Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I worked in admissions at a highly regarded school. I think I can add a few points to the thread.

First, scores matter, like OP said, but there is a floor and 80 percent of the applicants clear it. We don't chase the highest scores because we have enough of a pool of applicants to stay competitive. In my experience, if you are hanging your hat on high scores and grades, that is not going to be enough to make the cut and you will be disappointed to learn that there are a plurality of people with worse grades and scores who will get in.

Why? Because we need to fill a university with a bunch of different kinds of people with different interests. So, an applicant is not competing with the entire pool. They are competing with like-minded and interested students. So, we consult with coaches about sports needs and look at that applicant pool differently than we would a generic applicant with perfect scores and grades. We do the same with programmatic interests. So, for example, we look at science students through a different lens. Same goes for specialty programs. That's why a hook is so important. We look for people who will contribute to the school, who will provide something that adds to the campus community. At another college I worked for, we needed people in the damn marching band. That applicant pool got looked into differently and it was much easier to get an acceptance when the student expressed an interest in joining the band.

And now, the race question. First, almost all of the minority students basically clear that floor that everyone needs to in order to get a spot. If anything, I found myself frustrated by guidance counselors who would not support minority applicants because they either thought it was futile or were basically against AA. That basically kept plenty of qualified minority students from even attempting to apply. The students go through the same process I explained above and basically from there the decisions fall.

We also have something basically called a grit index, which we apply to all of our students. The evidence shows students who preserve through adversity are the most likely to engage and create meaningful impact in their respective fields. So, we look for students who show this potential. Once again, the test scores and grades are not enough to make a showing on this front. This is another reason why we end up rejecting perfect stat students and accepting students with lower stats (of all races, btw). We have seen big problems from students who cannot manage adversity, mainly because they have been cultivated to be academically or athletically successful (basically helicopter parenting). There's a hit for those kinds of kids because they struggle. First, when they arrive and inevitably run into an issue that they don't have the tools to effectively handle. And second, they tend to not push themselves or take risks academically, which basically produces bright but not innovative students. We want innovators and creators.

I think the top colleges, the Ivies and MIT etc can get both - the innovator risk taking creators who also have perfect scores.

PP I suspect you're from a middling college where you get less intake from the top score kids as you're more likely a 2nd choice or a safety.

Anonymous wrote:I worked in admissions at a highly regarded school. I think I can add a few points to the thread.

First, scores matter, like OP said, but there is a floor and 80 percent of the applicants clear it. We don't chase the highest scores because we have enough of a pool of applicants to stay competitive. In my experience, if you are hanging your hat on high scores and grades, that is not going to be enough to make the cut and you will be disappointed to learn that there are a plurality of people with worse grades and scores who will get in.

Why? Because we need to fill a university with a bunch of different kinds of people with different interests. So, an applicant is not competing with the entire pool. They are competing with like-minded and interested students. So, we consult with coaches about sports needs and look at that applicant pool differently than we would a generic applicant with perfect scores and grades. We do the same with programmatic interests. So, for example, we look at science students through a different lens. Same goes for specialty programs. That's why a hook is so important. We look for people who will contribute to the school, who will provide something that adds to the campus community. At another college I worked for, we needed people in the damn marching band. That applicant pool got looked into differently and it was much easier to get an acceptance when the student expressed an interest in joining the band.

And now, the race question. First, almost all of the minority students basically clear that floor that everyone needs to in order to get a spot. If anything, I found myself frustrated by guidance counselors who would not support minority applicants because they either thought it was futile or were basically against AA. That basically kept plenty of qualified minority students from even attempting to apply. The students go through the same process I explained above and basically from there the decisions fall.

We also have something basically called a grit index, which we apply to all of our students. The evidence shows students who preserve through adversity are the most likely to engage and create meaningful impact in their respective fields. So, we look for students who show this potential. Once again, the test scores and grades are not enough to make a showing on this front. This is another reason why we end up rejecting perfect stat students and accepting students with lower stats (of all races, btw). We have seen big problems from students who cannot manage adversity, mainly because they have been cultivated to be academically or athletically successful (basically helicopter parenting). There's a hit for those kinds of kids because they struggle. First, when they arrive and inevitably run into an issue that they don't have the tools to effectively handle. And second, they tend to not push themselves or take risks academically, which basically produces bright but not innovative students. We want innovators and creators.

Anonymous wrote:I worked in admissions at a highly regarded school. I think I can add a few points to the thread.

First, scores matter, like OP said, but there is a floor and 80 percent of the applicants clear it. We don't chase the highest scores because we have enough of a pool of applicants to stay competitive. In my experience, if you are hanging your hat on high scores and grades, that is not going to be enough to make the cut and you will be disappointed to learn that there are a plurality of people with worse grades and scores who will get in.

Why? Because we need to fill a university with a bunch of different kinds of people with different interests. So, an applicant is not competing with the entire pool. They are competing with like-minded and interested students. So, we consult with coaches about sports needs and look at that applicant pool differently than we would a generic applicant with perfect scores and grades. We do the same with programmatic interests. So, for example, we look at science students through a different lens. Same goes for specialty programs. That's why a hook is so important. We look for people who will contribute to the school, who will provide something that adds to the campus community. At another college I worked for, we needed people in the damn marching band. That applicant pool got looked into differently and it was much easier to get an acceptance when the student expressed an interest in joining the band.

And now, the race question. First, almost all of the minority students basically clear that floor that everyone needs to in order to get a spot. If anything, I found myself frustrated by guidance counselors who would not support minority applicants because they either thought it was futile or were basically against AA. That basically kept plenty of qualified minority students from even attempting to apply. The students go through the same process I explained above and basically from there the decisions fall.

We also have something basically called a grit index, which we apply to all of our students. The evidence shows students who preserve through adversity are the most likely to engage and create meaningful impact in their respective fields. So, we look for students who show this potential. Once again, the test scores and grades are not enough to make a showing on this front. This is another reason why we end up rejecting perfect stat students and accepting students with lower stats (of all races, btw). We have seen big problems from students who cannot manage adversity, mainly because they have been cultivated to be academically or athletically successful (basically helicopter parenting). There's a hit for those kinds of kids because they struggle. First, when they arrive and inevitably run into an issue that they don't have the tools to effectively handle. And second, they tend to not push themselves or take risks academically, which basically produces bright but not innovative students. We want innovators and creators.

Anonymous wrote:I worked in admissions at a highly regarded school. I think I can add a few points to the thread.

First, scores matter, like OP said, but there is a floor and 80 percent of the applicants clear it. We don't chase the highest scores because we have enough of a pool of applicants to stay competitive. In my experience, if you are hanging your hat on high scores and grades, that is not going to be enough to make the cut and you will be disappointed to learn that there are a plurality of people with worse grades and scores who will get in.

Why? Because we need to fill a university with a bunch of different kinds of people with different interests. So, an applicant is not competing with the entire pool. They are competing with like-minded and interested students. So, we consult with coaches about sports needs and look at that applicant pool differently than we would a generic applicant with perfect scores and grades. We do the same with programmatic interests. So, for example, we look at science students through a different lens. Same goes for specialty programs. That's why a hook is so important. We look for people who will contribute to the school, who will provide something that adds to the campus community. At another college I worked for, we needed people in the damn marching band. That applicant pool got looked into differently and it was much easier to get an acceptance when the student expressed an interest in joining the band.

And now, the race question. First, almost all of the minority students basically clear that floor that everyone needs to in order to get a spot. If anything, I found myself frustrated by guidance counselors who would not support minority applicants because they either thought it was futile or were basically against AA. That basically kept plenty of qualified minority students from even attempting to apply. The students go through the same process I explained above and basically from there the decisions fall.

We also have something basically called a grit index, which we apply to all of our students. The evidence shows students who preserve through adversity are the most likely to engage and create meaningful impact in their respective fields. So, we look for students who show this potential. Once again, the test scores and grades are not enough to make a showing on this front. This is another reason why we end up rejecting perfect stat students and accepting students with lower stats (of all races, btw). We have seen big problems from students who cannot manage adversity, mainly because they have been cultivated to be academically or athletically successful (basically helicopter parenting). There's a hit for those kinds of kids because they struggle. First, when they arrive and inevitably run into an issue that they don't have the tools to effectively handle. And second, they tend to not push themselves or take risks academically, which basically produces bright but not innovative students. We want innovators and creators.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The rude poster/troll will get a wakeup call when her future 12th grader with perfect stats is crushed when she doesn't make the cut at UVA or W&M after doing everything right, those perfect stats aren't enough get significant merit at private colleges, and FAFSA believes you can afford $70K a year in tuition on a below-DCUM-average HHI.

We in VA are SO lucky to have so many great in-state options. I know kids who have happily chosen CNU over UVA, UMW over W&M, and JMU over VT.

Sorry but I find this VERY hard to believe. (Do you mean kids accepted to both but chose CNU? - No way.)

Not the PP, but this is absolutely true. Two of my kids were accepted to both UVA and W&M and both chose other VA schools instead. Why? Because the fit was better for them elsewhere. One went to JMU and *loved* everything about it, the other is at UMW and we almost never see him because he's enjoying college life so much. Those of you who insist ranking is the end-all, be-all are missing something crucial. Let's hope you let your kids decide for themselves where they'd be happiest.

I'm a UVA alum, but honest to god, every person I've ever met who went to JMU *loved* it. And I surely cannot say the same for everyone I know who went to UVA.

My colleague in the office next door went to JMU. Hard to argue that going to UVA over another "lesser" VA state school gave me such a big advantage in life, LOL.

Anonymous wrote:I don't know if this question was asked before but how much does legacy status help at your school. How much do steady non large donations vs no donations help or hurt? If you would compare it to race based preferences which would it be comparable to.

Anonymous wrote:I have about 40 customers in my small landscape business. 4 of their kids went to or are going to Harvard. The one thing they all have in common. They are very nice kids. I've known most of them since they were 4 or 5, and most are not extraverted. I know it's a small sample, but one of my customers kids who's father and grandfather went to Harvard, and Andover where the kid went, did not get in, he's kinda a dink. I have a brilliant introverted daughter and average extroverted son, pros and cons to both, mostly pros. She is looking for small colleges, not sure he is even going to college, they will both do fine in life, I
m pretty sure of that.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The rude poster/troll will get a wakeup call when her future 12th grader with perfect stats is crushed when she doesn't make the cut at UVA or W&M after doing everything right, those perfect stats aren't enough get significant merit at private colleges, and FAFSA believes you can afford $70K a year in tuition on a below-DCUM-average HHI.

We in VA are SO lucky to have so many great in-state options. I know kids who have happily chosen CNU over UVA, UMW over W&M, and JMU over VT.

Sorry but I find this VERY hard to believe. (Do you mean kids accepted to both but chose CNU? - No way.)

Not the PP, but this is absolutely true. Two of my kids were accepted to both UVA and W&M and both chose other VA schools instead. Why? Because the fit was better for them elsewhere. One went to JMU and *loved* everything about it, the other is at UMW and we almost never see him because he's enjoying college life so much. Those of you who insist ranking is the end-all, be-all are missing something crucial. Let's hope you let your kids decide for themselves where they'd be happiest.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The rude poster/troll will get a wakeup call when her future 12th grader with perfect stats is crushed when she doesn't make the cut at UVA or W&M after doing everything right, those perfect stats aren't enough get significant merit at private colleges, and FAFSA believes you can afford $70K a year in tuition on a below-DCUM-average HHI.

We in VA are SO lucky to have so many great in-state options. I know kids who have happily chosen CNU over UVA, UMW over W&M, and JMU over VT.

Sorry but I find this VERY hard to believe. (Do you mean kids accepted to both but chose CNU? - No way.)

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Forgive me if this was covered in 17 (!) pages: Is it not better to be an outstanding student from a "lesser" school, than an applicant from a "top" high school?

Some of the University admissions clearly state that they are looking at the "rigor of the curriculum" and usually its the top schools not the lesser schools which show this rigor.

So it could be 50/50. Any way it hangs, it will depend on many other factors, not just a better or worse school.