My high stat kid’s experience with admissions

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have always operated with the understanding that optional pretty much means required.

I could be wrong, but my understanding is that applications from white/Asian UMC kids in the DMV without a test score can raise a red flag (i.e., why wouldn't they submit a score unless it was weak)? And a 32 ACT may not be stellar, but I think it's still the 97th percentile so why not submit to clear up any doubts?

what is the basis for that understanding? please don't say DCUM.

Logic

that's a shorthand way of saying "pulled it out of my ass"

Stanford's common data set for 2021-22 shows that for first year students who enrolled in 2021, 12.6% submitted SAT scores and 8.7% submitted ACT scores. Are you saying that the 80% that did not are all non-white/Asian UMC kids?

Last year, many kids didn't have a choice to submit or not. They never got the chance to take the SAT or ACT at all.

kids how enrolled spring of 2021 were seniors in 2020-21. Pandemic hit spring of their junior year. You're telling me that 80% of these highly motivated students didn't take a single SAT/ACT prior to March of their junior year? SAT/ACT were available in many parts of the country by fall of 2020.

And enrolled students in 2021 included a large cohort who deferred admission from the prior year, so this may include their stats, which were skew the test/no test results even more.

the bottom line is that it certainly didn't hurt people then, and you have no actual data/evidence to support the claim that only certain people have to submit test scores.

NP. Yes, I am. My child was class of 2020 and didn’t sit for the SAT (didn’t take ACT) until March 2019. Took it once more that June and got a 1530. This was in a more “average” high school where it was just not the culture to take it earlier than that. My kid would’ve been screwed if they tried to execute the same plan as a ‘21 grad.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have always operated with the understanding that optional pretty much means required.

I could be wrong, but my understanding is that applications from white/Asian UMC kids in the DMV without a test score can raise a red flag (i.e., why wouldn't they submit a score unless it was weak)? And a 32 ACT may not be stellar, but I think it's still the 97th percentile so why not submit to clear up any doubts?

what is the basis for that understanding? please don't say DCUM.

Logic

that's a shorthand way of saying "pulled it out of my ass"

Stanford's common data set for 2021-22 shows that for first year students who enrolled in 2021, 12.6% submitted SAT scores and 8.7% submitted ACT scores. Are you saying that the 80% that did not are all non-white/Asian UMC kids?

Standford is a sports school. It's not MIT. Unlike Standford, MIT can't allow TO for long without affecting the quality of its program.

MIT also recruits sports. As a result, my DC turned down the offer and went to an ivy instead. MY DC lost respect for MIT after seeing her less prepared peer across DMV got in with sports. SO PEOPLE, SPORTS IS YOUR KEY!

Ivies also recruit for sports. Heavily.

Athletes also have to be qualified. My DD reached out to MIT to watch her play and coach wrote back that while she wasn't in his pool of top recruits, she should check back because not all will have the test scores to qualify. SO PEOPLE, FOR SOME SCHOOLS, YOU HAVE TO BE BOTH SMART AND EXCEL AT YOUR SPORT!

athletes have to minimally qualified.

Not true at all. Especially when you are talking about being recruited for a sport at the high level schools this thread is mentioning.
MIT is notorious for showing interest in an athlete but waiting for the kid to get accepted on their own merits before giving them a sport roster spot.
Most T50 DIII schools are the same.
Being a recruited athlete and gaining admission acceptance at a top school are completely separate and different processes.
Once again those who generalize on this board are wrong.

MIT is the extreme exception to the rule in that case. Based on my kid’s experiences in sports in high school, I would be absolutely shocked if all of the top students just so happened to also be the top athletes. For d1 schools like Rice, Stanford, the Ivies, etc I don’t buy for a second that the athletes were also top students.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DS has much higher SAT but otherwise similar, rejected by ivies, maybe being an asian played a factor. So congratulations to you! Life isn’t always fair but this is the work we live in.

Same here. My DS stats were much higher with more APs. 3 sports. 2 languages . Rejected to all Ivy schools. ( Mixed asian)

That’s incredible. The system works against Asians (I am not Asian BTW)

When acceptance rates are below 7%, it's a crapshoot for everyone. 95% of applicants have extremely high stats (tests, gpa, ec, essays, recommendations). These schools could fill 20 freshman classes with highly qualified students. So it's a lottery. It's NOT the system working against Asians (or any other group).
Colleges want to put together a nice mix of students---from both socio-economic backgrounds, to race, to majors, to location, M/F, ECs, etc. I wouldn't want my kid to attend a school with all 1600/4.0UW/3 sports Captains/etc. I want diversity at many levels so my kid can grow and learn from the people they are surrounded with for 4 years. Take a look around you at your job----highly doubt you work with everyone who went to an Ivy or similar elite school (unless you are in finance in NYC and all went to an elite MBA program---that tends to be the exception). Good chance many of the best people on your team at work went to your local state univ or a smaller, not well know college.

Smart kids will succeed everywhere if they are hard workers---that's what it's all about. But that won't happen if they spend freshman year moping around upset that they "deserved" to be at an Ivy and had to settle for wherever they are. I want hard workers on my team. I don't really care where they went to college. I care about what they did with their time in college

Yes, it looks completely fair https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2019/10/04/does-harvard-accept-its-cleverest-applicants

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have always operated with the understanding that optional pretty much means required.

I could be wrong, but my understanding is that applications from white/Asian UMC kids in the DMV without a test score can raise a red flag (i.e., why wouldn't they submit a score unless it was weak)? And a 32 ACT may not be stellar, but I think it's still the 97th percentile so why not submit to clear up any doubts?

what is the basis for that understanding? please don't say DCUM.

Logic

that's a shorthand way of saying "pulled it out of my ass"

Stanford's common data set for 2021-22 shows that for first year students who enrolled in 2021, 12.6% submitted SAT scores and 8.7% submitted ACT scores. Are you saying that the 80% that did not are all non-white/Asian UMC kids?

Standford is a sports school. It's not MIT. Unlike Standford, MIT can't allow TO for long without affecting the quality of its program.

MIT also recruits sports. As a result, my DC turned down the offer and went to an ivy instead. MY DC lost respect for MIT after seeing her less prepared peer across DMV got in with sports. SO PEOPLE, SPORTS IS YOUR KEY!

Ivies also recruit for sports. Heavily.

Athletes also have to be qualified. My DD reached out to MIT to watch her play and coach wrote back that while she wasn't in his pool of top recruits, she should check back because not all will have the test scores to qualify. SO PEOPLE, FOR SOME SCHOOLS, YOU HAVE TO BE BOTH SMART AND EXCEL AT YOUR SPORT!

athletes have to minimally qualified.

Not true at all. Especially when you are talking about being recruited for a sport at the high level schools this thread is mentioning.
MIT is notorious for showing interest in an athlete but waiting for the kid to get accepted on their own merits before giving them a sport roster spot.
Most T50 DIII schools are the same.
Being a recruited athlete and gaining admission acceptance at a top school are completely separate and different processes.
Once again those who generalize on this board are wrong.

the only real data on this point is from the Harvard lawsuit. Based on an analysis of that data, something like 90% of recruited athletes admitted to Harvard would not have been admitted on their academics.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have always operated with the understanding that optional pretty much means required.

I could be wrong, but my understanding is that applications from white/Asian UMC kids in the DMV without a test score can raise a red flag (i.e., why wouldn't they submit a score unless it was weak)? And a 32 ACT may not be stellar, but I think it's still the 97th percentile so why not submit to clear up any doubts?

what is the basis for that understanding? please don't say DCUM.

Logic

that's a shorthand way of saying "pulled it out of my ass"

Stanford's common data set for 2021-22 shows that for first year students who enrolled in 2021, 12.6% submitted SAT scores and 8.7% submitted ACT scores. Are you saying that the 80% that did not are all non-white/Asian UMC kids?

Last year, many kids didn't have a choice to submit or not. They never got the chance to take the SAT or ACT at all.

kids how enrolled spring of 2021 were seniors in 2020-21. Pandemic hit spring of their junior year. You're telling me that 80% of these highly motivated students didn't take a single SAT/ACT prior to March of their junior year? SAT/ACT were available in many parts of the country by fall of 2020.

And enrolled students in 2021 included a large cohort who deferred admission from the prior year, so this may include their stats, which were skew the test/no test results even more.

the bottom line is that it certainly didn't hurt people then, and you have no actual data/evidence to support the claim that only certain people have to submit test scores.

NP. Yes, I am. My child was class of 2020 and didn’t sit for the SAT (didn’t take ACT) until March 2019. Took it once more that June and got a 1530. This was in a more “average” high school where it was just not the culture to take it earlier than that. My kid would’ve been screwed if they tried to execute the same plan as a ‘21 grad.

1.5 million students took the SAT in the class of 2021, compared to 2.2 million in the class of 2020. So that's a drop of 33%. It seems that, on average, students either (a) took it early or (b) were able to take it during the pandemic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here. Major is a big factor in acceptance that I think a lot of people forget. Judging by my kids friends, CS was way tougher than engineering or any other major for admissions both for boys and girls. My advice for juniors, is to think carefully about applying to CS.

Did a lot of dithering about retaking the SAT, but only missed one question on the math section. She figured that the schools would know that and not be overly focused on the score. Chasing a few more points when it’s already in the 99% percentile didn’t seem like a valuable way to spend time.

Hard to really know what was decisive for the schools either way. I’m guessing essays stood out. They were authentically her and quite qood (imo). I’m in a quant field and being able to write clearly is a highly in demand skill. Luck is of course also a huge factor.

We were honestly shocked by the Ivy acceptance. With so many spots going to ED kids, RD seemed like a very long shot. We also didn’t get any professional help on the applications, so it was just my kid’s work with some advice from me and DH.

Anyway, for all the talk about high stat kids being dime a dozen, at least for my kid, it worked out. I’m guessing luck, choice of major, and essays were all significant. Maybe also recommendations. Despite being virtual, I think my kid managed to really stand out to her junior year teachers that wrote her recs. I also wonder about the counselor letter. We got a form to fill out for it and I guessed that the counselor might just lift what I wrote for their letter, so I was thoughtful about it. I made it really good and made sure that what I wrote was very personal and showed an aspect of my kid that would be hard to bring out elsewhere in the app.

Yeah, that’s what we saw at my daughter’s school. You just need a higher math and physics. Most common apps aren’t tied to majors, and few supplemental
are, so it’s not a hard argument to make. A lot of science and math ECs are broad, so they apply to lots of majors. Colleges are still looking for female engineering students.


It was the engineering. Without that, she wouldn’t have gotten in, at least not for STEM. Would have been rejections if had listed bio.
Upcoming female applicants -pick engineering if you can easily switch to preferred majors.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here. Major is a big factor in acceptance that I think a lot of people forget. Judging by my kids friends, CS was way tougher than engineering or any other major for admissions both for boys and girls. My advice for juniors, is to think carefully about applying to CS.

Did a lot of dithering about retaking the SAT, but only missed one question on the math section. She figured that the schools would know that and not be overly focused on the score. Chasing a few more points when it’s already in the 99% percentile didn’t seem like a valuable way to spend time.

Hard to really know what was decisive for the schools either way. I’m guessing essays stood out. They were authentically her and quite qood (imo). I’m in a quant field and being able to write clearly is a highly in demand skill. Luck is of course also a huge factor.

We were honestly shocked by the Ivy acceptance. With so many spots going to ED kids, RD seemed like a very long shot. We also didn’t get any professional help on the applications, so it was just my kid’s work with some advice from me and DH.

Anyway, for all the talk about high stat kids being dime a dozen, at least for my kid, it worked out. I’m guessing luck, choice of major, and essays were all significant. Maybe also recommendations. Despite being virtual, I think my kid managed to really stand out to her junior year teachers that wrote her recs. I also wonder about the counselor letter. We got a form to fill out for it and I guessed that the counselor might just lift what I wrote for their letter, so I was thoughtful about it. I made it really good and made sure that what I wrote was very personal and showed an aspect of my kid that would be hard to bring out elsewhere in the app.

It was the engineering. Without that, she wouldn’t have gotten in, at least not for STEM. Would have been rejections if had listed bio.
Upcoming female applicants -pick engineering if you can easily switch to preferred majors.

Unless the story told by the application is in support of that major, I am not sure that is good advice. What adcom would not see right through that?

Exactly! You have to show evidence that actually interested in it. Just like someone who wants a premed track should show evidence that’s what she is interested in.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have always operated with the understanding that optional pretty much means required.

White/Asian expected to submit test scores and when they submit 99% they are still rejected. The elites can once again get their kids in with no test scores and other races get in with no test scores.

This is so inaccurate - plenty of legacies, full pay and/or URM's are rejected from top tier schools both with submission of high test scores and TO. There are so many more factors considered. Stop spreading misinformation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DS has much higher SAT but otherwise similar, rejected by ivies, maybe being an asian played a factor. So congratulations to you! Life isn’t always fair but this is the work we live in.

Same here. My DS stats were much higher with more APs. 3 sports. 2 languages . Rejected to all Ivy schools. ( Mixed asian)

my Asian kid had lower stats and got into multiple Ivies. So what?

You are special and hit the jackpot. So don’t rub it in to the rest of us, because I can guarantee you that those who didn’t get the offer are not any less intelligent than your Asian kid.

never said that, but the idea that being Asian is somehow disqualifying is pernicious.

Can you hear your attitude? You fit right in in that category! You must be a unpleasant person in real life with no real friends.

I'm unpleasant because I think Asian applicants are getting into Ivy League schools (a verifiable fact) and that it's not a simple "look at how great my stats are" proposition? You want to buy the line fed to you by some angry old white men, go ahead. I'll decline, thank you.

. There’s no reason to be ugly about it. I’m sure your kid deserves his/her spot. Nobody is saying Asians aren’t getting in, they are simply pointing out that your kids stats were lower than theirs and they were mixed or Asian as well. Congratulations and Stay Humble lady!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:FWIW: my kid, whose GPA was strong from a rigorous private but who applied test optional everywhere due to non-spectacular ACT scores (32), applied to 14 schools-- accepted at Vermont, Dickinson, Lafayette, Denison, Emory and Georgetown; rejected at Duke, BC, Carnegie Mellon, and Vassar, and WL at UVa, VT, W&M, and Yale.

None of this makes any particular sense to me. DC had strong recs and essays, medium extra currics and sport, white, no hooks.

To me all this just illustrates how random all this is. DC leaning towards Georgetown and is happy, but still baffled about those WL schools! (Was expecting acceptance at at least W&M and VT, and rejection at Yale. Go figure).

In what world is a 32 ACT "non-spectacular"? JFC.

In the world of the Top 20-40 universities. Also, according to our college consultant, if the standardized test score does not "match" the GPA, it raises red flags. Then, it's best not to submit the test score, which would drag down the value of the GPA. The problem is that GPAs are so inflated for so many students--think 4.5 and above--that an SAT match is somewhere in the 1500s. So you are balancing risk when you decide which schools to apply test optional and which to submit test scores (which still matter more than you think for merit aid). Even the college consulting industry is still trying to figure this all out in terms of best strategy.

[Anonymous]

+1. The JFC poster is simply out of touch with the new normal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DS has much higher SAT but otherwise similar, rejected by ivies, maybe being an asian played a factor. So congratulations to you! Life isn’t always fair but this is the work we live in.

Same here. My DS stats were much higher with more APs. 3 sports. 2 languages . Rejected to all Ivy schools. ( Mixed asian)

my Asian kid had lower stats and got into multiple Ivies. So what?

You are special and hit the jackpot. So don’t rub it in to the rest of us, because I can guarantee you that those who didn’t get the offer are not any less intelligent than your Asian kid.

never said that, but the idea that being Asian is somehow disqualifying is pernicious.

Can you hear your attitude? You fit right in in that category! You must be a unpleasant person in real life with no real friends.

I'm unpleasant because I think Asian applicants are getting into Ivy League schools (a verifiable fact) and that it's not a simple "look at how great my stats are" proposition? You want to buy the line fed to you by some angry old white men, go ahead. I'll decline, thank you.

. There’s no reason to be ugly about it. I’m sure your kid deserves his/her spot. Nobody is saying Asians aren’t getting in, they are simply pointing out that your kids stats were lower than theirs and they were mixed or Asian as well. Congratulations and Stay Humble lady!

I think SAT or ACT scores are useful for colleges in making admission decisions. MIT’s recent decision to go back to requiring tests is pretty compelling to me. However, I have pretty strong suspicions that it’s not that sharp of a tool. If you get a 1540 or a 1580 it probably makes no difference in predicting your college outcomes. Even more so, a 1580 resulting from multiple sittings and super scoring is probably even less useful in predicting college success than a single sitting 1540. My guess is that colleges want to see the standardized test score supports a high GPA and high AP scores. My opinion obviously is only that, but taking the SAT a bunch of times chasing a small improvement in score is a waste of time and squanders energy that can be better spent elsewhere.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:DC got merit aid at Dickinson, Lafayette and Denison. Test scores are not needed to get merit aid.

How close was the net price to the full price of your state flagship?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DS has much higher SAT but otherwise similar, rejected by ivies, maybe being an asian played a factor. So congratulations to you! Life isn’t always fair but this is the work we live in.

Same here. My DS stats were much higher with more APs. 3 sports. 2 languages . Rejected to all Ivy schools. ( Mixed asian)

my Asian kid had lower stats and got into multiple Ivies. So what?

You are special and hit the jackpot. So don’t rub it in to the rest of us, because I can guarantee you that those who didn’t get the offer are not any less intelligent than your Asian kid.

never said that, but the idea that being Asian is somehow disqualifying is pernicious.

Can you hear your attitude? You fit right in in that category! You must be a unpleasant person in real life with no real friends.

I'm unpleasant because I think Asian applicants are getting into Ivy League schools (a verifiable fact) and that it's not a simple "look at how great my stats are" proposition? You want to buy the line fed to you by some angry old white men, go ahead. I'll decline, thank you.

. There’s no reason to be ugly about it. I’m sure your kid deserves his/her spot. Nobody is saying Asians aren’t getting in, they are simply pointing out that your kids stats were lower than theirs and they were mixed or Asian as well. Congratulations and Stay Humble lady!

I think SAT or ACT scores are useful for colleges in making admission decisions. MIT’s recent decision to go back to requiring tests is pretty compelling to me. However, I have pretty strong suspicions that it’s not that sharp of a tool. If you get a 1540 or a 1580 it probably makes no difference in predicting your college outcomes. Even more so, a 1580 resulting from multiple sittings and super scoring is probably even less useful in predicting college success than a single sitting 1540. My guess is that colleges want to see the standardized test score supports a high GPA and high AP scores. My opinion obviously is only that, but taking the SAT a bunch of times chasing a small improvement in score is a waste of time and squanders energy that can be better spent elsewhere.

No matter how many times I sit for an IQ test, I'll never score at the genius level.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DS has much higher SAT but otherwise similar, rejected by ivies, maybe being an asian played a factor. So congratulations to you! Life isn’t always fair but this is the work we live in.

Same here. My DS stats were much higher with more APs. 3 sports. 2 languages . Rejected to all Ivy schools. ( Mixed asian)

my Asian kid had lower stats and got into multiple Ivies. So what?

You are special and hit the jackpot. So don’t rub it in to the rest of us, because I can guarantee you that those who didn’t get the offer are not any less intelligent than your Asian kid.

never said that, but the idea that being Asian is somehow disqualifying is pernicious.

Can you hear your attitude? You fit right in in that category! You must be a unpleasant person in real life with no real friends.

I'm unpleasant because I think Asian applicants are getting into Ivy League schools (a verifiable fact) and that it's not a simple "look at how great my stats are" proposition? You want to buy the line fed to you by some angry old white men, go ahead. I'll decline, thank you.

. There’s no reason to be ugly about it. I’m sure your kid deserves his/her spot. Nobody is saying Asians aren’t getting in, they are simply pointing out that your kids stats were lower than theirs and they were mixed or Asian as well. Congratulations and Stay Humble lady!

I think SAT or ACT scores are useful for colleges in making admission decisions. MIT’s recent decision to go back to requiring tests is pretty compelling to me. However, I have pretty strong suspicions that it’s not that sharp of a tool. If you get a 1540 or a 1580 it probably makes no difference in predicting your college outcomes. Even more so, a 1580 resulting from multiple sittings and super scoring is probably even less useful in predicting college success than a single sitting 1540. My guess is that colleges want to see the standardized test score supports a high GPA and high AP scores. My opinion obviously is only that, but taking the SAT a bunch of times chasing a small improvement in score is a waste of time and squanders energy that can be better spent elsewhere.

Agreed