ask any seasonal reader of application. The first cut isGPA and test scores. Then class rank -and before you yell my high school doesnt rank! - it does via the school profile sent by the high school with each applicant. it contains no of kids in the applicant class, the gpa distribution, the most rigorous courses offered and a bar graph to show what percentage of the class is actually taking those courses. The reader can figure out class rank in seconds. Also, readers look for clues like honor society. Only after meeting the school's minimum stats does the application go to the AO staff and ultimately the regional AO who is familiar with the school and howpast admittees have performed at that college. The reader also ferrets out hooks.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why do people look at scattergrams? Why do people look at the CDS for stats? Why do people look at 25,50 and 75 percentiles for test scores for admitted students?

You know why.

Because those are the only quantitative data points given. It doesn’t mean they are as paramount as is often assumed.

Wrong. I have heard at Tufts, Gtown, UVA, and Yale that the first stop is the transcript. It is THE most important. YCBK has said it many many times in the podcast. It matters.

Yes, of course they matter. What I’m saying is you can’t just say student x with 3.9uwGPA and 1530 is a stronger applicant than student y with 3.8uwGPA and 1460 without knowing a lot more. They both get through the initial screen. Assuming similar rigor, what often differentiates them are the “soft” factors.

Well, tell that to an AO. Their job is to get as many applications in as possible to lower selectivity scores. Their job is also to get kids admiited who have top scores and GPA because that is all reported to USNWR (andother ranking services). Also test optional is being dropped. (google it). so absent a hook, the applicant needs top gpa and test scores. For example, we know via SCHEV that last year's incoming class at UVA had a 4.51 at the 75th percentile (if you are lookimg at VA schools you should lookong at SCHEV.edu. Also many school are interested in "buying" topscores and might offer merit scholarship. It happened to my DD. no oneblinked when she scored a32 on the ACT but unsolicited offers for a free ride were offered to her once she scored a 36 (these were small lacs rarely discussed here). and then the schoolturns around a reports that high score to alums and to therankong services. Every college wants to climb in the rankings

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why do people ask about stats so much? It’s been known for years that college admissions is a holistic process and that a kid with a 4.0/1600 can easily be rejected from a school that admits a kid with a 3.6/1450. When are people going to realize that ECs, LORs, awards, essays, interviews, fit, etc. are as, if not much more, important?

A highly selective school is not admitting a kid with a 3.6 without a hook. With a hook, absolutely.

I know a kid with a hook who got into Stanford - 4.0 but with the easiest schedule I’ve heard of and certainly no honors or AP classes. I have to say I was shocked as there are much more accomplished kids with the same hook. Truly a mystery.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why do people look at scattergrams? Why do people look at the CDS for stats? Why do people look at 25,50 and 75 percentiles for test scores for admitted students?

You know why.

Because those are the only quantitative data points given. It doesn’t mean they are as paramount as is often assumed.

Wrong. I have heard at Tufts, Gtown, UVA, and Yale that the first stop is the transcript. It is THE most important. YCBK has said it many many times in the podcast. It matters.

Yes, of course they matter. What I’m saying is you can’t just say student x with 3.9uwGPA and 1530 is a stronger applicant than student y with 3.8uwGPA and 1460 without knowing a lot more. They both get through the initial screen. Assuming similar rigor, what often differentiates them are the “soft” factors.

Assuming you are the OP, that's not what you said at all. You said other factors are more important that stats which is BS if stats are the gate.

That was not OP. This is OP. Anyway, even if stats are the gate (which I’m not disputing; I’m sure that’s true), many students will get through that gate, and after that, what next? Everything else. Stats aren’t defining nor do they play a role after the initial filtering process.

You: When are people going to realize that ECs, LORs, awards, essays, interviews, fit, etc. are as, if not much more, important?

Also you: stats are the gate (which I’m not disputing; I’m sure that’s true).

Your ECs, awards, LORs, essays, and interviews are irrelevant if you don't get through with the stats the are seeking. You seem to have always understood that (based on your response above) but then seemed to be confused about it in your orig. post. Truth is, you understand why people ask about stats but for some dumb reason are posting this.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why do people look at scattergrams? Why do people look at the CDS for stats? Why do people look at 25,50 and 75 percentiles for test scores for admitted students?

You know why.

Because those are the only quantitative data points given. It doesn’t mean they are as paramount as is often assumed.

Wrong. I have heard at Tufts, Gtown, UVA, and Yale that the first stop is the transcript. It is THE most important. YCBK has said it many many times in the podcast. It matters.

Yes, of course they matter. What I’m saying is you can’t just say student x with 3.9uwGPA and 1530 is a stronger applicant than student y with 3.8uwGPA and 1460 without knowing a lot more. They both get through the initial screen. Assuming similar rigor, what often differentiates them are the “soft” factors.

Assuming you are the OP, that's not what you said at all. You said other factors are more important that stats which is BS if stats are the gate.

That was not OP. This is OP. Anyway, even if stats are the gate (which I’m not disputing; I’m sure that’s true), many students will get through that gate, and after that, what next? Everything else. Stats aren’t defining nor do they play a role after the initial filtering process.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Stats matter.

This is OP. Of course stats matter; that wasn’t my point and I’m sorry if I wasn’t clear in my post. I meant that there are a million other things contributing to whether or not a student gets into a college, and that stats alone don’t provide an accurate representation of students.

NP. I got the gist of your post and agree with you. So many kids are crammed at the top stats-wise. Whether it's a 1540 or 1580 or whether 3.9 or 4.0 isn't going to be the deal breaker. And those markers will vary depending on type of school and availability of enrichment.

Of course, a 3.6 UW from MCPS is highly unlikely to get into a T20 unless majorly hooked. The protestors need to reframe how they consider stats. Think of stats as a threshold (or ballpark as a PP mentioned) not an accolade or means of standing out.

Anonymous wrote:Why do people ask about stats so much? It’s been known for years that college admissions is a holistic process and that a kid with a 4.0/1600 can easily be rejected from a school that admits a kid with a 3.6/1450. When are people going to realize that ECs, LORs, awards, essays, interviews, fit, etc. are as, if not much more, important?

A highly selective school is not admitting a kid with a 3.6 without a hook. With a hook, absolutely.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why do people look at scattergrams? Why do people look at the CDS for stats? Why do people look at 25,50 and 75 percentiles for test scores for admitted students?

You know why.

Because those are the only quantitative data points given. It doesn’t mean they are as paramount as is often assumed.

Wrong. I have heard at Tufts, Gtown, UVA, and Yale that the first stop is the transcript. It is THE most important. YCBK has said it many many times in the podcast. It matters.

Yes, of course they matter. What I’m saying is you can’t just say student x with 3.9uwGPA and 1530 is a stronger applicant than student y with 3.8uwGPA and 1460 without knowing a lot more. They both get through the initial screen. Assuming similar rigor, what often differentiates them are the “soft” factors.

Assuming you are the OP, that's not what you said at all. You said other factors are more important that stats which is BS if stats are the gate.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why do people look at scattergrams? Why do people look at the CDS for stats? Why do people look at 25,50 and 75 percentiles for test scores for admitted students?

You know why.

Because those are the only quantitative data points given. It doesn’t mean they are as paramount as is often assumed.

Wrong. I have heard at Tufts, Gtown, UVA, and Yale that the first stop is the transcript. It is THE most important. YCBK has said it many many times in the podcast. It matters.

Yes, of course they matter. What I’m saying is you can’t just say student x with 3.9uwGPA and 1530 is a stronger applicant than student y with 3.8uwGPA and 1460 without knowing a lot more. They both get through the initial screen. Assuming similar rigor, what often differentiates them are the “soft” factors.

People ask for stats because they matter - period. They are not the only thing that matter, however. It is not a mystery - nor does it require a full canvasing of answers - as to why people ask for stats. For example, my friend's son got a C+ in the FALL of senior year before apps went out. He was admitted to two ivy leagues. Don't you think people would find that interesting?

DSCUMMERs are fixated with stats esp rankings

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why do people look at scattergrams? Why do people look at the CDS for stats? Why do people look at 25,50 and 75 percentiles for test scores for admitted students?

You know why.

Because those are the only quantitative data points given. It doesn’t mean they are as paramount as is often assumed.

Wrong. I have heard at Tufts, Gtown, UVA, and Yale that the first stop is the transcript. It is THE most important. YCBK has said it many many times in the podcast. It matters.

Yes, of course they matter. What I’m saying is you can’t just say student x with 3.9uwGPA and 1530 is a stronger applicant than student y with 3.8uwGPA and 1460 without knowing a lot more. They both get through the initial screen. Assuming similar rigor, what often differentiates them are the “soft” factors.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why do people look at scattergrams? Why do people look at the CDS for stats? Why do people look at 25,50 and 75 percentiles for test scores for admitted students?

You know why.

Because those are the only quantitative data points given. It doesn’t mean they are as paramount as is often assumed.

Wrong. I have heard at Tufts, Gtown, UVA, and Yale that the first stop is the transcript. It is THE most important. YCBK has said it many many times in the podcast. It matters.

Anonymous wrote:Why do people ask about stats so much? It’s been known for years that college admissions is a holistic process and that a kid with a 4.0/1600 can easily be rejected from a school that admits a kid with a 3.6/1450. When are people going to realize that ECs, LORs, awards, essays, interviews, fit, etc. are as, if not much more, important?

Nothing is more important than stats. Barring hooks, stats are THE most important aspect of an application. The components are GPA (UW/W), Rigor (e.g. number of APs) and test scores (SAT/ACT). People ask for this because they are easier to compare across students vs. ECs and essays. How do you compare your kid's 6 years of piano against my kid's 6 years of theater or another kid's 6 years of making music in his room? You can't. Also, essays are not finalized until just before submission so kinda hard to compare them (assuming people do want to share something that personal with strangers) because they aren't available until the very end.

Stats are also available starting in 9th grade and definitely kinda set at the end of 10th grade. Not so for ECs and other 'crap'. Everyone is aware of the extent to which the 'crap' matters and have a plan for it. They just want to compare the baseline.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why do people ask about stats so much? It’s been known for years that college admissions is a holistic process and that a kid with a 4.0/1600 can easily be rejected from a school that admits a kid with a 3.6/1450. When are people going to realize that ECs, LORs, awards, essays, interviews, fit, etc. are as, if not much more, important?

I suppose you and your kids don’t have any use for such information. Must be nice to apply to colleges begging for applicants where the number of applications exceeds the number of students those colleges would like to admit.

Honey, some kids don’t have any use for such information because they are applying to colleges where everyone has high stats, including athletes and the other usual suspects. Imagine that.

Ha!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why do people ask about stats so much? It’s been known for years that college admissions is a holistic process and that a kid with a 4.0/1600 can easily be rejected from a school that admits a kid with a 3.6/1450. When are people going to realize that ECs, LORs, awards, essays, interviews, fit, etc. are as, if not much more, important?

I suppose you and your kids don’t have any use for such information. Must be nice to apply to colleges begging for applicants where the number of applications exceeds the number of students those colleges would like to admit.

Honey, some kids don’t have any use for such information because they are applying to colleges where everyone has high stats, including athletes and the other usual suspects. Imagine that.