How were you admitted to college/university?

In My Humble Opinion
21

  1. 9 different colleges over 13 years, BA in 1986. 3 different graduate schools.

  2. I had crap grades, but 1500 on the SAT (old style) and the cash in hand for my tuition.

  3. Grades plus extras.

22

1) Where and when did you go to university/college?

University of Minnesota - Morris, 1995-1999 (I am originally from South Dakota, so I was not a resident of Minnesota (although the two states do have reciprocity agreements)
2) What criteria did the school use in deciding whether to admit you?

ACT (30 or 31), GPA (3.9), class rank (tied for 2nd (out of 27), extracurriculars (lots: Football, band, FFA, NHS, Yearbook, et cetera)). Going to a small public HS (fewer than 100 in grades 9-12 at the time) helped in all of those areas. After meeting with a college rep. at a college fair, I was also offered a few scholarships, dependent on my applying for the earliest admission and accepting by, I think, December of my Senior year. Also, being a non-resident student may have helped, as that is something focused on in the U’s profile.
3) Which do you believe provides a better assessment of the student’s likely success at university: grades alone or grades plus SATs/extracurriculars/interviews/statements?

I think grades plus extras are better: I could have done no extras at my school and still gotten the grades I did (HS was not difficult), but I feel I was a more rounded person than those who focused on grades alone (anecdotally, the people I knew who dropped out early had few social skills, and really had focused on academics in HS).

23
  1. Where and when did you go to university/college?

McGill University 97-2000

  1. What criteria did the school use in deciding whether to admit you?

SAT scores, I’ve always scored very high on standardised tests. I had really uneven grades. If I liked the class, I did the homework, so I’d have As. If I hated the class, I would goof off and not hand in homework but score reasonably high on the tests, but I’d only get a B or below on account of being knocked off for homework.

I was an idiot teen.

  1. Which do you believe provides a better assessment of the student’s likely success at university: grades alone or grades plus SATs/extracurriculars/interviews/statements?

Grades + SATs. Educational institutions vary. I went to a very very competitive public high school. So competitive that we didn’t have class rank or valedictorian or AP classes or anything else because the kids were already so psychotically academic and grades obsessed that it had led to some trouble in the 80s so they got rid of everything. My brother-in-law went to Phillips Academy, where he got an even better education than I did. I was always mid-stream at my high school but I had an easier time in college than kids who had been big fish in a small pond with straight As.

I don’t know…I guess I really don’t care. I don’t think undergrad is all that important anyway. If McGill hadn’t let me in I would have gotten into UMass and been fine…probably better off actually, because McGill really depresses its grades in the Arts faculty. I could have had a much higher GPA at UMass. But I can’t change the past.

It was a pretty nice place to be, though.

24

1) Where and when did you go to university/college?

I started university last year, so this is is my sophomore year. I go to the University of Houston, Bauer College of Business.

2) What criteria did the school use in deciding whether to admit you?

In Texas, unless you are in the top ten percent then they look at everything: extracurriculars, volunteer hours, classes taken, exc. I got in because I had relatively good grades, was on the newspaper for two years, and graduated high school in three years.

Unfortunately, in Texas we have whats called the “Top 10% rule”, where if you are in the top 10% of your graduating class you automatically get into any state university. I wasn’t in the top 10% of my class because you had to have a GPA of a 3.84 to be there . It is an awful rule that is contributing to increased college dropouts, purely IMHO and from classmates I knew.

3) Which do you believe provides a better assessment of the student’s likely success at university: grades alone or grades plus SATs/extracurriculars/interviews/statements?

Grades plus everything else. In my personal case, I had to take numerous classes at a lower level so I could graduate a year early, because only the low level classes were offered after school and during the summer (lower level classes counted less towards your GPA then upper level). I also had nearly 400 hours of community service, which should have been taken into account along with grades and SAT’s. Grades alone are a reflection of how the student performed while in high school proper, but not a good reflection of the student as a whole.

25
  1. Where and when did you go to university/college?

Originally I applied to two state colleges in the winter of 2003/2004. I was accepted to both, but after I began at a college in Kentucky, I applied to the university I am at now (financial reasons) and they are open enrollment (Shawnee State University). I like that but certain programs here are very strict enrollment-wise (ie. you can be a student but an education student has to meet certain requirements to be admitted to the program)

  1. What criteria did the school use in deciding whether to admit you?

I know they require a high school diploma and an ACT score. I know also that my ACT score got me out of some basic level classes because it was high enough.

  1. Which do you believe provides a better assessment of the student’s likely success at university: grades alone or grades plus SATs/extracurriculars/interviews/statements?

If I had to pick one, I would say the second. I think that there is too much emphasis on grades alone. I graduated with several people that were ranked higher in our class than me, but had taken basic level classes. I graduated 60 of 140 but had two college credits done with I graduated and had challenged myself the whole way, taking classes that were hard for me instead of “grade-booster classes”. I think that the challenge better prepared me for entering the university system (where I have been challenged) the same as I think that will help me when I am in the graduate program.

Brendon

26
  1. Macquarie University in Sydney. First degree 1982-84. Second degree 2002-current.
  2. For the first degree entry was entirely based on my exam results in my final year high school exams. For my second degree the only entry requirements were that I be aged over 21 and already be a graduate.
  3. From what I’ve seen grades alone is a pretty reliable indicator of success at tertiary level.
27

  1. I applied to The University of Texas at Austin and Georgetown University in Washington, DC. For a variety of rea$on$, I attended UT from 1996-1999 (I’m a nerd and graduated early, which was still a year later than I could have graduated if I really wanted to)

  2. At the time, UT had a formula where a certain percentile in your high school class + a certain SAT score = automatic admission. I was in the top 2% of my class, so I only needed something like a 1000 on the SAT, which I surpassed without difficulty. Nowadays, UT offers automatic admission to those in the top 10% of their class, regardless of other factors, but requires full applications with essays and recommendations for all others. Some courses of study (then and now) require the full application regardless of your academic credentials.
    Georgetown required the full essay, application, and an interview with a local alumnus. In my acceptance letter, they specifically noted my experience in the high school theatre program as a key factor in my admittance.

  3. I don’t know if I can give a straight answer. I work at a university now, so I know some of the behind-the-scenes decisions that go on. A student who gets poor grades in high school will probably not do well in college, because lower grades can be a sign of not willing to do the required work. Schools are scored against each other on SAT scores, so it is to the benefit of the school to admit those with higher scores. A high or low test score in and of itself does not tell you much about a student, but it is a decent tie breaker – a student with a high class rank and a high test score will probably be more successful than a student who lags in one of those two areas (“success” is defined in one of two ways: graduating in 5 years, or returning for a sophomore year).
    Extracurriculars are a tough animal; schools are swamped with applications filled with applications from those who were involved with organizations that “look good on a resume or application”: Key club, amnesty international, student council, etc. Schools are interested these days in having a student body with a diverse set of interests. While it will be a positive if you are involved in clubs that show interest in your studies (eg, the math club, or a language club), it is probably a bigger positive to be involved in a sport or an art. It’s definitely a negative to not be involved in any extracurriculars - an application full of cliche “resume” clubs at least shows an interest in applying for college.
    Now, if you can’t be involved in extracurriculars because you were employed, this should be noted in some way and in general is a big positive.

28

Not quoting out of laziness.

  1. Where and when did you go to university/college?

MIT, 1969 - 1973.
2) What criteria did the school use in deciding whether to admit you?
My grades were reasonably good, but I got an 800 on my math SAT, 800 on all 3 Achievement tests, and almost 800 on my verbals. My interview discussion turned out to be about the debate team. MIT was looking for people who weren’t just going to be tools at the time, so that helped. They succeded somewhat better than they had anticipated. :slight_smile:
3) Which do you believe provides a better assessment of the student’s likely success at university: grades alone or grades plus SATs/extracurriculars/interviews/statements?
Grades plus, definitely. Grades alone tell you not all that much, and leads to stupid behavior in high school, like taking easier classes for the grades. I saw my kids’ friends do exactly that.

29

  1. Undergrad: Korea University (BA, English lit)
    Currently doing MA at University of Chicago.

  2. Undergrad: I did an early application thing where they looked at my high school grades and my accomplishments pertaining to English (ie, competition awards, TOEFL scores, etc). We also had interviews and written essays. The whole basis of this particular early application was to select students who excelled in English. I had a slightly unfair advantage because I’d been brought up in the US before moving to Korea, but since the competition ultimately came down to students in similar situations, it didn’t really give me much of an edge.

I was accepted on the condition that I got over 50% on the national college entrance exams. :smack: I managed to pass. :stuck_out_tongue:

As for UChicago, they looked at my GRE scores and my undergrad transcripts, plus a writing sample and an essay. And letters of recommendation.

  1. I think it really depends on the field. For English literature writing samples are considered extremely important, but I don’t the same would be true for biology, for example. Standardized tests should be taken into account but they are not an accurate measure of anything, I feel. I knew people back in Korea who got perfect scores on their TOEFL yet had no practical knowledge of the language.
30
  1. currently in college at University of California - Davis
  2. decent grades (3.6ish), slightly above average SAT score, personal statement, letters of rec, and extracurriculars, which for me was: marching band, FFA (2 competitive teams - a judging contest and public speaking), an internship at a local vet, breeding/showing rabbits, a few years of city league softball, some tutoring (i was the tutor), agribusiness academy, and classes at the local junior college my junior and senior years. (I was a busy kid, but it was all my choice)
  3. grades don’t mean much anymore with inflation, easy classes, etc, but maintaining decent grades AND being active in your school/community/ not sitting on your butt playing WoW all day is more impressive than a 4.0, IMO.
31

  1. University of Waterloo, 2003-present

  2. Grades, a one-page (double-sided) questionaire, and UW’s Euclid math contest

  3. Grades alone. I’m violently opposed to standardized testing like the SATs. Too much of the test will depend on special knowledge rather than intelligence. When I took the Euclid, there were large sections I couldn’t complete, not because I wasn’t smart enough, but because there was a lot of mathematical identities that I’d never been taught. Forcing students to memorize obscure facts and regurgitate them on a standardized test doesn’t prove anything(except, perhaps, the student’s ability to memorize things).

I’m opposed to using extracurriculars for two reasons: first, this unfairly favours extroverts over introverts. Second, teenagers need to have time to themselves to just have fun. Don’t take that away from them. I spent most of my high school years playing video games, reading books, umpiring baseball and playing pick-up games of street hockey every Saturday(and quite often on Sunday). Some of the best times of my life. I don’t see any reason why organized extracurriculars would have been any beter for me.

Edit: As to grade inflation, universities have been accepting students for decades. You think they haven’t figured out which schools inflate grades and which ones don’t?

32

First of all, thanks to everyone for their informative and candid responses. As promised, I’ll post my own answer to Question 3. And this statement sums it up pretty well:

This is what I’ve been thinking for some time–that high school grades alone are an indication of the ability to study, but little else.

I got a lot out of my days as an undergrad unversity student, but when I say “a lot,” I mean that while I valued my studies, I also valued the activities I participated in. They brought me into contact with those I never would have encountered in my classes–I took mainly languages with their associated literatures and histories; but it was my experience in university extracurriculars that brought me into contact with math majors, engineers, and the more science-oriented people. One activity even resulted in me getting to know a theology student, a dental student, and a medical school student, all at the same time. These were the kind of people one was unlikely to encounter in courses like “Socialist Realism in Soviet Literature of the 1930s,” which I took; and you can imagine the informal education, both in formal studies and in interpersonal relationships, I was getting in our coffee shop discussions after practice.

This is why I also often wondered about those who went through high school, only studying to get the top grades and neglecting the other opportunities the school offered. They existed at university too, doing their usual thing, and getting a degree like the rest of us, but just (to me, anyway) lacking something when they graduated. That something perhaps was the exposure to other people studying other things, and still sharing a common goal with those people.

In the end, even though the university I attended admitted students pretty much based on grades alone, most of us managed to graduate as fairly well-rounded people. I still sometimes think back on the folks I knew at high school who did many things well (activities plus study), but who just missed the grade cutoff for university admission. Would they have made great university students? Probably, but since grades alone were the criteria, they never got the chance at my university. And as a result, we missed the contribution they could have made to school life, and to the informal education that has come in handy so often in life and business.

33

I took the easy way. The University of Northern Colorado, where I got my journalism degree and am working on my Master’s in English, is an “open enrollment” school. All I needed was a decent ACT/SAT score (that was back in the late 1970s) and the price of admission. Grad school was even easier, since I’m in my 50s and have a pretty extensive resume in newspaper journalism. I did have to get letters of recommendation for grad school, but that was pretty easy for me, too, because my journalism career had given me close contacts with many Colorado newsmakers, including a former governor and a former president of UNC.

34

1) Where and when did you go to university/college?
University of Arizona. 2003-2007. (B.S., Engineering Mathematics)

2) What criteria did the school use in deciding whether to admit you?
I don’t recall submitting anything other than high school GPA and SAT scores (around 3.6 and 1350, in which ever order makes more sense to you :)). I’m an in-state student, and UA (at the time, at least) admitted any in-state student with a pulse. As I recall, the top half of a high school graduating class were automatically admitted. And this from a state that later went on to be declared the dumbest state in America in 2006. I think they’ve been trying to tighten up these requrements recently, since losing 2/3 or so of the freshman class every year looks bad in college rankings.

3) Which do you believe provides a better assessment of the student’s likely success at university: grades alone or grades plus SATs/extracurriculars/interviews/statements?
I’m sure the latter is a better predictor, but at the same time I’m glad I lucked out and was evaluated with the former.

35

  1. University of Kentucky - College of Engineering - 2001-2006 - earned B.S. in Materials Engineering

  2. It’s not difficult to get into UK. To have one’s application be considered in 2001, an ACT score of 18 and a high school GPA of ~2.0 were the minimum requirements (I think). I far exceeded these requirements. In borderline cases, in-state residents were given priority over out-of-state people such as me. There was a place to list extra curricular activities but I don’t think much emphasis was placed on them. Essays and extra curriculars were much more emphasized in UK scholarship applications. Certain majors are competitive and have additional requirements. The majors offered at the College of Engineering only required admission to UK…the toughest part for most was staying in the program; I witnessed a lot of people drop out from engineering.

  3. It depends on the program though I feel it’s best to consider more than just GPA since those are relative to each high school. Standardized tests at least provide a consistent challenge to applicants. Does anyone know how and if colleges and universities verify applicants’ extra-curricular activities? It seems to me that those would be difficult to verify consistently and so I don’t think they should be given much priority for admission.