College acceptance rates

He can go wherever he wants.

When I was applying to schools I was so nervous because of statistics like this, but with a 2200 SAT score (about the same as a 33 ACT) it was laughably easy to get accepted by Harvard/Columbia/MIT. The types of kids who get 99th percentile on standardized tests regularly don't get rejected anywhere, period.

Harvard, Yale and Princeton turns down kids with perfect SAT scores all the time. Schools want to see that you have something in your life other than academics. If your son would like to run at any of these schools, I advise him to talk to the coach, he shouldn't have a problem getting in to most places with those times and that ACT.

Saratoga? wrote:

He can go wherever he wants.

When I was applying to schools I was so nervous because of statistics like this, but with a 2200 SAT score (about the same as a 33 ACT) it was laughably easy to get accepted by Harvard/Columbia/MIT. The types of kids who get 99th percentile on standardized tests regularly don't get rejected anywhere, period.

You must've had some other draw, because 2200 SAT would put you well below average at schools like Harvard and MIT.

I have a daughter who is just beginning to look at schools, and she has the same academic ability as your son (no offense, but actually a bit better even), but she isn't quite the runner he is...she's a step down from his level.Anyway, she is considering many of the schools on your list, and here is what I've discovered through some research.Wasn't too long ago that universities had abandoned the idea of the well-rounded student and were going for flat out academic talent. Well, that has now come full circle, and top schools are once again looking for students who show ability and participation in several areas. Great student is necessary (have to place high in class AND get great standardized test scores), but then if you're a great athlete or musician too, then you're golden. Add in any substantial volunteer work to show that you're a good citizen too, then you just might break a tie with another applicant.Here's what else I found...on average, the Ivy League schools help out more with finances than many other similarly-priced universities. So, if you think he has a shot at getting into one, don't dismiss it based on cost. Some people make that mistake.Good luck in your search.

Azaleas wrote:

Saratoga? wrote:

He can go wherever he wants.

When I was applying to schools I was so nervous because of statistics like this, but with a 2200 SAT score (about the same as a 33 ACT) it was laughably easy to get accepted by Harvard/Columbia/MIT. The types of kids who get 99th percentile on standardized tests regularly don't get rejected anywhere, period.

You must've had some other draw, because 2200 SAT would put you well below average at schools like Harvard and MIT.

MMMMMM...nah.

Acceptance range at Harvard is 2080-2380; MIT's is 2090-2340

Use those ranges as a guide, assuming extremes on either end and most evenly spread out in the middle and MIT averages 2215 and Harvard averages 2230. So, he's just a TAD south of the midway point, but definitely not "well below average".

Flagpole wrote:

MMMMMM...nah.

http://collegeapps.about.com/od/sat/f/goodsatscore.htm

Acceptance range at Harvard is 2080-2380; MIT's is 2090-2340

Use those ranges as a guide, assuming extremes on either end and most evenly spread out in the middle and MIT averages 2215 and Harvard averages 2230. So, he's just a TAD south of the midway point, but definitely not "well below average".

Well those scores are the MIDDLE 50%. So 25% scored below, and 25% scored above. That means 25% scored 2390 or higher.

Impressive

Saratoga? wrote:

He can go wherever he wants.

The types of kids who get 99th percentile on standardized tests regularly don't get rejected anywhere, period.

Hmmm... I got a 2350 and didn't get into Dartmouth or Columbia. Grades matter too

Also note that the acceptance rates listed don't correlate perfectly with the difficulty of being admitted into those schools. For example, Harvard tops the list with a 6.3% admissions rate, where as Cal Tech accepts nearly double that, however the average test scores of Cal Tech students are slightly higher. The the schools with the biggest name recognition tend to draw from a broader applicant pool, though one that is skewed more toward the population mean.

The schools also vary greatly in the amount of influence coaches have on the admissions office. Generally speaking, the better the school is in football/basketball, the more the track and field coaches can help your son get in to the school.

Doo wrote:

Also note that the acceptance rates listed don't correlate perfectly with the difficulty of being admitted into those schools. For example, Harvard tops the list with a 6.3% admissions rate, where as Cal Tech accepts nearly double that, however the average test scores of Cal Tech students are slightly higher. The the schools with the biggest name recognition tend to draw from a broader applicant pool, though one that is skewed more toward the population mean.

Correct, and a point that should be noted.

Nobody has really commented on the academics. The schools listed can be very different experiences for the student. A valid criticism of some of the research universities is the poor quality teaching - nobody at these schools receives tenure and promotion based on their teaching skills. That said, much of what we learn we do from our peers. I think the top research universities will draw more of a national and international crowd than even the elitest of the liberal arts colleges and this is also valuable. Teaching skills are valued at the liberal arts colleges and there are great, intimate research opportunities at these schools where you will be mentored by the professor and not a graduate student, who is being mentored by a postdoc. But while the liberal arts faculty can do some awesome research they will not be doing world-changing research like you will find at Harvard/MIT/Cal Tech/Stanford. But an undergrad in these labs will be really, really, small fry. That's my perspective from the sciences.

Flagpole wrote:

MMMMMM...nah.

http://collegeapps.about.com/od/sat/f/goodsatscore.htm

Acceptance range at Harvard is 2080-2380; MIT's is 2090-2340

Use those ranges as a guide, assuming extremes on either end and most evenly spread out in the middle and MIT averages 2215 and Harvard averages 2230. So, he's just a TAD south of the midway point, but definitely not "well below average".

As has already been said, that's the middle 50%. Also, the way admissions works, the average admitted student is not just the average of 25% and 75% -- it's clustered closer to the 75%.

If you're in that lower range, you aren't getting in WITHOUT A HOOK - some Joe Schmo off the street is not getting into MIT with a 2200 SAT. You need something unusual.

Azaleas wrote:

some Joe Schmo off the street is not getting into MIT with a 2200 SAT. You need something unusual.

Don't disagree with that, but it's not WAY BELOW AVERAGE as was stated earlier.

All a 33 on your ACT's does is not get your application rejected immediately.

Also here's a quote from a NY Times Article on Harvard's admissions statistics which is mirrored in other Ivy's to an extent:

"Harvard admitted 2,032 students this year, or 5.9 percent of its 34,302 applicants, officials said. (Last year, Harvard admitted 6.17 percent of its 34,950 applicants.) This year’s applicant pool included 3,800 students who were ranked first in their high school classes."

3,800 kids were valedictorians who applied. Only ~2,000 are let in. Chew on that.

Harvard's track team is no joke. I'm not saying those times are bad by any means but with the strength of their team unless your coach knows the Harvard coach or something like that it's not much of a help.

Personal anecdote; I'm currently a freshman in college. I applied to Harvard last year with a 34 ACT, 5th in a graduating class of 450, 12 season athlete who ran 54.01 in the 400mH and 49.38 in the 400. I was not accepted to Harvard. I was waitlisted at Brown. I was accepted by Cornell & Williams but they didn't jive financially ... also was accepted to Wesleyan which I'm not sure on the % but is also pretty low.

Point is... it's sort of a cr*p shoot to an extent and you really need to have an amazing application.

Good luck!

PS; Remember that doing well in school doesn't always mean your kid wants to go to an Ivy. It's a totally different environment and the academic competition has to be something your kid wants.

If he's "Asian" then find out if apartheid is used by the Admissions Department. I understand world top ranked elite schools such as USC racially limit Asians to 30%, Stanford 20%, etc. I don't know about the others.

BT wrote:

20 Cornell 18.0%

This can't be accurate. Literally every single person in my class was accepted into Cornell.

I believe the published acceptance rates usually include Early Decision applicants and Legacies.

Since ED acceptees will attend the school (and increase the yield rate), they typically have lower standardized test scores and higher acceptance rates than the general applicant pool.

My understanding is, all else being equal, being a legacy is worth ~4 points on the ACT. If so, removing legacies from the pool will increase the average ACT/SAT score for the remainder of the acceptees.

So, if a school published 15% acceptance overall, but 1/4 of the class is Legacy with a 25% accept rate and another 1/4 of the class is ED with a 25% accept rate, then the normal applicant accept rate would be 5%.

Some schools publish this data, but a good assumption would be to cut the accept rate for non-ED, non-Legacy by 1/2 to 3/4.

3 Stanford 7.0%

stanford hates chinese and admits around 1.5% of the qualified applicants. leland's grandfather's chinese exclusion clause in the stanford charter banned chinese until the 1950's when japanese-american parents in (what is now east) palo alto forced stanford to admit chinese.

Athletically, with times like those, I would avoid plenty of those schools. (Hopkins, U-Chicago, Vandy, Cal Tech) depending on what he wants to study of course. But he does have a good shot at the Ivies. He shouldn't be wasting his talent at those schools when there are schools like the Ivies/NESCACs that are great schools and great programs.

You are also ignoring plenty of great schools with good teams not on that list who would love to have a kid like your son. While he would be a solid, but typical recruit at a lot of those schools you listed, he would be a nearly top recruit at schools like:

Tufts (good d-3 team, but your son should be looking d-1)

Wake Forest

Boston College

William and Mary

Georgetown - wouldn't be a top recruit, no idea why you left them off your original list. But great school great team.

If you're considering state schools at all:

Virginia

UNC

Michigan

UC-Berkeley

adsada wrote:

Well those scores are the MIDDLE 50%. So 25% scored below, and 25% scored above. That means 25% scored 2390 or higher.

Impressive

Not quite correct (or not necessarily correct) inference here. The top 25% almost certainly include some 2380s; it is possible it includes a lot of them.

I suspect that at CalTech they will be much more interested in his quantitative capabilities (at least double weight on the quantitative score), going beyond, possibly well beyond that is covered in the SAT/ACT testing. Also, CalTech is not particularly swayed by running times; it would be nice but they are not going to be a competitive team. MIT will be similar but they are broader. Back in my time CalTech (and MIT) had lots (well, not tons, but it was no guarantee, for sure) of 1600 SAT/4.0 applicants that did not get accepted.