Pervasive Myths - set the record straight

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

lol
You left out the other categories. Which are very, very important at Harvard.
There’s a huge long post on this site about it that we used to help guide our application process this year.
It was extraordinarily helpful to help target schools whose scoring rubric would benefit my kid. It worked out!!

Anyway, good luck with planning this for your kid. I would not take this to mean that top scores will give your kid a bump at Harvard. But that’s me and my experience.
The things that truly give your hit a bump at Harvard have nothing to do with the academics.

GL!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

lol
You left out the other categories. Which are very, very important at Harvard.
There’s a huge long post on this site about it that we used to help guide our application process this year.
It was extraordinarily helpful to help target schools whose scoring rubric would benefit my kid. It worked out!!

Anyway, good luck with planning this for your kid. I would not take this to mean that top scores will give your kid a bump at Harvard. But that’s me and my experience.
The things that truly give your hit a bump at Harvard have nothing to do with the academics.

GL!

This is such a weird post. It doesn't really disagree with me (I agree there are other factors and ECs matter) but this person just had to post to brag about their Superior Skills getting their kid into college.

[Anonymous]

^^^
Maybe it’s that other things may matter more than grades/scores once you hit a min baseline?

It’s why we hear of so many 4.0 uw//35/ 1550+ being shut out of top 25, whereas a kid with a 3.8uw test optional is getting in

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

They may weigh academics more strongly than other criteria but someone who is Summa in academics only (and a 1600 SAT still only gets you a 2) has about a 2/3 chance of getting in. They key for Harvard and others using the rubric is to get at least three 2's and hopefully 4 2's across the various categories of:

Academic
Extra-Curricular
Personality
Athletics

What this means is that Academics will carry nobody over the top in the absence of doing other things well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:^^^
Maybe it’s that other things may matter more than grades/scores once you hit a min baseline?

It’s why we hear of so many 4.0 uw//35/ 1550+ being shut out of top 25, whereas a kid with a 3.8uw test optional is getting in

ding ding ding ding, someone wins a prize!

[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.

At my SLAC, exactly one guy in my class, even though a bunch of people said they wanted to do it. Nobody wanted to transfer our for their senior year and leave all their friends. 3/2 is a cute idea, but it doesn't get much uptake.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

They may weigh academics more strongly than other criteria but someone who is Summa in academics only (and a 1600 SAT still only gets you a 2) has about a 2/3 chance of getting in. They key for Harvard and others using the rubric is to get at least three 2's and hopefully 4 2's across the various categories of:

Academic
Extra-Curricular
Personality
Athletics

What this means is that Academics will carry nobody over the top in the absence of doing other things well.

Did you even read my prior post? My example was that the top academic "pile" would have a 2/3 chance of admissions, which is when other factors are considered. Lol.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^^
Maybe it’s that other things may matter more than grades/scores once you hit a min baseline?

It’s why we hear of so many 4.0 uw//35/ 1550+ being shut out of top 25, whereas a kid with a 3.8uw test optional is getting in

ding ding ding ding, someone wins a prize!

There isn't one baseline. There are six lines--1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6. The scores you need in other categories for an offer depend on where you are relative to these academic categories. There's not one line.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^^
Maybe it’s that other things may matter more than grades/scores once you hit a min baseline?

It’s why we hear of so many 4.0 uw//35/ 1550+ being shut out of top 25, whereas a kid with a 3.8uw test optional is getting in

ding ding ding ding, someone wins a prize!

There isn't one baseline. There are six lines--1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6. The scores you need in other categories for an offer depend on where you are relative to these academic categories. There's not one line.

Our private’s CCO said it’s generally a 3.7uw. Below that it’s almost always an auto reject unless you’ve got some sort of tier one extracurricular or award.

So those categories 4/5/6 are generally auto rejects, and never brought forward.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^^
Maybe it’s that other things may matter more than grades/scores once you hit a min baseline?

It’s why we hear of so many 4.0 uw//35/ 1550+ being shut out of top 25, whereas a kid with a 3.8uw test optional is getting in

ding ding ding ding, someone wins a prize!

There isn't one baseline. There are six lines--1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6. The scores you need in other categories for an offer depend on where you are relative to these academic categories. There's not one line.

You can back into this by figuring out what your scores are in other categories.

For example, if you have some amazing national level award, you know that there are 4-5 schools that will value that more than most of the other selective ones. Just based on how they score and what percentage of the pie goes to EC/talent.

There’s a good mock admissions officer roundtable podcast about an applicant that walks through this. It’s so eye-opening.

[Anonymous]

That kids who attend any school less than a T20 are bound to be jobless.

My kid attends an OOS flagship that is probably T40-60 and is currently doing a paid internship abroad doing research alongside PhDs and postdocs at a lab.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

I haven’t seen the comments you are referencing and I don’t care about Duke one way or the other but just wanted to say you don’t have to be a minority to call out racism.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

They may weigh academics more strongly than other criteria but someone who is Summa in academics only (and a 1600 SAT still only gets you a 2) has about a 2/3 chance of getting in. They key for Harvard and others using the rubric is to get at least three 2's and hopefully 4 2's across the various categories of:

Academic
Extra-Curricular
Personality
Athletics

What this means is that Academics will carry nobody over the top in the absence of doing other things well.

Did you even read my prior post? My example was that the top academic "pile" would have a 2/3 chance of admissions, which is when other factors are considered. Lol.

But that isn't at all what you said. You might have said it in your mind but you didn't put it to keys.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

I haven’t seen the comments you are referencing and I don’t care about Duke one way or the other but just wanted to say you don’t have to be a minority to call out racism.

Fair point. My bad. Just so annoyed by the poster. I need to better learn to ignore the trolls here. It is sad that some people come here legitimately looking for guidance and get thrown off by morons.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^^
Maybe it’s that other things may matter more than grades/scores once you hit a min baseline?

It’s why we hear of so many 4.0 uw//35/ 1550+ being shut out of top 25, whereas a kid with a 3.8uw test optional is getting in

ding ding ding ding, someone wins a prize!

There isn't one baseline. There are six lines--1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6. The scores you need in other categories for an offer depend on where you are relative to these academic categories. There's not one line.

Sort of. Less than a 3 in any category except athletics is generally a hard pass.