Anonymous wrote:I'm really depressed by everything I'm hearing about the essay. The thing is that in my family we're pretty boring. We go to church and we eat dinner together and we eat vegetables and we mow the lawn.

I honestly don't think if you met my kid you'd think "Wow, what a fascinating individual!" You'd say -- Look, it's a white kid who plays the violin and takes advanced math. You probably wouldn't find me very fascinating either. None of us has eleventy thousand followers on Instagram. We dress in regular clothes -- nobody has dreadlocks or a nose ring or a tattoo.

In my mind, people who are charismatic and fascinating and quirky and funny are usually extroverts (which we're not in my family), and extremely self-confident (which no one in our family really is.). We're timid nerds who read books.

It feels a bit like you're saying that being invited to attend your university is like being invited to sit at the popular kid's table in the cafeteria in high school lunch period. I never sat there, but I always regarded that more as an accident of circumstance than as something I had to or could work on. Some of us are just less interesting. Kind of sad that these days you need to be brilliant AND fascinating, all by the age of 17.

I have several reactions to this.

First, it sounds like you are accusing others of something you are guilty of yourself. You assume that others will find your introvert timid and boring because you yourself seem to find introverts timid and boring. In fact, IME, introverts often have very fascinating, quirky, and funny observations about themselves and the world around them. People who are timid and read books still can have deep interests and interesting things to say, even if they don't enjoy saying them too loudly or to too many people. Are all introverts brilliant and fascinating? Absolutely not. But the same is true of extroverts as well. Brilliant and fascinating actually has nothing to do with introversion/extroversion.

Second, it is strange to me that you are complaining that your brilliant but boring introvert will be disadvantaged by the essay requirement. This makes no sense. An introvert is not at a disadvantage when it comes to writing a college essay--in fact, one could argue that an introvert has an advantage here. No one reading a kid's essay can see what kind of clothes she is dressed in or whether she has dreadlocks or a nose ring or a tattoo, nor does the reader know how many Instagram followers the writer has or where they sit in the cafeteria. It would make far more sense to me if you were complaining that your brilliant introvert is disadvantaged in the application process because, as an introvert who is more interested in reading than in joining clubs, she doesn't have a ton of activities. Or that she doesn't have glowing recommendations from teachers because she tends to be very quiet in class. But the essay a disadvantage for an introvert in particular? No.

Third, you are looking at a multi-dimensional application (grades, test scores, activities, essays, recommendations) and seeing only the disadvantages *your* child faces. But most kids have weaknesses; few are superstars. Your kid might have difficulty writing an interesting essay; another equally brilliant kid might be a terrifically interesting writer but not have a fabulous GPA. Both kids might thrive at Harvard. There's no "right" decision here on which one is more qualified or deserves it more.

Which brings me to my fourth point: Either kid will also thrive at other schools that are not Harvard. Not getting into an elite college is not a tragedy. So viewing this process as "depressing" is just silly.

And finally, the discussion here has been about how rare the great college essay is. So if your kid can't write a great one, she has that in common with 90% of the other applicants. It's not a disadvantage.

Relax.

Anonymous wrote:^^ Just because Vandy and Williams reported lower ranges for their new SATs than for the old SATs and ACTs doesn't mean that the concordances are incorrect. We don't know how many people are in each reported group, and what the composition of each group is. For example, many stronger students may have skipped the new SAT, so that group is weaker than average. Also, many kids submit a variety of tests (new SAT, old SAT, ACT), in which case the colleges use the new SAT only if it is the strongest score according to the concordances.

Many weaker students may have also skipped the new SAT in favor of the old, knowing they had to rely on its large volume of old SAT pre-existing prep materials as a crutch. That would offset any stronger students who made the same choice.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm really depressed by everything I'm hearing about the essay. The thing is that in my family we're pretty boring. We go to church and we eat dinner together and we eat vegetables and we mow the lawn.

I honestly don't think if you met my kid you'd think "Wow, what a fascinating individual!" You'd say -- Look, it's a white kid who plays the violin and takes advanced math. You probably wouldn't find me very fascinating either. None of us has eleventy thousand followers on Instagram. We dress in regular clothes -- nobody has dreadlocks or a nose ring or a tattoo.

In my mind, people who are charismatic and fascinating and quirky and funny are usually extroverts (which we're not in my family), and extremely self-confident (which no one in our family really is.). We're timid nerds who read books.

It feels a bit like you're saying that being invited to attend your university is like being invited to sit at the popular kid's table in the cafeteria in high school lunch period. I never sat there, but I always regarded that more as an accident of circumstance than as something I had to or could work on. Some of us are just less interesting. Kind of sad that these days you need to be brilliant AND fascinating, all by the age of 17.

^ but even the kid you're describing can have a very interesting hobby or interest they're passionate about.

Yes. Or have exciting, interesting thoughts about a book they've read. Or be able to write a quirky, funny essay about, say, what it's like to be Larla's violin bow.

Anonymous wrote:I'm really depressed by everything I'm hearing about the essay. The thing is that in my family we're pretty boring. We go to church and we eat dinner together and we eat vegetables and we mow the lawn.

I honestly don't think if you met my kid you'd think "Wow, what a fascinating individual!" You'd say -- Look, it's a white kid who plays the violin and takes advanced math. You probably wouldn't find me very fascinating either. None of us has eleventy thousand followers on Instagram. We dress in regular clothes -- nobody has dreadlocks or a nose ring or a tattoo.

In my mind, people who are charismatic and fascinating and quirky and funny are usually extroverts (which we're not in my family), and extremely self-confident (which no one in our family really is.). We're timid nerds who read books.

It feels a bit like you're saying that being invited to attend your university is like being invited to sit at the popular kid's table in the cafeteria in high school lunch period. I never sat there, but I always regarded that more as an accident of circumstance than as something I had to or could work on. Some of us are just less interesting. Kind of sad that these days you need to be brilliant AND fascinating, all by the age of 17.

PP (above) -- I totally relate. I've come to the conclusion that kids like ours go to state schools or non-competitive private schools. I admire and I'm impressed by the credentials of these applicants who are all around all-stars. "Where You Go is Not Who You'll Be" - gets me by. Read it.

^^ Just because Vandy and Williams reported lower ranges for their new SATs than for the old SATs and ACTs doesn't mean that the concordances are incorrect. We don't know how many people are in each reported group, and what the composition of each group is. For example, many stronger students may have skipped the new SAT, so that group is weaker than average. Also, many kids submit a variety of tests (new SAT, old SAT, ACT), in which case the colleges use the new SAT only if it is the strongest score according to the concordances.

Anonymous wrote:

1) Let me rephrase my question: Are you USING the current concordance tables? Are you attempting to scale new SAT scores to old SAT or ACT?
2) You said you are waiting for CB to release a more accurate table...is that something you expect to happen in this admissions cycle? Has CB indicated this is coming?

1. We used the concordance tables to get a sense of how to evaluate new SAT scores, but we’re not scaling scores. On their profile, all of the applicants tests- old, new SAT, ACT, etc- will be detailed, no scaling.
2. Not sure, we don’t know how College Board will work on this. I think we’ll have to wait for data from more schools to see if there’s something egregiously off with the new SAT concordance charts. It’s hard to tell at the moment what the specific cause is for new SAT scores being lower than old ones.

OP - thanks for the response. Regarding #2 - there is evidence that other selective schools (e.g. Williams, Vanderbilt, etc) have also observed new SAT scores skewing lower. Any idea if selective schools (including yours) have been discussing this issue amongst themselves and sharing what they have observed?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm really depressed by everything I'm hearing about the essay. The thing is that in my family we're pretty boring. We go to church and we eat dinner together and we eat vegetables and we mow the lawn.

I honestly don't think if you met my kid you'd think "Wow, what a fascinating individual!" You'd say -- Look, it's a white kid who plays the violin and takes advanced math. You probably wouldn't find me very fascinating either. None of us has eleventy thousand followers on Instagram. We dress in regular clothes -- nobody has dreadlocks or a nose ring or a tattoo.

In my mind, people who are charismatic and fascinating and quirky and funny are usually extroverts (which we're not in my family), and extremely self-confident (which no one in our family really is.). We're timid nerds who read books.

It feels a bit like you're saying that being invited to attend your university is like being invited to sit at the popular kid's table in the cafeteria in high school lunch period. I never sat there, but I always regarded that more as an accident of circumstance than as something I had to or could work on. Some of us are just less interesting. Kind of sad that these days you need to be brilliant AND fascinating, all by the age of 17.

^ but even the kid you're describing can have a very interesting hobby or interest they're passionate about.

I agree what you're saying about this expectation that 17 applicants are expected to be fully formed and uniformly accomplished; I'm hoping my (shy, reasonably smart, some musical talent) kid will blossom in college. He and I did a lot of research on what makes a compelling essay, and I think the final product has helped to make him a more memorable candidate than others, and it isn't because he's brilliant and fascinating. We brainstormed on the things that he has always enjoyed doing (which is not an academic or artistic or athletic pursuit) and he wrote an interesting narrative about how that one thing has impacted his life and his plans for the future. It's nothing anyone will ever get an award for, but two admissions letters specifically and positively referenced the essay in communications to him.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thank you for your help, OP. How are 9th grade grades weighed? Any forgiveness in the process for a student who makes mistakes in 9th grade, then matures into a great student? I'm a bit worried that the system seems to be set up to reward pre-mature frontal lobe development. I hope I'm wrong.

Not OP, but YES! there is a degree of 'forgiveness' for a bad Freshman year if the other years are good and test scores solid. My son had a terrible 9th grade and every school we visited said they put far more weight on the trend and would look at a transcript like his and calculate the GPA with and without freshman grades.
Just try to have a reason (we moved cross country in middle of 9th because DH lost his job) and make sure the grades are good moving forward.
He's attending a SLAC with a less than 15% admit rate and he pulled a 1.8 GPA freshman year.

What a relief. Thank you!

Oh PP, one more thing. We were advised to NOT use the essay to explain the grades or the rough freshman year. The rationale was why use your one shot on something negative. A 1:1 discussion, in person during the campus visit was recommended.

Anonymous wrote:I'm really depressed by everything I'm hearing about the essay. The thing is that in my family we're pretty boring. We go to church and we eat dinner together and we eat vegetables and we mow the lawn.

I honestly don't think if you met my kid you'd think "Wow, what a fascinating individual!" You'd say -- Look, it's a white kid who plays the violin and takes advanced math. You probably wouldn't find me very fascinating either. None of us has eleventy thousand followers on Instagram. We dress in regular clothes -- nobody has dreadlocks or a nose ring or a tattoo.

In my mind, people who are charismatic and fascinating and quirky and funny are usually extroverts (which we're not in my family), and extremely self-confident (which no one in our family really is.). We're timid nerds who read books.

It feels a bit like you're saying that being invited to attend your university is like being invited to sit at the popular kid's table in the cafeteria in high school lunch period. I never sat there, but I always regarded that more as an accident of circumstance than as something I had to or could work on. Some of us are just less interesting. Kind of sad that these days you need to be brilliant AND fascinating, all by the age of 17.

^ but even the kid you're describing can have a very interesting hobby or interest they're passionate about.

I'm really depressed by everything I'm hearing about the essay. The thing is that in my family we're pretty boring. We go to church and we eat dinner together and we eat vegetables and we mow the lawn.

I honestly don't think if you met my kid you'd think "Wow, what a fascinating individual!" You'd say -- Look, it's a white kid who plays the violin and takes advanced math. You probably wouldn't find me very fascinating either. None of us has eleventy thousand followers on Instagram. We dress in regular clothes -- nobody has dreadlocks or a nose ring or a tattoo.

In my mind, people who are charismatic and fascinating and quirky and funny are usually extroverts (which we're not in my family), and extremely self-confident (which no one in our family really is.). We're timid nerds who read books.

It feels a bit like you're saying that being invited to attend your university is like being invited to sit at the popular kid's table in the cafeteria in high school lunch period. I never sat there, but I always regarded that more as an accident of circumstance than as something I had to or could work on. Some of us are just less interesting. Kind of sad that these days you need to be brilliant AND fascinating, all by the age of 17.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Every source I can find says that scores on the new SAT are higher than the old SAT--except OP. One of the issues/concerns with the new SAT was that resulted in score inflations.

Care to post any of those sources?

You can do a quick search. This is what major news outlets (ala Wash Post) were reporting after the first exam.

Until you provide proof, you are wrong.

Google -- it's your friend.

You don't have a source. Naming search engines won't change that.

oh good grief, do the search or shut up. The poster named a source. You just have to google that source. Lazy ass.

The poster hasn't named a single source showing new SAT scores to be higher than old for people who actually took the test. The source does not exist.

On the other hand, there were multiple sources confirming the assertions of the OP.... That the new SAT skews lower.

whoops, forgot to do this one:

OP, For URM, do you consider their background? For example, would an AA applicant who has two highly educated parents (and maybe even multi-generations of highly educated relatives) who attended Ivies and are now professionals be considered at the same benchmarks as another AA applicant from the inner city who has to work to provide for the family?

We do consider background, but their testing benchmark would be considered relative to the URM pool. As pointed out way back when, getting a 32+ on the ACT means being one of the top 500 black students in the nation. It's a serious achievement, regardless of background.

But just being a URM doesn't give you a guarantee. We have turned down URMs with 32+/1400+ on the tests. Test scores are only one part of the complex equation. Obviously, all else equal, we would probably view the latter applicant in a stronger light given their circumstances. It's just hard to answer situational questions without seeing all the details.

I am particularly surprised to hear that applying ED does not come with any advantage.

School specific topic. Ours doesn’t confer an advantage.

A question about indicating race. From what is in this thread, it seems that Asian applicants should not identify their race on the application. Worst case is they will be held to the same standards as other Asian kids, and best case is they will be held two more lenient requirements. Correct?
How are mixed-race applicants reviewed? If my child is 3/4 Asian and 1/8 White descent, is the best approach just the indicate mixed race?
Finally, if my non-Asian child does not identify her race on the application she will be assumed to be Asian or white? That seems to penalize people for deciding to keep their race private, yes?

We actually like when students disclose their race; it helps us better solicit programming for them if they matriculate. We’re not disadvantaging Asians on an absolute scale; that pool is simply so competitive that not being near the benchmark will disadvantage you relatively. But the race question is not required. Also, as pointed out before, a benchmark is just a standard, not a barrier. We are not going to say no if an Asian student doesn’t have a 750 on each section. A good number of our Asian admits don’t.

We review mixed-race kids under both contexts. If they’re a mixed race URM, we’ll consider them under the URM benchmark, even if their other race is not a URM. If they’re a mixed race not URM, we consider them under both the Asian and Caucasian pool. The benchmarks for test expectations in both groups are comparable.
We practice race based affirmative action. If a mixed race student who is part URM chooses not to disclose that they are, they have the right to do that, but they shouldn’t expect that we’ll consider their performance relative to the URM pool. The whole point of AA is to contextualize performance relative to groups who have been historically underserved or underrepresented. It’s a boost overall, not something made at the expense of non-URMs.

So what makes an essay "good" vs. a "bad" essay? Or what made these essays "bad"?

Lots of good discussion on this; I agree with what’s posted. You have to put it in the light of an admissions officer. We read around 40-50 applications in some days, spending 10-20 minutes on each (yes, that means we’re working all day and well into the night). Most of the essays are similar in content. They don’t excite us. We want students to be bold, passionate, and daring. Those are the essays that stick with us year after year- the ones we use to train future admission officers about what a good essay is.

How are 9th grade grades weighed? Any forgiveness in the process for a student who makes mistakes in 9th grade, then matures into a great student? I'm a bit worried that the system seems to be set up to reward pre-mature frontal lobe development

Yes, the trend matters more as was mentioned, but if 9th grade grades are bringing down the rest of the application to an extent you don’t meet our standards (being in the top 10%, for instance), that will hurt you.

Thanks for all the feedback. I fell asleep right when I got back from work, so I’m sorry I couldn’t respond last evening as mentioned. I think people absolutely have the right to question any information that is presented to them. Anyway, this thread exploded beyond what I had anticipated, so I will back out from further replies; I will answer everything that is posted thus far.

How much weight you give to SAT subject test scores?
Do AP test scores factor into admissions at all? A lot of people on DCUM have indicated that they are only used for freshman class placements, but there is a divide of opinions on College Confidential.
Assuming you require all test scores to be submitted, would you look with disfavor on a kid who got a great test score to start, for example 1570 out of 1600 on the SAT, retaking the test multiple times to try for a perfect 1600?

We look at them if an applicant sends them. We like seeing above a 750 on each test. But they are not required, so those who don’t have them will be penalized. We consider AP scores too if we receive them; it can be particularly telling if we’re seeing a strong kid with a bunch of 1-3’s that they may not be ready for college level work. But again, it’s optional; all these tests help us determine the academic merit score to give the candidate. When we receive multiple scores, we only look at the highest sections, so retaking multiple times won’t hurt. We don’t care that much about test scores as applicants and parents think we do.

OP - Can you talk to us about "donors"?? I assume you don't flag small time (a few K per year) donors, right? Or do you??

Sorry, I don’t know the specifics. Beginner admission counselors don’t do the tagging.

Athletes need at or near a 4.0 UNWEIGHTED to achieve "non-committee-reviewed" spots? We are always telling our DC how important grades are, as well as how important it is to take a rigorous schedule of honors and AP classes, but do all the recruited athletes at elite schools really have straight As in rigorous schedules?

This is generally a school specific question, but we want to see near a 4.0 UW or at it. I don’t know the exact score range we want, maybe a 3.75+? We don’t ask for all A’s, but we want to see mostly A’s. Also, the coaches consider the rigor of the coursework and we have worked with them to let them know what we’re looking for.

1) Let me rephrase my question: Are you USING the current concordance tables? Are you attempting to scale new SAT scores to old SAT or ACT?
2) You said you are waiting for CB to release a more accurate table...is that something you expect to happen in this admissions cycle? Has CB indicated this is coming?

1. We used the concordance tables to get a sense of how to evaluate new SAT scores, but we’re not scaling scores. On their profile, all of the applicants tests- old, new SAT, ACT, etc- will be detailed, no scaling.
2. Not sure, we don’t know how College Board will work on this. I think we’ll have to wait for data from more schools to see if there’s something egregiously off with the new SAT concordance charts. It’s hard to tell at the moment what the specific cause is for new SAT scores being lower than old ones.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Every source I can find says that scores on the new SAT are higher than the old SAT--except OP. One of the issues/concerns with the new SAT was that resulted in score inflations.

Care to post any of those sources?

You can do a quick search. This is what major news outlets (ala Wash Post) were reporting after the first exam.

Until you provide proof, you are wrong.

Google -- it's your friend.

You don't have a source. Naming search engines won't change that.

oh good grief, do the search or shut up. The poster named a source. You just have to google that source. Lazy ass.

The Washington Post was named. The only relevant Washington Post articles base the idea that New scores are higher than Old ones on the College Board's own concordance tables.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/grade-point/wp/2016/05/11/why-your-new-sat-score-is-not-as-strong-as-you-think-it-is/?utm_term=.0a5757425552
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/answer-sheet/wp/2016/05/10/scores-for-new-sat-are-out-but-how-do-they-compare-to-the-old-one-and-the-act/?utm_term=.bfcb46ae3b23

Other than the College Board's own concordance tables - which the OP questions the accuracy of - there is no evidence (that I am aware of) that New SAT scores are inflated. If someone has another source, please post.