten athletes are recruited, plus 15 URMs (conservatively), plus 15 legacies? That gets you down to almost half the class and the you are left with only admitting top students which isn’t really a shocker to me.