College confifential

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you're interested in what kinds of GPA/scores your kid needs to have a chance at a particular school, the Common Data Set is much more useful that College Confidential. Actual numbers from the entire class for that particular year, not just self-reporting whiz kids.

cds blows because cds doesn't give the full picture.

CDS is useless until it releases admit and matriculation data sets by 'hook' crosstabs.

CC profiles give key info.

Some of you are way too obsessed with "hooks". For most places, they represent only a small percentage of acceptances.

Actually hooks account for a decent percentage of admits to private universities once you add up all the athletic recruits, legacies and urms. Before someone tries to race bait, the first two are largely whites.

I always assume the smattering of admits with scores/grades around the low end the group are hooks.

it's more than the low end. duke former adcom member once said if you are an unhooked non urm (so an asian kid or white girl) you better be above the 75th percentile in scores and grades or you really aren't going to have a solid shot.

that's the safe rule of thumb for top schools. unhooked applicants should be at or above the 75th percentile stats of a school.

Could you provide the "duke former adcom member" thread on CC so we all can read this?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you're interested in what kinds of GPA/scores your kid needs to have a chance at a particular school, the Common Data Set is much more useful that College Confidential. Actual numbers from the entire class for that particular year, not just self-reporting whiz kids.

cds blows because cds doesn't give the full picture.

CDS is useless until it releases admit and matriculation data sets by 'hook' crosstabs.

CC profiles give key info.

Some of you are way too obsessed with "hooks". For most places, they represent only a small percentage of acceptances.

Actually hooks account for a decent percentage of admits to private universities once you add up all the athletic recruits, legacies and urms. Before someone tries to race bait, the first two are largely whites.

I always assume the smattering of admits with scores/grades around the low end the group are hooks.

it's more than the low end. duke former adcom member once said if you are an unhooked non urm (so an asian kid or white girl) you better be above the 75th percentile in scores and grades or you really aren't going to have a solid shot.

that's the safe rule of thumb for top schools. unhooked applicants should be at or above the 75th percentile stats of a school.

What does "a solid shot" mean? That you no longer have a zero chance, that you have at least a 50/50 chance, or better than that?

My unhooked white, female DC got into a top ivy with scores at the 25th percentile (although this being a top ivy, the scores were still pretty great).

[Anonymous]

CC is a good resource to get some info you can't get from the common data set, which only reveals SAT scores etc. CC tells you that that admitted kid at the 50th percentile was also state debate champ, or first violinist, or homeschooled...