Reply to How did your super high stats kid fare (1550 plus and 4.5 plus with max rigor)

Forum Index » College and University Discussion

Reply to "How did your super high stats kid fare (1550 plus and 4.5 plus with max rigor)"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]Intense? Yikes My kid was that profile is at an Ivy. Not an intense kid but academically, motivated.  Doesn’t like intense. He’s a kind, sweet kid. Didn’t ED or REA anywhere.

Nobody can tell you. My kid had the same  grades and stats as other friends, but he was the only one in the group to get accepted to multiple T10/20 schools and I could not tell you why. Unhooked. Typical kid- job, sports, ecs.  He usually has bad luck so it was a surprise.

It really becomes a lottery at the T10/20s.  Every kid has those stats and similar activities.

He just applied where he thought he would like to go. He had no clear first choice so didn’t want to ED.[/quote]

Humanities or social science major? That matters. [b]Otherwise, probably just a likeable kid who wrote nice essays and had glowing recs. People tend to underestimate the value of plain old likability in the application process. Even elite colleges prefer to admit nice kids they think will be a positive presence on campus.[/b][/quote]

I think this is a bigger factor that people realize. These schools do actually care about building their community. A kid I know who got into Yale a couple of years ago was like this—strong academically, well-rounded, but also lovely, delightful, a ray of sunshine—and I’m guessing it was clear in his recommendations and essays. [/quote]

Are podcasters reading this group thread?

Saw this on apple this morning.
“Hillary, I want to talk to you about something I've been thinking about a lot. I've been wanting to share this on the podcast, but I struggle with how to communicate this, and I just wanted to get your thoughts on it. So one of the things that I find in reading students' writing that really, I guess, just increases their desirability is if they come across very likable.

But yet when you say that, it sounds like a pop-up. Is this a popularity contest? But I really think have a stranger, somebody doesn't know you that well, read that and think, is this a likable person?

How often are you going to really fight for, advocate for, or get attached to someone who you don't find that likable? I doubt very often. I know I didn't when I was in admissions.

Like the whole idea of, and some of it's combined with other things, right? You're likable because you have personal qualities that are going to add. You're likable because you're interesting.”

From Your College Bound Kid | Admission Tips, Admission Trends & Admission Interviews: How Does Being Likeable Impact College Admissions Decisions, Aug 7, 2025
[/quote]

I feel like this has always been the case. People with good soft skills are always going to have an advantage in life as well as people who are intelligent[/quote]

I just listened to the podcast. At least that section.

It was interesting how they will overlook a blip or a bad grade for the likability factor and bring someone to committee. And how some of the perfect stats kids are fine, but not memorable and no one fights for them when push comes to shove.

It was also interesting that they said that they are OK having a kid with a C on a transcript if they are going to bring something absolutely spectacular to campus or classroom (they mentioned LOR) and make a professors life easier or make teaching a joy. They mentioned they don’t need every kid to graduate cum laude. They do need people to do certain things on campus and that is ultimately more valuable to them than perfect grades for everyone on a college campus.[/quote]
Yes it is about building a class, not filling it with the highest IQ kids. The super bright, tests are easy, grasp information fast and do not have to work as hard as others in the same rigorous APs often still get in to ivies, but they do not just stack them up on estimated intellectual talent and accept that way. (After athletes and URM etc) they want diversity of talent so will take the amazing theater kid or artist with less rigor and top-3% smart but not a 99% over yet another top intellectual interested in Stem. The true intellectual outliers often get in to multiple T10/ivy whereas the highly intelligent notch below “just” 98-99% can easily be shut out of all T20: there are just too many in this group and tests and GPA as currently evaluated do not separate the group well. The “its a crapshoot” statements apply to this group.[/quote]

[b]I don't think universities can tell the difference between the "highly intelligent" (non-outlier), and the bright kid who took the SAT 6 times to superscore a 1520. [/b]I think that's the issue-- the outliers they can spot, but everyone else is lumped in together and standardized tests do not do a good job of distinguishing those at the tippy top -- combine that with rampant grade inflation (and TO) and tens of thousands of kids end up looking "super high stats" on their application. Especially when looking at students coming from a wide range of high schools not just top, well known privates and magnet schools. 
[/quote]

Other than MIT and cal tech, most selective schools don’t care about telling that difference. It’s not the important differentiator you think it is for purposes of selective college admissions. [/quote]

So the probation physics dept doesn't care?  The Harvard econ dept isn't splitting hairs?[/quote]

You clearly don’t understand what these schools are looking for.

I’d suggest you get educated by talking with former AO.
[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics